"Some short history lessons

Perhaps markets in things understood to belong to the category of the State's ill-gotten gains have flourished in the past and are eminently workable, but what about the whole of society? Has there ever been a full-fledged society without a State?

Actually, yes. There have been many developed societies with no State and yet with sophisticated legal concepts, co-existing much more peacefully then their statist equivalents, and in some cases enjoying more civil liberties as well. Let us go through the most well-known examples:

1. Medieval Iceland- 930 to 1262 CE

Iceland was populated by refugees, approximately seventy thousand of them, mostly coming from the newly formed Norwegian monarchy and its feudal regime. They based their new society on Western European traditions but replaced the king with an assembly of chieftains, established by purely contractual allegiance. Iceland was divided in four quarters and nine chieftains per quarter, but within each quarter people were free to pledge allegiance to any chieftain they desired. The Icelandic system was not a territorial system, nor was it monopoloid, nor was it based on kinship or tribes, but rather governance was established by contracts, making it specifically a Market Anarchy.

The legislature was composed of the law-speaker, elected every three years, the thirty-six chieftains, seventy-two advisors, and twelve other citizens. Decisions about the laws were taken by unanimity, and when unanimity was not possible, majority vote. Courts were disposed in levels, first private arbitration courts, then regional courts, then quarter courts, then the general assembly, with verdicts decided on 83% majorities (30 votes out of 36 or more). Anyone who refused the verdict of the courts could be sued again by the same defendant, in order to have him declared an outlaw.

All property was privately owned, including restitution rights, granting a person with more time and money the possibility of pursing justice for someone poorer.

When statists claim that Anarchy would quickly degenerate into civil war, it is instructive to compare the 300 years of peace of the Icelandic Anarchy to the mere 85 years it took for the "United States" to have its first civil war, and its further degeneration into a democracy. By all accounts, the Icelandic system was peaceful compared to its monarchic competitors.

The final irony? The Icelandic Anarchy collapsed not because of its private nature, but because of the intervention of the Norwegian monarchy, who used the Christian religion to polarize Icelandic society (through the tithe system, which concentrated wealth and was fixed by law) and eventually take it over. If the Icelandic system allowed for alternate laws, then it may have been able to survive this trial. Either way, critics of the Icelandic system call it "chaos," but it lasted three hundred years, and without competing States may have lasted centuries more. And even at its worst, when the system was disintegrating, the civil unrest was subdued by our standards:

One indication that the total amount of violence may have been relatively small is a calculation based on the Sturlung sagas. During more than fifty years of what the Icelanders themselves perceived as intolerably violent civil war, leading to the collapse of the traditional system, the average number of people killed or executed each year appears, on a per capita basis, to be roughly equal to the current rate of murder and nonnegligent manslaughter in the United States.

For more on the Icelandic Anarchy, see:
Jesse L. Byock, Medieval Iceland: Society, Sagas, and Power
William Ian Miller, Bloodtaking and Peacemaking: Feud, Law, and Society in Saga Iceland
David Friedman, "Private Creation and Enforcement of Law: A Historical Case," Journal of Legal Studies, Vol. 8, March 1979, p. 400
Thomas Whiston, "Medieval Iceland and the Absence of Government"
Roderick T. Long, "Privatization, Viking Style: Model or Misfortune?"
Roderick T. Long, "The Decline and Fall of Private Law in Iceland"
Birgir T. Runolfsson Solvason, "Ordered Anarchy: Evolution of the Decentralized Legal Order in the Icelandic Commonwealth"

2. Somalia- 1991 to 2006 CE

"Somalia" had been the scene of constant civil war since 1977, let by a military government. In 1991, the State was uprooted, and the northern part of "Somalia," called "Somaliland," declared its independence and became a democratic State subordinating traditional tribal governance. The various clans of "Somalia" defeated the government in place. Two years later, they also defeated a "US"/UN coalition dedicated to restoring the former military government. "Somalia" was now an Anarchy.

With its limited existence (15 years) and its primitive nature ("Somalia" was one of the poorest countries in the world to begin with), the Somali Anarchy mainly stayed at the level of kinship-based clans, although there was a contractual aspect as well. Clans were composed of a number of extended families called jilib. Families, jilib and clans each had a judge, who settled disputes according to customary law, and these judges were voluntarily chosen. The jilib also served as an insurance system, much like the borh- everyone paid for the infractions of one of their members. And this is where the contractual aspect comes in, as, again like the borh, people could be kicked out of the jilib, or join it, or make their own.

The clan-based kinship system had its drawbacks. For one thing, clansmen had to share some of their resources within the clan. Also, clans were in a state of animosity towards each other, and foreigners were usually not recognized or accepted, although at least some clans were shown to be open for business with foreigners and showed an understanding of what was needed for their territory to become successful. Despite these shortcomings, they had no affection for statism:

The name that the Somalis give to western-style government is waxan, which means "the thing." This nuance of vocabulary shows that there is no place in their mind for a centralized, monopolized government.

The economy has maintained a 2% growth rate throughout the Anarchic period. The amount of phone lines was multiplied by 7, and there were more than 50,000 mobile subscribers as well. In the absence of a power grid, electricity was provided by the market through the use of generators. A private provision system for water served all parts of the territory. The plane travel market went from one local business having only one airplane and one outside route, to 15 businesses with more than 60 airplanes, with airports outsourcing their security needs. Exports grew fivefold.

The Somali adopted various ways to deal with the unsophisticated nature of their institutions. They relied on foreign institutions and their already-established rules, for example, for airline safety, currency stability, and corporate law. They used clans and international networks to help with the transmission of funds and contract enforcement.

The Somali Anarchy was destroyed by the constant threat of foreign invasion and the formation of a new State. Clans fought to establish their dominance over that future State:

To fend off the possibility of being dominated, each clan tries to capture the power of that government before it can become a threat. Those clans that didn't share in the spoils of political power would realize their chances of becoming part of the ruling alliance were nil. Therefore, they would rebel and try to secede. That would prompt the ruling clans to use every means to suppress these centrifugal forces… in the end all clans would fight with one another.

Safety in the main city of Mogadishu was not assured, but even with these battles going on intermittently, Somali territory was quite safe by and large. Now, thanks to the constant pressure exerted by the United Nations against the Somali Anarchy, and especially "United States" financing of the clan clashes, "Somalia" is a country once again, dominated by extremist Islamists, and all hopes for peace or permanent progress in "Somalia" are gone, at least for the foreseeable future.

For more on the Somali Anarchy, see:
Michael Van Notten, The Law of the Somalis: A Stable Foundation for Economic Development in the Horn of Africa
Peter D. Little, Somalia: Economy Without State
Peter T. Leeson, "Better Off Stateless: Somalia Before and After Government Collapse"
Yumi Kim, "Stateless in Somalia, and Loving It," Ludwig Von Mises Institute, 21 Feb. 2006.
Tatiana Nenova and Tim Harford, "Anarchy and Invention," Public Policy for the Private Sector Journal, November 2004, Note No. 280.
Jim Davidson, "Somalia and Anarchy," Formulations, Issue #30 (Summer 2001).
Shafer Parker, "The Answer for Africa," LewRockwell.com, 26 Jun. 2002.

3. The Old West- 1840 to 1890, depending on area

The Old West was not as much a case of an established Anarchy as it was the natural consequence of a very progressive expansion. With the California Gold Rush and the Mormon migration, the 1840s saw the first big rushes towards the West. By 1890, there was no frontier left south of Alaska.

That 50-year time period saw a wide variety of methods for self-governance, based on individualism, property rights and relative tolerance. Since I have already described most of those methods, there will be no point in repeating them here.

For more on the Old West and self-governance, see:
W. Eugene Hollon, Frontier Violence: Another Look
Frank Richard Prassel, The Western Peace Officer: A Legacy of Law and Order
Frederick Jackson Turner, The Frontier in American History
Louis Pelzer, The Cattlemen's Frontier
Charles Shinn, Mining Camps: A Study in American Frontier Government
J. H. Beadle, Western wilds and the men who redeem them: An authentic narrative, embracing an account of seven years travel and adventure in the far West
Terry L. Anderson and P.J. Hill, "An American Experiment in Anarcho-Capitalism: The Not So Wild, Wild West"

4. Celtic/Medieval Ireland- ? to the early 17th century

It is unclear exactly when the Irish Anarchy begins, or whether such a delimitation even exists historically. As far as we know, no State existed on the island until 1541, when "Ireland" was declared an "English" colony. We know for a fact, however, that the Anarchic system in Ireland existed for more than a thousand years.

All landowners who wished to be part of society were part of a tuath, and there were around 80 to 100 tuatha throughout Ireland at any given time. Being a landowner was an important indicator of status, and the Irish Anarchy had a very stratified society, but your status was not fixed by birth. The law said, "everyone may become free by his wealth and unfree by his lips."

The members of a tuath formed annual assemblies that established common policies, elected new kings, and declared war or peace. The Irish Anarchy was a Market Anarchy, insofar as anyone could join any tuath, regardless of kinship or location, or a group of people, dissatisfied with a state of affairs, could even form their own tuath. The king was chosen within one bloodline, but did not control the tuath; his post was the equivalent of a high priest and military leader, but he had no legislative powers.

The Druids, and then later the filid (poets), were the keepers of the law, but the brehons were the lawmakers, and sometimes acted as arbitrators as well. They were a distinct class of society, just below the kings in reputation, sometimes holding the title from heredity, and were not tied to any specific tuath. There was also no police. Rather, an individual suing another for a crime would persuade other people to be his sureties, and help him get the defendant to court and get his due if he won the case. Property was central to Irish life. It determined one's rank and one's honour-price, an amount of resources that was calculated based on their rank, which represented how much they could give as a surety. Being a surety was risky, but could lead to payment as well. As such, the sureties were a strange mix between insurance and unofficial policemen. No doubt their lack of resources in establishing a police class may have contributed to this mix.

Apart from its social and legal complexity, the Irish Anarchy was culturally advanced and, compared to the other States at the time, peaceful. By the 8th century, a wife had the right to sue, to get sureties, make contracts (although under the veto of her husband), cancel unsafe contracts made by her husband, and even the right to divorce for a multitude of reasons. By comparison, English law centuries later revoked those rights to women when "Ireland" became "English" property. Irish law recognized ten categories of sexual relationships, each with a precise legal character, some of which would be considered promiscuous or polygamous by our standards.

For more on the Irish Anarchy and the data used here, see:
D. A. Binchy, ed., Studies in Early Irish Law
D. A. Binchy, "Ancient Irish Law," The Irish Jurist, Vol. 1, 1966, pp. 84-92
Joseph Peden, "Property Right in Celtic Irish Law," Journal of Libertarian Studies, Vol. 1 No. 2, pp.81-95.
Murray N. Rothbard, For a New Liberty, pp. 231-233

There was also the case of a curious temporary Anarchy in Pennsylvania from 1684 to 1688, when the colony simply rejected the embryonic State there and acted of their own accord. This is described in Edwin B. Bronner's William Penn's "Holy Experiment" and in Rothbard's 4-volume history of the Colonial period, Conceived in Liberty."

http://www.graveyardofthegods.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=5&t=5424