...although I used to use that to describe myself.
The reason I am growing weary of anarcho-capitalist theory is because it seems to involve reinventing the wheel. Anarcho-capitalist theory seems to involve tearing down government bureaucracies, and then replacing them with private-sector bureaucracies that are modeled after the State bureaucracies.
An example of this is the anarcho-capitalistic "PDA" I keep reading about in these forums. If I see one more discussion on PDAs, my head is going to explode.
PDA stands for "personal digital assistant"; it does not stand for "private defense agency". Whenever I see the letters PDA, I think, "Are they talking about a Palm Pilot? No, wait, they are talking about some hypothetical anarchy police force."
Not only is the acronym ridiculous, but the concept itself is unsavory. I don't want armed, uniformed, trained cops patrolling the streets, tax-paid or otherwise. As much as I dislike the State, I think "anarchocapitalism" could be worse! The uncertain environment of the marketplace would make everybody want to have to best-armed, most powerful private army. Each "PDA" would try to be better armed than the other guy, and eventually the subscribers would have to pay for the inevitable arms-races.
In anarcho-capitalist theory, private property reigns supreme, with private mercenaries enforcing property. I think that is quite unethical; I think that property rights should be protected with the minimum amount of force possible. Don't chase away a thief or trespasser with a gun, if you could use a pepperspray or an angry rottweiller.
The second example of private bureaucracy is the idea of "private legislatures" and "insurance companies" and "private courts" and whatever else. People would have to choose which private law-giver suits them best. These private law-givers would have to compete for customers, and customers would try to influence each other to accept their private lawgivers.
At least under the current regime, the leaders can hold power for several years at a time; whereas under this so-called "anarchy", it would always be an election year.
"Private law-givers" are totally unnecessary. People do not need to be "given" law; they ought to use their own social tact, civility, and common sense, with the occasional dispute being resolved by a competent jury.
These "insurance companies" would regulate laws and resolve disputes through arbitration. In the book "Chaos Theory", the author says, if I recall,
"In our model society, everybody would buy civil insurance, which would be similar to automotive liability insurance...."
I was stupified! The author simply assumed that every single person would be willing and able to purchase "insurance". This "insurance" sounds almost like a tax. Anybody without this "insurance" would not be able to purchase anything or even walk down the street. He would be almost like an illegal alien, with no legal "citizenship".
Under anarcho-capitalism, such "citizenship" would be necessary because all law would be based on contract. Somebody who had not specifically agreed in a contract not to rape or kill anybody would a lawless person, to be avoided at all costs.
Such a concept is ridiculous in my opinion. If somebody commits a crime, they should be arrested, tried, and punished regardless of what "PDA" they have or what contracts they have or have not signed. I think it is the responsibility of the community to determine the innocence or guilt or the suspect in a fair and just manner. And if that makes me a communist or statist, so be it.
"As long as there are sovereign nations possessing great power, war is inevitable."
You are falling in to the trap of thinking about a state of anarchy as a sort of static equilibrium society, instead of a dynamic whole in which people interact based on (mainly) customary, contract- and tort law. (And very likely something like a decentralized common law system; a Western version of the Xeer in Somalia.)
The question why some people call themself anarchists is not that force is unjustified, but that force can only be used for legitimate purposes. Since 'the state' uses agressive coercin per se, the state should be done with. That doesn't mean that there could be no problems of 'disequilibrium' in anarchy; just that cannot justify a state.
"If somebody commits a crime, they should be arrested, tried, and punished regardless of what "PDA" they have or what contracts they have or have not signed. "
<= And no anarchist will disagree with you. The question is: what is the more realistic vision in which this will happen? A decentralized system, based on customary-, common-, tort- and contract law or a centralized state with the relevant knowledge problem and illegitimate use of force that goes with it?
'PDA's (which I tend to dislike as a word as well; because imo it doesn't grasp the diversity and creativity of judicial systems that I can imagine to arise) are just a heuristic device to explain things. No one here is actually advocating that 'everyone must join a for profit insurance company that deals with everything that the state now does concerning justice and safety'. That is a misconception of the anarchist position - but I can imagine confusion arising if you spend to much time on this forum. Can I imagine 'PDA's evolve? Sure. Will these companies be the only one pursuing justice and safety? Hardly.
Anarchy is not just 'private bureaucracies'; it is decentralized decisionmaking and 'organisations' that 'govern' society are voluntary associations. Governance doesn't entail government.
"I think it is the responsibility of the community to determine the innocence or guilt or the suspect in a fair and just manner." <=
But the 'community' is a holistic hole. You are not giving us the mechanisms you want that should deal with injustice. Either you want a monopolistic organization that uses coercion to get the means to fulfill her tasks - and no 'a coercion of all against all' isn't justified - or you want decentralized organizations that deal with it; based on the mores and customary law that is in society.
I would advice the text 'Law as a Discovery Procedure' (just google it) which appeared in a Cato journal. It clarify's the issue in a way that isn't as 'rational constructivistic' as Rothbard. Especially this relevant quote, with which I agree:
As previously discussed, the legal rights to property and contract would probably not be absolute in a private legal system. To some extent, then, the system might not be purely libertarian. Nor would a private legal system necessarily consider a person’s legal rights to be infringed only if he (or his tangible property) had been physically invaded or defrauded. (...) People can, of course, try to persuade others, including the judges in a future private legal system, to adopt a philosophy ofstrict, or even ultrastrict, “anarcho-libertarianism,” just as they can try to persuade today’s legislators to enact a particular combination ofpolicies or, for that matter, persuade private enterprises to sell partictilar products at particular prices. The problem is that people in whatever politicoeconomic system is under discussion are faced with incentives that are not systematically consistent with the particular actions being asked ofthem. Thus, if an ideological movement succeeded in bringing about a pure state ofanarcho-libertarianism (as improbable as that seems), this result would probably not constitute a stable politicoeconomic equilibrium.
"The uncertain environment of the marketplace would make everybody want to have to best-armed, most powerful private army. Each "PDA" would try to be better armed than the other guy, and eventually the subscribers would have to pay for the inevitable arms-races."
<= How do you 'know' this? I think there are good reasons to suspect that this is not the most obvious corse of action. First of all: people in general don't feel the need to attack one another. (The role of mores in a society are relevant; and most people don't really need the threat of agression in order that they won't attack each other.) If this weren't the case, the state would be powerless as well. (Because they couldn't have the means to threat everyone all the time; and do we really want a state then, because will the policemen of the state be so gentle?) Second of all: it's not really about 'bigger gun'. You need 'enough to make sure you can damage the other guy'. This doesn't entail more and bigger guns per se. Tanks cost a lot of money; the average criminal is better of working then to try and buy a tank. If you sincerely believe this, I'm not sure that I can convince you otherwise. But try to examine for yourself the things you need to presuppose for this scenario to become reality. I think they are highly unlikely - and if they were true; I don't know if I would want a state in that case. Because you need to be intellectual honest (I'm not saying you are not); the same presuppostions on human behavior should be used to judge anarchy in a comperative analysis with the state.
"In anarcho-capitalist theory, private property reigns supreme, with private mercenaries enforcing property. I think that is quite unethical; I think that property rights should be protected with the minimum amount of force possible. Don't chase away a thief or trespasser with a gun, if you could use a pepperspray or an angry rottweiller."
<= I don't want private mercenaries either. I do believe that killing someone who walks on your lawn is a breach of that persons rights. I think most people think like that. Why do you suppose that in anarchy; this would change? Anarchy, like the state, will translate the preferences of people into 'governance'. If people in general want to kill everyone who walks on their lawn, then this will be government policy as well. But people don't want that and people think that's unethical. I see no real reason that this would happen to change, just because the way people 'govern' society is decentralized and (more) voluntary. The concept of 'proportionality' has been around for centuries in every law system - either state or more decentralized. I see no real reason that this will just 'change', just because we have no state.
" The second example of private bureaucracy is the idea of "private legislatures" and "insurance companies" and "private courts" and whatever else." <= I think - to be honest - you are lumping together a straw man with real arguments. But I'm not sure. In any way: nobody is in favour of 'private legislature' as it is understood now as the parliament. But 'private legilature' is everywhere. When you are in a hotel: there are rules. When you are in a store: there are rules. When you work for a company: there are rules. There is no problem with rules within a organisation. What anarchists say, is that this is no reason to enact rules that should count for an entire area, based solely on the use of force, without the consent of the people. I also see no problem with 'insurance companies'. I would like to be insured against some things; being attacked by someone would probably be one of those things. And 'private courts' is something you favour too: "they ought to use their own social tact, civility, and common sense, with the occasional dispute being resolved by a competent jury."
"Private law-givers" are totally unnecessary. People do not need to be "given" law; they ought to use their own social tact, civility, and common sense, with the occasional dispute being resolved by a competent jury." <= And nobody is advocating 'giving law' like it is understood now. Au contraire. As you yourself (if I interpret you right) admit; there is a need for rules to govern interaction. These laws will evolve over time, influenced by the way people think on what is justified and what is not. I can imagine in anarchy there evolving rules that are non-libertarian (as it has happen in the past), but in general: anarchy tends to more property oriented and more respectfull for human liberty then always the relevant alternative of government. (Even in contemporary Somalia: the anarchy there is favours human libery more then the previous system of government. This is not the say that, from a libertarian perspective, there are grave problems in Somalia.)
"Anybody without this "insurance" would not be able to purchase anything or even walk down the street. He would be almost like an illegal alien, with no legal "citizenship"." <= I would say that this is definitely a straw man. Why won't he be able to 'purchase' anything or 'walk down the street'? What is true is, that if he has a problem (he was robbed or something), than he won't have a company to go to direcly, but has to find another means to solve this problem. He can just buy ad hoc, he can go to a charity organisation, ask his boss/friends/family/whatever for help, etc.He just won't have the 'insurance' that he can go to 'his' company when he's attacked to catch the robber. The point is not: 'how can we imagine this guy to be helped?' but: are there reasons to conceptualize that in anarchy, these kind of problems can be solved by voluntary interaction? I see clearly reasons to assume this, given the entrepreunerial capacities of people, given that people care about each other, given that anarchy allows trial and error, etc.
"Under anarcho-capitalism, such "citizenship" would be necessary because all law would be based on contract. Somebody who had not specifically agreed in a contract not to rape or kill anybody would a lawless person, to be avoided at all costs." <= I see no reason to assume that all governance of activities will be based on contract law. Just because you and I don't have a contract, doesn't mean that you can attack me. Historicly: there never was a system that worked like that ('hey, we don't have a contract, so I can kill you!') and with good reason. The system of law exist exactly because of this: because people can't contract everything, we need a system of law that governs our activities with other people. The ultimate point of anarchy is that a system of law (customary-, custom- and tort) doesn't mean that we need a government/state/legislature.
I hope this helps.
The state is not the enemy. The idea of the state is.
With all due respect, I'm quite shocked to see a veteran member of these boards fall for so many fallacies at the same time.At least under the current regime, the leaders can hold power for several years at a time; whereas under this so-called "anarchy", it would always be an election year.As is the case with any and all private business. Private business constantly has to woo customers. That's a good thing! Contrary to political elections, however, broken promises of market participants can actually lead to negative consequences; if not in a market court, then at least by simply withdrawing one's funding. Anybody without this "insurance" would not be able to purchase anything or even walk down the street.Why should they not be able to purchase anything? As a business owner, I don't care about anyone's insurance status as long as they hand over some money.As for them being "illegal aliens", don't you think there would be free sign-up options for these insurance companies? It'd be mutually beneficial: poor customers could signalize their affiliation with a certain body of law by showing their free membership ID (which they may keep as long as they don't break any law) and companies could use the size of their subscriber base as a bargaining chip.And lastly, gross injustice done to poor victims could be picked up by entrepreneurial lawyers or restitution associations and brought to court for a certain percentage of punitive awards. If this is too "unsecure" and a "relativization of justice" to you, I sincerely hope you'll never end up fighting a big wig in our "community-provided" justice system.I think it is the responsibility of the community to determine the innocence or guilt or the suspect in a fair and just manner. What is "the community"? And how does a jury constitute itself? In a different thread, you recently resented the idea of being ruled by "natural elites", but apparently, you have no qualms with being subjected to arbitrary, situational whims of Joe Blows from your "community".
I get it, you fear what you don't understand.
Where there is no property there is no justice; a proposition as certain as any demonstration in Euclid
Fools! not to see that what they madly desire would be a calamity to them as no hands but their own could bring
Yes, he has deep seated insecurities which suddenly surfaced after being arachnocapitalist for years.
This bullshit psychoanalyzing is why no one takes libertardian nutjobs seriously.
ama gi:Anarcho-capitalist theory seems to involve tearing down government bureaucracies, and then replacing them with private-sector bureaucracies that are modeled after the State bureaucracies.
"Tearing down" is a complete mis-characterization considering force in not initiated, but instead - subdued. One is a voluntary service provided by the market, for consumers in justice and private defense, the other is coercive monopoly not provided by a gang of thieves writ large.
ama gi:I don't want armed, uniformed, trained cops patrolling the streets, tax-paid or otherwise.
Who says they would be armed, uniformed, 'cops', patrolling the streets?
You're still stuck in a statist mentality. Who owns the streets? The owner decides who gets access to them. It's up to the individual consumer to decide whether they want uniformed or plain clothes protection services... or protection services at all! It depends whether it is economically feasible.
ama gi:As much as I dislike the State, I think "anarchocapitalism" could be worse!
200 million dead people would probably disagree with you.
ama gi:The uncertain environment of the marketplace would make everybody want to have to best-armed, most powerful private army.
Negative. It would mean every PDA would pay close attention to the competition, to make sure that doesn't happen.
ama gi:Each "PDA" would try to be better armed than the other guy, and eventually the subscribers would have to pay for the inevitable arms-races.
Queue consumer exodus from arms racing organisations to ones that are not raising their prices and passing it onto the consumer. Queue arms racing companies being unable to foot the bill and going bankrupt.
ama gi:In anarcho-capitalist theory, private property reigns supreme, with private mercenaries enforcing property. I think that is quite unethical; I think that property rights should be protected with the minimum amount of force possible. Don't chase away a thief or trespasser with a gun, if you could use a pepperspray or an angry rottweiller.
Ahhh.... besides forum posts and threads - what have you actually read on the subject?
ama gi: "In our model society, everybody would buy civil insurance, which would be similar to automotive liability insurance...." I was stupified! The author simply assumed that every single person would be willing and able to purchase "insurance". This "insurance" sounds almost like a tax. Anybody without this "insurance" would not be able to purchase anything or even walk down the street. He would be almost like an illegal alien, with no legal "citizenship".
Doesn't follow. They can choose not to buy it... they'd just have to foot the full bill.
scineram:...
i'm not directly quarreling with what you said. But on the other hand, when a person frees their own mind from state occupation/propaganda, then the person eventually needs to stand on their own two feet and really reflect upon their own free-thinking mind now.
scineram:Yes, he has deep seated insecurities which suddenly surfaced after being arachnocapitalist for years.
he called himself one, but how much understanding did he possess?
scineram:This bullshit psychoanalyzing is why no one takes libertardian nutjobs seriously.
The reason why no one takes who seriously?
AdrianHealey:But the 'community' is a holistic hole. You are not giving us the mechanisms you want that should deal with injustice. Either you want a monopolistic organization that uses coercion to get the means to fulfill her tasks - and no 'a coercion of all against all' isn't justified - or you want decentralized organizations that deal with it; based on the mores and customary law that is in society.
My idea of anarchy is basically a stateless direct democracy. Disputes (and crimes) are resolved by a trial-by-jury, without the need for "insurance companies", "PDAs", or a system of "private courts".
With the jury trial system, nobody would need a preexisting contract with the court. The court would automatically have jurisdiction by nature of being a democratic institution.
"Laws", if you want to call them that, would be basically be petitions written by anyone and signed by a large number of people. Once it had a million or so signatures, it would be legally binding in court (unless there was an opposing petition that had a greater number of signatures).
scineram: This bullshit psychoanalyzing is why no one takes libertardian nutjobs seriously.
Who specifically are you speaking about? Name names please.
ama gi: AdrianHealey:But the 'community' is a holistic hole. You are not giving us the mechanisms you want that should deal with injustice. Either you want a monopolistic organization that uses coercion to get the means to fulfill her tasks - and no 'a coercion of all against all' isn't justified - or you want decentralized organizations that deal with it; based on the mores and customary law that is in society. My idea of anarchy is basically a stateless direct democracy. Disputes (and crimes) are resolved by a trial-by-jury, without the need for "insurance companies", "PDAs", or a system of "private courts". With the jury trial system, nobody would need a preexisting contract with the court. The court would automatically have jurisdiction by nature of being a democratic institution. "Laws", if you want to call them that, would be basically be petitions written by anyone and signed by a large number of people. Once it had a million or so signatures, it would be legally binding in court (unless there was an opposing petition that had a greater number of signatures).
There's good reason to suspect that trial by jury would become much less common.
Who would you rather have deciding your fate in, let's say, a water pollution case?:
- X number of random people who likely have no technical understanding of biology/chemistry
- A judge with scientific training, who can draw on the advice of his legal company's expertise in reaching a decision.
Democracy means the opportunity to be everyone's slave.—Karl Kraus.
ama gi: My idea of anarchy is... Disputes (and crimes) are resolved by a trial-by-jury, without the need for "insurance companies", "PDAs", or a system of "private courts".
My idea of anarchy is... Disputes (and crimes) are resolved by a trial-by-jury, without the need for "insurance companies", "PDAs", or a system of "private courts".
Who gets the bad guys? Who rounds 'em up?
ama gi: With the jury trial system,
With the jury trial system,
If no private court, then what's that?
ama gi: "Laws", if you want to call them that, would be basically be petitions written by anyone and signed by a large number of people. Once it had a million or so signatures, it would be legally binding in court (unless there was an opposing petition that had a greater number of signatures).
"million" who came up with that arbritrary number? you?
I agree, I think an-cap would be worse than what we have now. I understand that the concerns I tend to have are usually met by logical explanations of why they wouldn't ever be possible. But the logic accepts a premise I can't entirely accept. Mainly that man is logical and rational and that morality is an innate characteristic of man and so it would be impossible for say....a feudalistic society to spring up where PDAs compete for control of different territories because it would be irrational, illogical and immoral. They say this is impossible, I say it's highly likely and not worth the risk. I do not accept the an-cap premise on human nature. All other conclusions they come to are based on their concept of human nature which I believe to be hopelessly flawed, idealistic and naive.
Either way, I know you're probably asking for a fight with this post and I guess by affirming your post, I'm opening myself up for attack by the radicals as well. But I wanted to let you know I agree with your assessment.
bloomj31:....a feudalistic society to spring up where PDAs compete for control of different territories
What sort of control? Market share achieved by providing a service that customers prefer perhaps? Or is it that you are suggesting PDAs will be operating in some other way.... like states? Well, we call these rogue-PDAs and suggest that they be dealt with similarly to other criminals/states.
So, maybe you can answer my question for your personal preferences. Who do you want deciding your fate in conflicts? Specialists in legal theory and whatever applicable subjects or X of your neighbors pooled randomly?
When someone robs or beats you do you think we can apply logic to find an appropriate punishment, at least to some degree? Or is it your preference that your robber gets 5, 10, or whatever years in jail arbitrarily decided by legislators?
bloom,
i know of nobody that says all people act logically, and all people act in a good way. To think "all" people do act in these ways would be illogical and naive.
these are actually quite possibly the two biggest reasons to rid the government. that's actually the whole point of ridding the government. you are making my argument for me.
bloomj31: I agree, I think an-cap would be worse than what we have now.
I agree, I think an-cap would be worse than what we have now.
I don't know, dude. I would rather favor non-rape over rape, no matter how unfeasible it is.
bloomj31:I understand that the concerns I tend to have are usually met by logical explanations of why they wouldn't ever be possible. But the logic accepts a premise I can't entirely accept. Mainly that man is logical and rational and that morality is an innate characteristic of man and so it would be impossible for say....a feudalistic society to spring up where PDAs compete for control of different territories because it would be irrational, illogical and immoral.
I think you misunderstand "being logical" and "being rational" within this context.
bloomj31:They say this is impossible, I say it's highly likely and not worth the risk. I do not accept the an-cap premise on human nature. All other conclusions they come to are based on their concept of human nature which I believe to be hopelessly flawed, idealistic and naive.
Who is they? Names, please.
bloomj31:Either way, I know you're probably asking for a fight with this post and I guess by affirming your post, I'm opening myself up for attack by the radicals as well. But I wanted to let you know I agree with your assessment.
Oh, stop trying to be a victim. :p
To paraphrase Marc Faber: We're all doomed, but that doesn't mean that we can't make money in the process. Rabbi Lapin: "Let's make bricks!" Stephan Kinsella: "Say you and I both want to make a German chocolate cake."
E. R. Olovetto: bloomj31:....a feudalistic society to spring up where PDAs compete for control of different territories What sort of control? Market share achieved by providing a service that customers prefer perhaps? Or is it that you are suggesting PDAs will be operating in some other way.... like states? Well, we call these rogue-PDAs and suggest that they be dealt with similarly to other criminals/states. So, maybe you can answer my question for your personal preferences. Who do you want deciding your fate in conflicts? Specialists in legal theory and whatever applicable subjects or X of your neighbors pooled randomly? When someone robs or beats you do you think we can apply logic to find an appropriate punishment, at least to some degree? Or is it your preference that your robber gets 5, 10, or whatever years in jail arbitrarily decided by legislators?
You assume that they won't all become "rogue PDAs." Maybe they all will. All one needs to control people is an army. You think the directors of all those PDAs won't know that?
To answer the second question, I like the matter being out of my hands to some degree, I don't pretend to be an expert in law. Anyways, most of our common law is based on precedent so the understanding of how long someone should be incarcerated for their actions seems to me to be knowledge that's been based down through generations. I trust that more than a bunch of people like me sitting in a court room shouting what we think it should be. I like the use of precedent.
the basic premise behind an-cap is not that humans are rational or good, its that the state provides the framework for psychopaths to murder people and claim legitimacy while they are doing it.
Your reservations about an-cap are "who will protect us from the bad men?"
What you fail to realize is that no one is protecting us from the bad men now, and we don't even have the right to defend ourselves against them.
wilderness: bloom, i know of nobody that says all people act logically. and nobody says all people act in a good way. To think "all" people do act in these ways would be illogical and naive. these are actually the two biggest reasons to rid the government. that's actually the whole point of ridding the government. you are making my argument for me.
i know of nobody that says all people act logically. and nobody says all people act in a good way. To think "all" people do act in these ways would be illogical and naive.
these are actually the two biggest reasons to rid the government. that's actually the whole point of ridding the government. you are making my argument for me.
I looked up some quotes just for you, Wilderness.
"One change leaves the way open for the establishment of others."
"There is no avoiding war; it can only be postponed to the advantage of others."
"Of mankind we may say in general that they are fickle, hypocritical and greedy of gain."
Niccolo Machiavelli
mouser98: the basic premise behind an-cap is not that humans are rational or good, its that the state provides the framework for psychopaths to murder people and claim legitimacy while they are doing it. Your reservations about an-cap are "who will protect us from the bad men?" What you fail to realize is that no one is protecting us from the bad men now, and we don't even have the right to defend ourselves against them.
There will always be bad men. Whether they are part of the established government or part of the future established government. They'll always exist. I don't think an-cap will change that nor will it make the problem easier to deal with. There is strength in numbers.
Yet the dividing line that Machiavelli never thinks about is: 'what do you want'. Machiavelli is thinking it all for you. He's decided men are fickle and greedy of gain. You can agree with that, so be it. But the dividing line is there are those that consent to people initiating physical aggression or thereby consent to greed, fickleness, and war (because NOT all people are that's a fact of the current market. Not all people commit crimes only the few actually commit crimes). Then there are those people that don't consent to initiated physical aggression, don't consent to greed, fickleness, and war.
I consent/want peace, justice, and liberty.
I don't consent to war, criminal activity, and being forced to do things I don't want to.
bloom:You assume that they won't all become "rogue PDAs." Maybe they all will. All one needs to control people is an army. You think the directors of all those PDAs won't know that?
Do you think that the people won't know that too? It is incredibly expensive to fund wars without some pedagogue politician preaching the dangers of the terr'ists and collecting the sheeps' loot.
All human action is based on speculation. Is your personal preference for law based on a rational model or a purely arbitrary one? Would you like to pay more for your own security because the company has to invade and rob whomever to pay for some elite group? Or would you like the basic plan where all customers have equal protection under the law and force is only used to hunt down people who actually abridge these rights? If you think about it and decide what you think, then look at the character of the average man, that all, or many, PDAs would be rogue seems a bit unlikely now doesn't it?
There are things we can use logic to determine, with regard to punishment or reconciliation, then there are things that must be arbitrary. We can't ever assign X years to a prison sentence, because the only proper use of imprisonment is to have the criminal repay/restore the victim.
I am not suggesting that anyone becomes an expert in law. I was asking you who you want deciding your fate.... an expert or Joe Public?
ama gi: PDA stands for "personal digital assistant"; it does not stand for "private defense agency". Whenever I see the letters PDA, I think, "Are they talking about a Palm Pilot? No, wait, they are talking about some hypothetical anarchy police force."
That is quite ridiculous.
The fallacies of intellectual communism, a compilation - On the nature of power
mouser98:the basic premise behind an-cap is not that humans are rational or good, its that the state provides the framework for psychopaths to murder people and claim legitimacy while they are doing it.
And why won't PDAs give both the framework, and legitimacy for psychopaths to murder people?
mouser98:What you fail to realize is that no one is protecting us from the bad men now, and we don't even have the right to defend ourselves against them.
If a man breaks into my house, and I call the police, they will bring him to justice. Your statement has just been falsified.
Abstract liberty, like other mere abstractions, is not to be found.
- Edmund Burke
ama gi:If somebody commits a crime, they should be arrested, tried, and punished regardless of what "PDA" they have or what contracts they have or have not signed. I think it is the responsibility of the community to determine the innocence or guilt or the suspect in a fair and just manner.
Of course. But how is this an argument for a monopolistic legal system?
Remember, the fundamental issue is competition vs. monopoly. Monopolies are inherently rights-violating (and hence are immoral) and face information and incentive problems (and hence are inefficient). Markets, on the other hand, can exist without aggression and have a more effective incentive structure. Therefore, a competitive legal system is preferable to a monopolistic one.
I notice minarchists often argue against anarchism by asking how some specific scenario would be dealt with under anarchy, and then, unconvinced by the response, conclude that anarchy is undesirable or absurd. But these types of questions are irrelevant: the anarchist has no burden of proof to show how specific scenarios would be handled. What they do have to show is that the incentive structure of anarchy is superior to the incentive structure of minarchy. And this they have done decisively: market competition has a more effective incentive structure than political democracy.
Unless the minarchist can come up with a reason why the legal system should be excepted from this rule, they have no choice but to abandon statism and accept anarchism.
AnalyticalAnarchism.net - The Positive Political Economy of Anarchism
laminustacitus: mouser98:the basic premise behind an-cap is not that humans are rational or good, its that the state provides the framework for psychopaths to murder people and claim legitimacy while they are doing it. And why won't PDAs give both the framework, and legitimacy for psychopaths to murder people? mouser98:What you fail to realize is that no one is protecting us from the bad men now, and we don't even have the right to defend ourselves against them. If a man breaks into my house, and I call the police, they will bring him to justice. Your statement has just been falsified.
Ah, yes. The police are never corrupt. Btw, I'm not defending mouser98
laminustacitus: If a man breaks into my house, and I call the police, they will bring him to justice. Your statement has just been falsified.
No, you are being robbed every time you pay a tax and the police will laugh at you if you say it.
E. R. Olovetto: There's good reason to suspect that trial by jury would become much less common. Who would you rather have deciding your fate in, let's say, a water pollution case?: - X number of random people who likely have no technical understanding of biology/chemistry - A judge with scientific training, who can draw on the advice of his legal company's expertise in reaching a decision.
Th e random people, of course.
Get a career judge with "scientific training", and there is a good chance he could be bought off. Get 12 random people in a room, and it is 12 times as likely that somebody will narc.
There is no need for the jurors to have "scientific training". Simply have chemists, physicians, and other qualified persons from both sides publicly testify under oath.
February 17 - 1600 - Giordano Bruno is burnt alive by the catholic church. Aquinas : "much more reason is there for heretics, as soon as they are convicted of heresy, to be not only excommunicated but even put to death."
bloomj31:Mainly that man is logical and rational and that morality is an innate characteristic of man and so it would be impossible for say....a feudalistic society to spring up where PDAs compete for control of different territories because it would be irrational, illogical and immoral. They say this is impossible,
wilderness: ama gi: My idea of anarchy is... Disputes (and crimes) are resolved by a trial-by-jury, without the need for "insurance companies", "PDAs", or a system of "private courts". Who gets the bad guys? Who rounds 'em up?
Citizens arrest. If somebody commits a crime, you either arrest them yourself, or hire somebody else to do it.
wilderness: ama gi: With the jury trial system, If no private court, then what's that?
I don't care if you call it "public" or "private". The idea is that if you commit a crime, you get dragged to the nearest courthouse, instead of haggling over multiple, competing courts.
wilderness: ama gi: "Laws", if you want to call them that, would be basically be petitions written by anyone and signed by a large number of people. Once it had a million or so signatures, it would be legally binding in court (unless there was an opposing petition that had a greater number of signatures). "million" who came up with that arbritrary number? you?
It doesn't need to be any specific number; it just needs to be a large number.
Juan:Ama gi, Some of your objections contain some truth in them. However, you can't seriously propose something like this... "Laws", if you want to call them that, would be basically be petitions written by anyone and signed by a large number of people. Once it had a million or so signatures, it would be legally binding in court (unless there was an opposing petition that had a greater number of signatures).
I meant every word in earnest.
ama gi: E. R. Olovetto: There's good reason to suspect that trial by jury would become much less common. Who would you rather have deciding your fate in, let's say, a water pollution case?: - X number of random people who likely have no technical understanding of biology/chemistry - A judge with scientific training, who can draw on the advice of his legal company's expertise in reaching a decision. Th e random people, of course. Get a career judge with "scientific training", and there is a good chance he could be bought off. Get 12 random people in a room, and it is 12 times as likely that somebody will narc. There is no need for the jurors to have "scientific training". Simply have chemists, physicians, and other qualified persons from both sides publicly testify under oath.
C'mon man... This isn't about being bought off or narcing. My question relates to who you think will give a better (more fair & accurate) judgment. The corruption problem you perceive is mitigated by the possibility of chains of arbitration and the economic reality that businesses who don't meet consumers' needs fail.
ama gi: Under anarcho-capitalism, such "citizenship" would be necessary because all law would be based on contract. Somebody who had not specifically agreed in a contract not to rape or kill anybody would a lawless person, to be avoided at all costs. Such a concept is ridiculous in my opinion. If somebody commits a crime, they should be arrested, tried, and punished regardless of what "PDA" they have or what contracts they have or have not signed. I think it is the responsibility of the community to determine the innocence or guilt or the suspect in a fair and just manner. And if that makes me a communist or statist, so be it.
E. R. Olovetto:I am not suggesting that anyone becomes an expert in law. I was asking you who you want deciding your fate.... an expert or Joe Public?
Joe Public.
Never does a day go by except some university-educated "expert" says something utterly moronic. What is even more shocking is that various proposals backed by "experts" (such as compulsory education, mandatory vaccinations, etc.) have proven failures, but people still refuse to abolish them because they are backed by. . . . experts!
The expert-worship needs to stop. In a courtroom, you should a dozen middle-class working people in the jury box, and the experts on the witness stand, rather than vice versa.
Juan:Citizens arrest. If somebody commits a crime, you either arrest them yourself, or hire somebody else to do it. Hire people to arrest people ? Isn't that a private 'police' ? And you favor locking people up instead of making them pay restitution ?
Obviously a criminal has to be "locked up" or he won't show up for trial.
It seems to me that there could be many different market solutions to consumers demanding protection or arbitration services.
A higher time preference might lead a PDA owner to wage war against a competitor or a "judge" to accept bribes or even a legal organization to make fad/popular rulings, However...
Wouldn't an individual with a lower time preference run a more successful organization by avoiding these pitfalls?