Source: Self Made
Both of the speakers make very valid points, both believing that different things would occur in a power vacuum. Dr. Per Bylund believes that the free market would operate in a manner that depresses corruption and abuse of power, while Dr. Randy Holcombe believes that the absence of a government would enable the opposite, primarily though the black market. I believe that the hypothesis presented by Dr. Bylund is much more convincing than the pitfalls speculated by Dr. Holcombe. I believe that Dr. Holcombe overestimates the animosity people feel for those around them, while underestimating how a free market would help to destabilize the black market. For those reasons, his argument falls flat to me.
Dr. Holcombe argued that people are always after power and want to accumulate the most power within their means, so that they can abuse that power however they please. He believes that the black market would thrive because of a lack of central order instated by the government. He points to organized crime, such as the mafia, and how they use coercion and a monopoly on violence in the area to extort local businesses. These arguments that ruthless and ill intended people will rise to the top because they are more willing to engage in corrupt and immoral acts are predicated on two central ideas; that humans by nature will prioritize their own power and that those who do will trample the others who do not. At one point, Dr. Holcombe claims that the most cartel like and ruthless private police force would rise to the top and have a monopoly on force. I completely disagree with this, because for that to come to fruition that police force would have to get enough funding to rise to the top of the heap and if they were a corrupt and ill intended organization then no one would be providing them with funding to do so. People would either have to provide funds to a blatantly corrupt organization in return for a percent of the profits they would gain from extorting people, or an organization would have to suddenly become corrupt after already building a successful and legal business.
It must be asked, how and why would either of these come to fruition? It is unlikely that enough people with enough funds could be brought into the fold to fund such an organization so that it could compete with large legal organizations, and it is also unlikely that a profitable and legal business would suddenly decide to engage in illegal activities. Even if a provider of protection realized that they had enough manpower and funding to trample all the other providers, they would then have to continually exercise power over the people. Would it not be far easier for them to control a content and therefore complacent populace rather than an unhappy and subjugated populace? This is again under the assumption that a single police force would even be large enough to subjugate the other police forces, and that this hypothetical monopolist police force is controlled by a single corrupt leader or a corrupted board of directors. Interestingly, many large corporate collapses and scandals throughout history have come from companies that were heavily backed by the government, which points to the ability to execute great extortion and fraud being at least somewhat tied to regulation and government intervention.
Dr. Holcombe also points to the drug trade, and how it is violent because it is not being governed by the state. However, under an anarchist system this drug trade would be legal and therefore there would be far less violence. The reason there is so much violence in the drug trade, as Dr. Bylund touches on, is because it is such a suppressed industry of trade. A distributor of illegal drugs cannot go to a police force or a judge and explain “hey, this guy stole my illegal drugs I would like them to compensate me and make me whole!” so they must resort to engaging in violence in an effort to be made whole and discourage future theft. If the distribution of these drugs were legal, as it would be in an anarchist society, a distributor could go to their private police force provider and explain the situation and it would be resolved through arbitration.
I do see the points that Dr. Holcombe is trying to make though. As Dr. Bylund says, I do not believe that the anarchist system is a perfect solution that will totally remove the capacity for corruption and subjugation. However, it certainly allows for greater personal and economic freedom than our current system, and contrary to what Dr. Holcombe believes I see no reason why it would lead to an apocalyptic Mad Max-esque system of governance.