What do you think?
Rate this book
Chaos Theory: Two Essays on Market Anarchy
Among the most advanced topics in the literature in the Austro-libertarian milieu is that which deals with the workings of the fully free society, that is, the society with no state, or anarcho-capitalism. Robert Murphy deals with this head on, and makes the first full contribution to this literature in the new century. Working within a Rothbardian framework, he takes up the challenge of Hans Hoppe regarding the role of market insurance in property security to extend the analysis to the security of person.
His applications are part empirical and part speculative, but unfailingly provocative, rigorous, and thoughtful. The title itself refers to the supposed chaos that results from eliminating the state but Murphy shows that out of chaos grows an ordered liberty. Anyone interested in exploring the farthest reaches of anarchist theory must come to terms with Murphy's account.
This volume contains:
Foreword
Introduction (Jeremy Sapienza)
I. Private Law
II. Private Defense
Original illustrations by Robert Vroman
His applications are part empirical and part speculative, but unfailingly provocative, rigorous, and thoughtful. The title itself refers to the supposed chaos that results from eliminating the state but Murphy shows that out of chaos grows an ordered liberty. Anyone interested in exploring the farthest reaches of anarchist theory must come to terms with Murphy's account.
This volume contains:
Foreword
Introduction (Jeremy Sapienza)
I. Private Law
II. Private Defense
Original illustrations by Robert Vroman
76 pages, Paperback
First published January 1, 2002
39 people are currently reading
952 people want to read
About the author
Robert P. Murphy
32 books195 followersRobert P. "Bob" Murphy is an Austrian School economist and anarcho-capitalist.
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 30 of 62 reviews
March 23, 2011
I went into this book really wanting to like it. I already consider myself an "anarcho-capitalist," and believe any realization of the State is fundamentally incompatible with freedom and liberty.
Unfortunately, I just couldn't get behind this book. I found the arguments presented to be shallow and unconvincing, built on top of a flimsy framework of numerous assumptions and speculations.
Bottom line for me is: a few interesting thought-experiments about how anarchy could turn out, but I wouldn't let a non-anarchist near it if I was attempting to convince them.
Unfortunately, I just couldn't get behind this book. I found the arguments presented to be shallow and unconvincing, built on top of a flimsy framework of numerous assumptions and speculations.
Bottom line for me is: a few interesting thought-experiments about how anarchy could turn out, but I wouldn't let a non-anarchist near it if I was attempting to convince them.
July 23, 2021
For amateur anarcho-capitalists like myself, this book was incredible in answering 9/10 questions I had regarding a completely “free market” and “stateless” society. Murphy states: “Only in a competitive, voluntary system is there any hope for judicial excellence” and by golly, he’s right. He explained Title Registry, Children, Warring Agencies, Prisons, Insurance, and contractual laws in ways I could understand and get behind, all factors of a great book.
Additionally, Murphy states, “… I ask the reader to resist the temptation to dismiss my ideas as “unworkable,” without first specifying in what sense the government legal system “works”,” a ballsy yet effective statement to end the section. For all you interested in how a free society would look, I couldn’t endorse this more.
Additionally, Murphy states, “… I ask the reader to resist the temptation to dismiss my ideas as “unworkable,” without first specifying in what sense the government legal system “works”,” a ballsy yet effective statement to end the section. For all you interested in how a free society would look, I couldn’t endorse this more.
October 1, 2021
Though far from a comprehensive blueprint for a voluntaryist utopia, Murphy's set of essays offer a compelling theoretical alternative to state control over services normally assumed to be outside the market's competence. It's important to note that Murphy doesn't claim that this is how market anarchy WOULD work - only how it COULD work. After all, if one person had all the answers and could accurately predict the future, efficient central planning would be possible and Austrian skepticism of socialist calculation would fall flat. At the very least, Chaos Theory serves as an interesting thought experiment and a challenge to widely-held assumptions about social organization.
May 22, 2013
Just pure fun. No, this is not the perfect model. It shows though, that in a relatively small amount time, one economics professor came up with a model that could possibly work. If he was able to do this much, how much closer to perfect could we make it if everyone committed to the endeavor? To clarify, the endeavor is to have a society without aggression, one that operates on completely voluntary interactions, and fully respects property rights.
April 29, 2015
Chaos Theory: Two Essays on Market Anarchy, by Robert P. Murphy is a short book containing the two titular essays - the first on a justice and law system, the second on defense - both in the context of an anarcho-capitalist system.
While reading the book, I didn't have any doubts that the author is knowledgeable about economics and how the free-market system is supposed to work, but I was a bit surprised to learn that the author is an economist. I was surprised because the whole book has a pipe dream feel about it.
Chaos Theory *is* interesting and is certainly provocative, but I don't feel it really answers any questions except: "Could X work in a best-case optimistic scenario under an anarcho-capitalist system?".
The author proposes a system in which everyone could enter voluntary contracts to ensure they're not cheated, murdered etc. This ignores a glaring hole in the form of people who can't or won't enter such a voluntary obligation. What about psychopaths? What about children? What about people that cannot, morally, consent to anything (e.g due to mental illnesses)? What about companies or people dumping waste or pollution on somebody's else property? There's thousand of things that cannot be covered by a system of voluntary contracts.
The second essay is about a system of private defense. And while, again, the deliberations are interesting the bigger issues, like what happens the private defense company decides that to maximize profits it must become the de facto ruler of the anarcho-capitalistic country, are sidestepped completely.
While the topics raised in the book are interesting, the arguments given remind me of alcohol infused party talk rather then a serious treaty on anarcho-capitalism.
While reading the book, I didn't have any doubts that the author is knowledgeable about economics and how the free-market system is supposed to work, but I was a bit surprised to learn that the author is an economist. I was surprised because the whole book has a pipe dream feel about it.
Chaos Theory *is* interesting and is certainly provocative, but I don't feel it really answers any questions except: "Could X work in a best-case optimistic scenario under an anarcho-capitalist system?".
The author proposes a system in which everyone could enter voluntary contracts to ensure they're not cheated, murdered etc. This ignores a glaring hole in the form of people who can't or won't enter such a voluntary obligation. What about psychopaths? What about children? What about people that cannot, morally, consent to anything (e.g due to mental illnesses)? What about companies or people dumping waste or pollution on somebody's else property? There's thousand of things that cannot be covered by a system of voluntary contracts.
The second essay is about a system of private defense. And while, again, the deliberations are interesting the bigger issues, like what happens the private defense company decides that to maximize profits it must become the de facto ruler of the anarcho-capitalistic country, are sidestepped completely.
While the topics raised in the book are interesting, the arguments given remind me of alcohol infused party talk rather then a serious treaty on anarcho-capitalism.
May 6, 2020
A very fun, intresting and innovative book. Its selling point are its simplicity and out of box thinking.
Though I don't think that an Anarcho-Captialist society would be ever created in our world, but nevertheless it is a really fun way to look at the society.
According to me, the core issue with the idea of this book, is its obsession and belief that an Insurance company would solve most of the issues of world. Furthermore, some of the things are highly impractical, such as, asking a person to enter into a contract for everything including going into someone's backyard. It also fails to consider the possibility of creation of non-state monopolies.
But then again, this book is never meant to provide a robust solution, it is merely a preliminary work done to create a possible alternative system, which would require scholarly efforts from many more people in order to make it full-fledged functional alternative system of society.
Though I don't think that an Anarcho-Captialist society would be ever created in our world, but nevertheless it is a really fun way to look at the society.
According to me, the core issue with the idea of this book, is its obsession and belief that an Insurance company would solve most of the issues of world. Furthermore, some of the things are highly impractical, such as, asking a person to enter into a contract for everything including going into someone's backyard. It also fails to consider the possibility of creation of non-state monopolies.
But then again, this book is never meant to provide a robust solution, it is merely a preliminary work done to create a possible alternative system, which would require scholarly efforts from many more people in order to make it full-fledged functional alternative system of society.
April 29, 2011
OK intro text to the economic theory behind anarchic systems of defense, arbitration, law, and security. Answers the standard objections. Very little history here, and very little about non-defense/law. Its pretty targeted in that sense. I don't know what else to say about it. I don't really know why this was considered "advanced". Also it has nothing to do with chaos theory, its just a title.
Anarchic law has been done better by others, but the second essay (on defense) was more recommendable.
Also, I wish there was more time spent on mutual aid organizations which fulfill the same functions as the security corporations he describes. Corporations scare people.
Anarchic law has been done better by others, but the second essay (on defense) was more recommendable.
Also, I wish there was more time spent on mutual aid organizations which fulfill the same functions as the security corporations he describes. Corporations scare people.
June 27, 2016
As a libertarian I find some inconsistent aspects, for instance; I can't find abstract unconditional guarantees of rights. In this book there are many gaps and several things that I don't get to understand clearly because the author didn't elaborate enough. In any case this essay serves as a guide (superficial) to understand everything concerning voluntary interactions, also as a basis to understand, think and appreciate every aspect of individual freedom in a capitalist society (anarcho-capitalist in this particular case), but only then, superficially.
December 8, 2020
If you are interested in Market Anarchy please start with Rothbard or Molinari, because this is full of whataboutism, incomplete explanations, and bad examples.
This quote condenses the whole spirit of the book:
"Finally, keep in mind that the ultimate judge in a given case
is…the judge."
I share the author's vision of free markets, but his explanations are a mess.
This quote condenses the whole spirit of the book:
"Finally, keep in mind that the ultimate judge in a given case
is…the judge."
I share the author's vision of free markets, but his explanations are a mess.
May 2, 2019
Speculations are presented as fact in these essays.
January 7, 2025
Short and direct to the point. The author explores some alternatives to the State in an anarcho-capitalist society (title and intro missleading, there is no theory in this book). Basically, his solution is replacing public services with insurance companies and public law with contracts. I'm personally not convinced of this approach.
It seems like most of his proposals would work fine in a capitalistic society where markets are in perfect competition (i.e. no monopolies, all actors have all info necessary to make rational decisions, products/services are identical, etc... this brings us to the perennial argument of whether markets are perfect or not) and where all actors voluntarily agreed to the system (if I don't agree and I have enough economic power to do whatever I want... who is going to stop me?)
There are two problems he didn't address:
1) what the hell is money in this society? Since there is no single entity backing the value of a fiduciary currency (e.g. central banks), how can we all agree on a single monetary unit? (if you answer this question with crypto... remember that there are thousands of cryptocurrencies, and anyone can make their own, which doesn't solve the problem of pricing)
2) How to ensure perfect competition among insurance companies? In other words, how to ensure there is no concentration of economic power so that a single insurance company can influence the market?
Anyway, I'm not a libertarian but I read this to think about their arguments. I was happy at the end, this indeed sparked a lot of questions. However, I rate this book 2 stars because of the arrogance of the author. That arrogance reminds me why no one likes libertarians.
It seems like most of his proposals would work fine in a capitalistic society where markets are in perfect competition (i.e. no monopolies, all actors have all info necessary to make rational decisions, products/services are identical, etc... this brings us to the perennial argument of whether markets are perfect or not) and where all actors voluntarily agreed to the system (if I don't agree and I have enough economic power to do whatever I want... who is going to stop me?)
There are two problems he didn't address:
1) what the hell is money in this society? Since there is no single entity backing the value of a fiduciary currency (e.g. central banks), how can we all agree on a single monetary unit? (if you answer this question with crypto... remember that there are thousands of cryptocurrencies, and anyone can make their own, which doesn't solve the problem of pricing)
2) How to ensure perfect competition among insurance companies? In other words, how to ensure there is no concentration of economic power so that a single insurance company can influence the market?
Anyway, I'm not a libertarian but I read this to think about their arguments. I was happy at the end, this indeed sparked a lot of questions. However, I rate this book 2 stars because of the arrogance of the author. That arrogance reminds me why no one likes libertarians.
January 4, 2024
Really logical and insightful
September 25, 2011
Being sympathetic with Anarchism, I often disregard self-proclaimed "Anarchocapitalists". Whatever the term, it points out the same set of economic ideas American neoconservatives pray for. Instead, Anarchism -as is- has a longstanding tradition of social criteria far away from the established focus on law and individual property, ingrained in market based societies to all extents (i.e., capitalism, socialism).
Out of curiosity -given the good choice of a tittle- I decided to give this book a little go trying to convince myself I may be wrong in my presumptions about such an unfortunately coined term, Anarcho-capitalism. For my own surprise, the book testified it was self-published from the very first pages: There is no evidence of peer review whatsoever. It is sad the author took the path of solipsism and not factual thinking yet describing himself a thinker and a pragmatic.
To provide a clear example, he doesn't even know the historic origin of current monetary systems: Due to recurrent debt crisis in old kingdoms all around the old continent. How does he come to the conclusion that "it took no king to produce money" escapes me. What is the origin of post Middle Age principalities if so?
I could keep going but I am afraid this review is becoming more boring than the very same book.
Out of curiosity -given the good choice of a tittle- I decided to give this book a little go trying to convince myself I may be wrong in my presumptions about such an unfortunately coined term, Anarcho-capitalism. For my own surprise, the book testified it was self-published from the very first pages: There is no evidence of peer review whatsoever. It is sad the author took the path of solipsism and not factual thinking yet describing himself a thinker and a pragmatic.
To provide a clear example, he doesn't even know the historic origin of current monetary systems: Due to recurrent debt crisis in old kingdoms all around the old continent. How does he come to the conclusion that "it took no king to produce money" escapes me. What is the origin of post Middle Age principalities if so?
I could keep going but I am afraid this review is becoming more boring than the very same book.
October 14, 2010
I am fascinated with Austrian Economics, but find the books on implementing anarchy lacking. It seems that this author's proposal would create a massive organization of insurance companies that would regulate and individual similar to a tyrannical government we have today. Of course one would be free to decide if they wanted to comply with the insurance company or not, but if they don't, they would be hampered in their activities in society.
Also, I fail to see how anarchy would deal with those corrupt and power hungry parasites and those parasites that are just plain hungry that are so prevalent in our society. They will still screw up an anarchic utopia.
I am thinking that for anarchy to work, a society would have to be a very moral people that are in compliance with the laws of nature, and thus do not need any man made laws or government. But too many people are idiots and worship redistribution of wealth schemes.
I agree that much of what government does today should be privatized...but how to privatize it all without making a de facto government in the process is what I can't see yet.
Also, I fail to see how anarchy would deal with those corrupt and power hungry parasites and those parasites that are just plain hungry that are so prevalent in our society. They will still screw up an anarchic utopia.
I am thinking that for anarchy to work, a society would have to be a very moral people that are in compliance with the laws of nature, and thus do not need any man made laws or government. But too many people are idiots and worship redistribution of wealth schemes.
I agree that much of what government does today should be privatized...but how to privatize it all without making a de facto government in the process is what I can't see yet.
February 16, 2019
John Hasnas makes the point that it's absolutely ridiculous to even attempt to describe in any kind of detail how the market would function in an alternate world where the state isn't regulating and running absolutely every important service in society. His thinking?... to be able to do so would mean the state could do it through top down planning. But only the marketplace with its billions of self-interested and rational contributors can reveal what the marketplace can produce, not one individual in a vacuum. Yet, even Hasnas, as does Murphy here with these essays, recognizes that to appeal only to the invisible hand isn't enough for the skeptic.
These essays by Murphy are very breezy and leave a lot to be desired but for the person who just wants some quick answers and doesn't need a whole lot of convincing - this here will do just fine.
These essays by Murphy are very breezy and leave a lot to be desired but for the person who just wants some quick answers and doesn't need a whole lot of convincing - this here will do just fine.
November 17, 2008
Read as recommended. Disappointing and not provocative. It was a jumpy series of important topics with weak arguments and vague implications (at which I had to laugh). I believe in the importance of uncovering and researching new/refurbished/hybrid economic theories and enactments but its mindblowing that people could blindly dedicate themselves to this theory of "Free market anarchy" that is so unfathomable on a grand scale and thankfully as it sounds horrific run by the like of lawyers, insurance companies, contracts and people pretending not to know what's right until they have to get together and revolt to disinfranchise what they decide is wrong. Wow.
January 30, 2013
A very interesting and thought provoking book! I'm sure it will help a lot of people to "break" the State in their heads. However, for me this is not necessary. I don't have to know what "could" happen once the State is out of the way. Free people have always and will always find solutions to their problems. The politicians either steal the solutions of free people, or hinder their birth.
Very interesting but in the end of the day: Only a thought experiment and not exactly my cup of tea. I would turn the reader to e.g. the same author's book on myths of capitalism.
Very interesting but in the end of the day: Only a thought experiment and not exactly my cup of tea. I would turn the reader to e.g. the same author's book on myths of capitalism.
July 31, 2020
Presents a brief outline of the possible workings of an anarcho-capitalist society, specifically the provision of law and defense. It's an interesting thought exercise, but it's too brief to be convincing.
Read
March 9, 2022Moses's ten commandments:
You shall have no other gods before Me.
You shall make no idols.
You shall not take the name of the Lord your God in vain.
Keep the Sabbath day holy.
Honor your father and your mother.
You shall not murder.
You shall not commit adultery.
You shall not steal.
You shall not bear false witness against your neighbor.
You shall not covet.
Robert P. Murphy's ten commandments
1. You shall have no other gods before Me. due to insurance premiums
2. You shall make no idols. due to insurance premiums
3. You shall not take the name of the Lord your God in vain. due to insurance premiums
4. Keep the Sabbath day holy due to insurance premiums.
5. Honor your father and your mother due to insurance premiums.
6. You shall not murder due to insurance premiums.
7. You shall not commit adultery due to insurance premiums.
8. You shall not steal due to insurance premiums.
9. You shall not bear false witness against your neighbor due to insurance premiums.
10. You shall not covet due to insurance premiums.
his insistence on using insurance companies to decide right and wrong is arbitrary. big government bad. big insurance companies good. seriously what the heck?
You shall have no other gods before Me.
You shall make no idols.
You shall not take the name of the Lord your God in vain.
Keep the Sabbath day holy.
Honor your father and your mother.
You shall not murder.
You shall not commit adultery.
You shall not steal.
You shall not bear false witness against your neighbor.
You shall not covet.
Robert P. Murphy's ten commandments
1. You shall have no other gods before Me. due to insurance premiums
2. You shall make no idols. due to insurance premiums
3. You shall not take the name of the Lord your God in vain. due to insurance premiums
4. Keep the Sabbath day holy due to insurance premiums.
5. Honor your father and your mother due to insurance premiums.
6. You shall not murder due to insurance premiums.
7. You shall not commit adultery due to insurance premiums.
8. You shall not steal due to insurance premiums.
9. You shall not bear false witness against your neighbor due to insurance premiums.
10. You shall not covet due to insurance premiums.
his insistence on using insurance companies to decide right and wrong is arbitrary. big government bad. big insurance companies good. seriously what the heck?
May 21, 2019
Wow. I was already convinced that anarcho-capitalism, or market anarchy, is the only logical form of government. However, before I decided that market anarchy was the only appropriate form of government, I believed in the more traditional libertarian position of "limited government". Minarchists believe that a State is required to provide limited government: law, police and national defense.
How does one confidently move on from a minarchist perspective of the State providing limited government to an understanding that the market can provide for all State functions, including law, police and defense?
Murphy provides a compelling case for the superiority of market anarchy. The State not only is not required to provide even the seemingly most fundamental governmental services of law, police and defense; the market can do a much superior job in providing these services.
A free digital copy of this book, as well as a well-narrated audio book, is available here at The Mises Institute website: https://mises.org/library/chaos-theory.
How does one confidently move on from a minarchist perspective of the State providing limited government to an understanding that the market can provide for all State functions, including law, police and defense?
Murphy provides a compelling case for the superiority of market anarchy. The State not only is not required to provide even the seemingly most fundamental governmental services of law, police and defense; the market can do a much superior job in providing these services.
A free digital copy of this book, as well as a well-narrated audio book, is available here at The Mises Institute website: https://mises.org/library/chaos-theory.
August 28, 2023
Ancap ideas about national defense are most plausible when they are kept brief. If you listen to someone explain them at length they just start to sound goofier and goofier.
So police and judges are going to be replaced with private security and competing private law firms, with some insurance companies mixed in. Sure. Okay. We're told that these defense firms will be unlikely to get into armed conflict with each other because that would be bad for businesses. Sure. Why not. But then when engaged in national defense these firms will fight? Even though that would be way more costly than surrendering or compromising with the opponent? They would lose customers by surrendering but they would gain a lot of money from whatever invading government made an offer.
The arguments that deal with other topics besides national defense are basically worse versions of arguments you can find in other, much better, works of libertarian theory. It's not the worst thing I've read but there is not much point in reading it.
So police and judges are going to be replaced with private security and competing private law firms, with some insurance companies mixed in. Sure. Okay. We're told that these defense firms will be unlikely to get into armed conflict with each other because that would be bad for businesses. Sure. Why not. But then when engaged in national defense these firms will fight? Even though that would be way more costly than surrendering or compromising with the opponent? They would lose customers by surrendering but they would gain a lot of money from whatever invading government made an offer.
The arguments that deal with other topics besides national defense are basically worse versions of arguments you can find in other, much better, works of libertarian theory. It's not the worst thing I've read but there is not much point in reading it.
August 29, 2023
Large insurance companies driven by incentive don't seem much better than centralized government. These insurance companies take control of property rights, military/defense, public works, etc -- even individual “credit” is needed to participate in work. Murphy's argument is that unlike government, they are held in check by market forces and competition, thereby providing a tighter feedback loop. The problem with socialism is govts don’t get feedback from production, so default to guesswork on how to best allocate (Ex Stalin during wwii didn’t allocate production properly, also agriculture famine led to millions of deaths; vs free market people get what the need via supply and demand).
Anarchy may work best in accounting for the individual, but who is to wield the stick when it comes to the collective coordination problem, larger-than-individual forces, or even checks against the fabric of the system itself (insurance companies)?
Anarchy may work best in accounting for the individual, but who is to wield the stick when it comes to the collective coordination problem, larger-than-individual forces, or even checks against the fabric of the system itself (insurance companies)?
June 23, 2017
Dois ensaios das aplicações das leis privadas na ausência de um monopólio da coerção, o autor começa desfazendo o estigma de que o mercado é incapaz de definir e proteger os direitos de propriedade . Nas primeiras páginas Murphy defende a tese de que a constante competição forçaria aos 'produtores' assumirem maior responsabilidade ou seriam obliterados do mercado, para garantir isso, os indivíduos voluntariamente formariam contratos que envolve as principais condições para manter a ordem natural (não violação da propriedade privada), dai o autor desenvolve as respostas para as principais indagações dos estatistas. Apesar dos ensaios explicarem com afinco o funcionamento básico de uma anarquia de mercado constituída pela visão apriorística, os argumentos ainda precisam ser desenvolvidos, cabe ao leitor sintetizar os principais pontos defendidos.
December 23, 2023
کتاب بسیار خوب و جذابی بود. دو مقاله با مقدمههایی بسیار خوب بر چاپ فارسی. من چاپ فارسی کتاب را با عنوان «نظریهی آشوب» از نشر آماره خواندم. تقریبا ۱۵۰ صفحه.
کتاب مقدمه و درآمد بسیار خوبی برای «آنارکوکاپیتالیسم» هست. اگر با مکتب اقتصاد اتریش و تئوریهای میزس و هایک و روتبارد آشنا باشید خواندن کتاب برایتان بسیار روان خواهد شد و اگر آشنا نباشید هم به شکل فوقالعادهای همراه با مثالهای ملموس و دغدغههای ذهنی معین و مشخص، با این اندیشهها آشنا خواهید شد.
در مجموع این کتاب، افقهای ذهنی جذاب و بلندی را برایمان به ارمغان میآورد که در نگاهمان نسبت به جهان در آینده، احتمالات بیشتر و گاهی بعیدتر را درنظر آوریم. تا آن طور که آدام اسمیت بزرگ در ثروت ملل از فرط بعید بودن بعضی احتمالات آینده آنها را نادیده گرفته بود ولی حدود صد سال بعد از انتشار کتابش در بریتانیا به وقوع پیوست، پس از شنیدن چنین ایدههایی، آنها را بلافاصله کنار نگذاریم و دور از ذهن نپنداریم.
کتاب مقدمه و درآمد بسیار خوبی برای «آنارکوکاپیتالیسم» هست. اگر با مکتب اقتصاد اتریش و تئوریهای میزس و هایک و روتبارد آشنا باشید خواندن کتاب برایتان بسیار روان خواهد شد و اگر آشنا نباشید هم به شکل فوقالعادهای همراه با مثالهای ملموس و دغدغههای ذهنی معین و مشخص، با این اندیشهها آشنا خواهید شد.
در مجموع این کتاب، افقهای ذهنی جذاب و بلندی را برایمان به ارمغان میآورد که در نگاهمان نسبت به جهان در آینده، احتمالات بیشتر و گاهی بعیدتر را درنظر آوریم. تا آن طور که آدام اسمیت بزرگ در ثروت ملل از فرط بعید بودن بعضی احتمالات آینده آنها را نادیده گرفته بود ولی حدود صد سال بعد از انتشار کتابش در بریتانیا به وقوع پیوست، پس از شنیدن چنین ایدههایی، آنها را بلافاصله کنار نگذاریم و دور از ذهن نپنداریم.
August 27, 2017
Whenever one endeavors to paint a picture of what solutions a free market may produce for the problems that are today the unquestioned purview of the state, he is speculating. But that is all that can be done. The objection that "it's never been done that way before" requires zero imagination or effort and does nothing to address the problem. Armed with sound philosophical, ethical and economic weaponry, Murphy presents a reasonable picture of a voluntary society based on respect for private property rights. While maybe not the best book for someone unfamiliar with anarchy-capitalism, it is a great book for crystallizing the free society vision for someone who is sympathetic to that philosophy.
February 27, 2020
O autor foca neste livro nos aspectos teóricos e práticos do funcionamento de uma sociedade anarcocapitalista, no que tange à justiça e defesa.
Os argumentos no geral são bons, enraizados nos contratos e amparado por um rico mercado de seguros.
Passa pela importância de quebra de monopólio em várias áreas, desde a medicina até o fornecimento de segurança privada.
Ressalta que é uma falácia atribuir problemas de defesa em uma sociedade privada, que poderia com o apoio de outras seguradoras se defender de forma muito mais eficiência de invasões externas.
Acho que talvez erre em dizer que provavelmente não haveria armas nucleares numa sociedade libertária, o que acho temerário tendo em vista esse tipo de capacidade dos estados invasores.
Ótimo e curto livro.
Os argumentos no geral são bons, enraizados nos contratos e amparado por um rico mercado de seguros.
Passa pela importância de quebra de monopólio em várias áreas, desde a medicina até o fornecimento de segurança privada.
Ressalta que é uma falácia atribuir problemas de defesa em uma sociedade privada, que poderia com o apoio de outras seguradoras se defender de forma muito mais eficiência de invasões externas.
Acho que talvez erre em dizer que provavelmente não haveria armas nucleares numa sociedade libertária, o que acho temerário tendo em vista esse tipo de capacidade dos estados invasores.
Ótimo e curto livro.
August 20, 2021
While I remain a Bastiat-ian minarchist, I enjoyed Murphy's though experiments on potential implementations of his peaceful vision for an anarchist society. He always is clear to provide the caveat that we cannot truly know what this society would end up looking like until we get there (as such a society would be intrinsically opposed to coercive central planning), but he gives us some starting points and food for thought to help us imagine how the more difficult scenarios might play out (private military defense, private law, etc.)
July 26, 2018
Deserves four stars for what it is: two short essays on private law/arbitration and private defense speculating on their potential in a hypothetical anarchist society. I see these as floor level introductory pieces to an eventual fleshed out whole. Other reviews have valid criticisms but a lot don't apply because they're based on a premise that Murphy should have expounded on everything he mentioned. That wasn't his intention and his work should be judged for what it actually is.
July 28, 2019
What if the centralized power of the state didn't exist?
Murphy offers a modest vision of how a stateless society would work.
The key components of such a free society world would be:
- voluntary contracts
- free market of arbitration
- free market of inurances
He proposes that with these three anchors with an overarching value of private property, a society would even becom pacifistic.
Of course this is all theory, and has only been observed partially in history.
What is most facinating is how actuarial science would play its role in making a free world continually better.
Such advanced insurances didn't exist when the US declared it's independence.
Very thought provoking for me as a new libertarian.
I only give 5 stars to life-changing books. This book is just a primer.
Read the footnotes. They are 50% of the book.
Murphy offers a modest vision of how a stateless society would work.
The key components of such a free society world would be:
- voluntary contracts
- free market of arbitration
- free market of inurances
He proposes that with these three anchors with an overarching value of private property, a society would even becom pacifistic.
Of course this is all theory, and has only been observed partially in history.
What is most facinating is how actuarial science would play its role in making a free world continually better.
Such advanced insurances didn't exist when the US declared it's independence.
Very thought provoking for me as a new libertarian.
I only give 5 stars to life-changing books. This book is just a primer.
Read the footnotes. They are 50% of the book.
Displaying 1 - 30 of 62 reviews