This.

If we were to apply the unmodified, uncurbed, rules of the micro-cosmos (i.e., of the small band or troop, or of, say, our families) to the macro-cosmos (our wider civilization), as our instincts and sentimental yearnings often make us wish to do, we would destroy it.

It was a card game. There were warhead cards, missile cards, and propaganda cards. As long as nobody had flung any nukes, you could play propaganda cards and millions of people would leave the nation another player represented, and join yours.

I wasn’t commenting on the feasibility of private arbitration/policing-I’m aware the former is quite common and the latter actually exists (more or less as Freidman describes) in some places in Africa.

What I was trying to get at is in a world where there is no government, the enforcement/punitive mechanism against being a dick will be embedded in culture; to me, a world with no gov where few people kick over the proverbial apple cart must have a culture that discourages them doing so.

So, if I’m reading you right and adequately expressing myself in turn-we’re both in agreement up to here.

The only thing I’d say is that you could get Friedman’s world in two ways. The first is what I think you’re describing where people largely understand and acknowledge the benefits of market mechanisms and act accordingly.

The second is one where people don’t break contracts simply because it’s wrong, don’t resort to violence simply because it’s wrong, don’t steal because it’s wrong-norms that have a priori legitimacy. You could get all the same results as case one without anyone knowing anything about market mechanisms. Not saying this is more likely or what have, just making a distinction.

Fair enough. I just don’t think you have the nuanced contradiction you think you do.

Subjective cultural values are true of the existence of markets for ANY good. This is not a special problem for the voluntary provision of law and security. If we lived in a society where the violence principle predominates, it would essentially be impossible to utilize market exchange mechanisms for any goods and services. How could you trade oranges reliably if most of your neighbors stood ready to beat you into submission to take your oranges?

To truly raise a meaningful objection you have to explain what is special about the provision of law and security that make this calculus different. As I see it, it isn’t– a person with “nothing to lose” bent on using coercive means can always tip over the apple cart; and the existence of government everywhere demonstrates in reality these people often do act in such a way.

HOWEVER, we also have strong evidence that enough people, nowadays at least, understand the value of market exchange in most goods and services that this is “allowed” as a cultural value.

It is not unreasonable to believe that at some point in the future cultural norms may shift and encompass the provision of security and law as well within the domain of “things we can provide ourselves with through voluntary means.” It will not be perfect, there will be incentives for people to be dickish and screw it all up for everyone else. That doesn’t mean the problem is necessarily insurmountable or destined to ruin the on average proper functioning of such a system.

I don’t think Friedman needs to go into much more depth than he did. All the concerns you raise are implied and dealt with by simple acceptance of: a.) the world is not perfect and b.) there are always incentives for people to go against the crowd.

The question is not, “Will everyone go along?” but rather, “Will enough?” Enough people have learned to go along for the purposes of making bread, shoes and automobiles. Why can’t enough go along to make private provision of law and security viable?

When I was talking about culture I mean the beliefs/heritage people are immersed in that shape the things they subjectively value-differences in these values affect how/whether people work together-cooperation and exchange that takes place in the market is to some extent reflective of the underlying culture.

Sorry if that’s not terribly clear, bit of a big topic to tackle through internet comments…

Sorry to hear people voluntarily forming themselves into private security and insurance agencies and customers thereof via markets don’t qualify as “emergent cultural systems” to you.

Not sure how to help you with that. Maybe someone from a modern nation-state can club your thick skull?

As to a framework-Freidman’s vision is devoid of one. It simply paints a picture of a society full of people interacting through voluntary exchange without answering why they would do so (since certain groups/individuals have bigger payoffs from the before mentioned clubbing).

Modern nation states-usually-provide a legal framework through which actors interact. Alternatively, you could have emergent cultural systems that provide enforcement mechanisms/ shape subjective values such that clubbing is discouraged.