 Law without government. Part 1. Principles. What is government? Government is defined as a territorial monopolist in the field of producing law. It is the sole provider of law, the ultimate decision-maker, arbitrator and wielder of force within a territory. As a monopoly, it maintains its position by using aggression, the use or threat of violence, to prevent competing providers of law from emerging. Government is the only organisation that uses the political means, that is the widely accepted use of aggression to attain wealth. For example, the monopolist declares its own act of theft to be legal, calling it taxation and enforcing compliance. Everyone else must attain wealth using the economic means, producing something of value to others and then engaging in voluntary acts of trade. Government is a territorial monopolist of law, but what is law? Interpersonal conflicts are possible due to material scarcity of resources and goods and diversity of interests between individuals. The potential for conflicts makes property rules and ownership rights necessary for social cooperation. For example, apples are scarce and this means that if two people both want to eat a particular apple, they cannot both be satisfied. For conflict avoidance, we need property rules to establish who has the ownership right over the apple, that is who has the right to decide how the apple is used. Laws are property rules that emerge from the resolution of conflicts. The production of law, the resolving of conflicts, is a service provided by an arbitrator or judge. Imagine two individuals stranded on a desert island, Adam and Ben. Adam picks a supply of apples, but then Ben comes along and takes an apple without Adam's consent. That's my apple because I picked it. It's my apple because it was on my tree. With no one else on the island, Adam and Ben have no one they can turn to for help resolving this conflict. They may succeed in negotiating a peaceful settlement or they may resort to physical violence. Now suppose there is a third individual on the island, Charlie. Now there is another possible way for Adam and Ben to resolve the apple conflict peacefully. Ask Charlie for his opinion and agree to whatever resolution he suggests. We're having a dispute over an apple. Both of us claim it as our own. Will you arbitrate for us? This is third-party dispute resolution. Adam and Ben both make their cases to Charlie. Charlie must decide who he believes as the stronger claim to the disputed apple and then pronounce a judgment on the case. I do not think Ben owned the tree, so I award ownership of the apple to Adam. Charlie has just produced a law. He's made a judgment about who the rightful owner of a disputed property is. He is awarded legal ownership of a property to one of the disputants. But Adam feels that it would be unjust if Ben only has to return the apple he stole. Adam wants Ben to be punished and wants compensation for having his time wasted. He insists that Ben pay him five additional apples and then he will consider the matter settled. Unable to resolve this dispute between themselves they asked Charlie for his opinion. Charlie recognises the need to compensate Adam for his lost time and to punish Ben. His opinion is that a payment of two additional apples from Ben to Adam would be a just resolution to this conflict. Since the purpose of Adam and Ben turning to Charlie was to help them resolve the dispute peacefully, both men will agree to his decision. If one of them does not, then they are back to having to resolve the conflict between themselves, either peacefully or otherwise. By arbitrating on a conflict and helping to resolve it peacefully, Charlie has produced a law. Now suppose some time later on the island another conflict occurs, this time between Adam and Charlie. If they cannot resolve the dispute between themselves, they could ask Ben to arbitrate for them. I'll arbitrate for you. When Ben provides them with his opinion on the conflict and suggests a resolution, he too will have produced a law. And if Ben and Charlie ever get into a dispute, they could ask Adam to produce a law for them. There are multiple producers of law in this society. No single producer of law is in a privileged position. There is no ruler and no one is ruled. Everyone is of equal status with respect to the laws. What would a monopoly of the production of law look like on our island? I'll arbitrate for you. No. You are not allowed to arbitrate. I am the only one who can produce law on this island. My law is the law. The injustice of this arrangement would be immediately apparent to both Adam and Ben. But that would mean that you even get to be judge in disputes you are involved in. And you could do whatever you want, like steal from us and order us around and call it legal. That's right. I am the state. Charlie could only establish himself as ruler and maintain that position if he could somehow convince Adam and Ben that a ruler is necessary and that with no ruler anarchy there would be chaos and disorder. If Charlie is able to maintain a monopoly of arbitration and ultimate decision making he would have put himself above the law. And Adam and Ben can no longer be considered free men. Now suppose there are a few more individuals in this island society and two of them have a dispute that they cannot resolve peacefully among themselves. The disputants have a choice of arbitrators that might help them resolve the conflict. There is competition in the production of law. Who will they choose? The ideal arbitrator will be someone who is impartial and who has a good reputation for being fair, honest and wise. With a larger population some individuals who possess these qualities may find that they can make a living purely by providing arbitration services to disputants. They will be professional judges and may create firm selling laws. Their consumers will be disputants who need help resolving a conflict and their income will depend on their reputation for making wise and fair decisions. If any one of them tries to become a monopolist for example by insisting on being judge in a case involving himself or a member of his family he will quickly lose his reputation and his livelihood. The principles of having competition in the field of law do not change as society becomes larger and more complex. In my next video Law Without Government Part 2 I apply the principles outlined here to a large and complex society explaining how law could be provided by competing firms.