filc:What makes you think consumers would continue to subscribe to a rigged game?
Maybe they don't know that it's rigged?
Maybe when they signed the contract with their employer, they didn't realize that Acme Law Corp was paid off by employers.
I repeat, the more jurors are on a case, and the more unpredictably they are assigned, the more difficult it is for money to influence the outcome.
"As long as there are sovereign nations possessing great power, war is inevitable."
Knight_of_BAAWA:Then you're inconsistent. Why not resolve the contradiction?
bloomj31:Because I think I stand to gain more from being inconsistent.
bloomj31:Let me tell you something I've learned in just 23 years of life. Those with integrity are often ruined by those without it. We live in a disgusting world.
ama gi: filc:What makes you think consumers would continue to subscribe to a rigged game? Maybe they don't know that it's rigged? Maybe when they signed the contract with their employer, they didn't realize that Acme Law Corp was paid off by employers. I repeat, the more jurors are on a case, and the more unpredictably they are assigned, the more difficult it is for money to influence the outcome.
I'm not making a pretend notion that corruption won't exist. My point is that it will be stifled by consumer sovereignty. It is not in a business's best interest to do not what consumers want.
What you have outlined above is precisely the system we have today. So I am confused at whether your defending my case? Or makeing a huge error in defense of yours.
bloomj31:Guys, your integrity is good. But look at what the Senate is doing. None of those men have integrity. AND YET, they're making negotiations will all our money. Nelson sold out. Where is his punishment? How does he lose now? By losing an election?
ama gi,
Could you please respond to this? if you don't want that's fine. maybe you skipped it on purpose.
I think this thread is to be focused on you, in a way, since you brought up the original post with questions and such to follow.
Angurse:There isn't any anarcho-capitalist commandment saying you need have such a thing. The plaintiff and defendant could just as easily take the case to the barber down the street.
But what happens when the crook doesn't agree to take the case to anyone?
Is there going to be some legally binding contract he signed that says he has to go to trial? Of course not.
The plaintiff and defendant cannot resolve the matter between themselves. If they could, there wouldn't be a dispute in the first place. That is why society has to set rules and establish courts of justice.
ama gi:society has to set rules and establish courts of justice.
Sure. But society hardly means state.
bloomj31:Sure, you guys win from a philosophical point of view.
ama gi:I'd take direct democracy over an-cap any day. An-caps seem to think that it's a good idea to have a hundred different PDAs and a hundred different courts with different law codes--and what could possibly go wrong?
Knight_of_BAAWA:What could possibly go wrong with letting people vote on rights! It's not like they could pass a law stating that blacks had to sit in the back of the bus. Oh wait--they could. It's not like they could pass a law stating that jews could not own property. Oh wait--they could.
ama gi:Not true.
bloomj31:The flaw is not the system. It's humans. We're the problem.
ama gi:You don't get it, do you? Whoever picks the judges and jurors gets to rig the game. That is why jurors should be picked at random (by lottery, or something).
ama gi: That is why society has to set rules and establish courts of justice.
yes, but which ones ? which rules? which courts? a root choice is that of monopoly ones on the one hand or competitive ones subject to consumer sovereignty on the other?
... but this is old news to you ?
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
wilderness: ama gi: 1 - Citizens arrest. If somebody commits a crime, you either arrest them yourself, or hire somebody else to do it. Wouldn't that be a logical, in other words, not impossible outcome of a no-state society?
ama gi: 1 - Citizens arrest. If somebody commits a crime, you either arrest them yourself, or hire somebody else to do it.
1 - Citizens arrest. If somebody commits a crime, you either arrest them yourself, or hire somebody else to do it.
Wouldn't that be a logical, in other words, not impossible outcome of a no-state society?
Yes of course.
wilderness: ama gi: 2 - 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. And why wouldn't that happen in a no-state society? Again logically, meaning it's not impossible, that this may be the case.
ama gi: 2 - 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.
2 - 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.
And why wouldn't that happen in a no-state society? Again logically, meaning it's not impossible, that this may be the case.
If you have a myriad of competing arbiters, PDAs, insurance companies, etc., it seems inevitable that a lot of haggling would take place. Whereas If you have a legal right to a trial-by-jury at the nearest courthouse, it makes things a bit simpler.
wilderness:"large" is arbritrary and vacuous in meaning. You gave a number but not a quality, meaning, and identity of who this 'group' is.
The idea is that the petitions would serve as guidelines for the courts.
For example, if one petition required the death penalty for certain crimes, and another petition with more signatures abolished the death penalty, the death penalty would become unconstitutional, unlawful, null and void.
The people are the legislature, and they make the laws.
Knight_of_BAAWA:Paid by whom? And wouldn't the whom look a lot like a PDA? If not--how not?
ama gi:Jurors would need to be paid by court costs, not some monthly or annual "subscription fee".
ama gi:The costs should be split evenly between both sides.
ama gi:Of course I understand consumer sovereignty. He who pays the piper calls the tune. Which is exactly why I ***DON'T*** want everything to be judged by professional private arbiters.
Knight_of_BAAWA: ama gi:You don't get it, do you? Whoever picks the judges and jurors gets to rig the game. That is why jurors should be picked at random (by lottery, or something).What if I don't consent to be a juror? What if no one does?
What if nobody consents to be an entrepreneur? What if nobody consents to be a worker, or an employer, or a retiree? huh? huh?
I'd like an answer to my question.
ama gi: Is there going to be some legally binding contract he signed that says he has to go to trial? Of course not.
In my country, if you decide to buy something on credit and then refuse to pay, the seller will likely report you to an organization that specializes in assessing an individual's creditworthiness. Scamming might work for you one or two times, then it's over. Prepayment or cash for you.So, if you decide to ride roughshod over people, institutions and standards on the free market, eventually, people will refuse to trade with you. After all, you appear to be dangerous to them. That's a form of punishment that doesn't require a contract you signed.
ama gi:What if nobody consents to be an entrepreneur? What if nobody consents to be a worker, or an employer, or a retiree? huh?
Then they are offered money ('purchasing power') this is an attempt to overcome their disutility of labour, and to effect their cooperation without recourse to violence.
Knight_of_BAAWA: ama gi:Of course I understand consumer sovereignty. He who pays the piper calls the tune. Which is exactly why I ***DON'T*** want everything to be judged by professional private arbiters.Ok...but what is it that you're arguing against here?
What I'm arguing against is a pluralty of arbitration services in favor of one single jury system that would be universally binding.
Sorry if I didn't make that clear.
bloomj31:Only if you view the state as a philosophical concept. Rather than what it really is. A political form. Politics is not necessarily about making philosophies consistent. I mean neither the Democrats nor the Republicans have a consistent platform. But they have power. Politics is about power. My main concern is with power, not being morally right or wrong. Power will always manifest itself. One way or another. There is no way to beat the state. It can only be molded. I want to mold it.
Power is determined by ideas. Ideas are determined by philosophy. Therefore, power is determined by philosophy.
A philosophic system is an integrated view of existence. As a human being, you have no choice about the fact that you need a philosophy. Your only choice is whether you define you philosophy by a conscious, rational, disciplined process of thought and scrupulously logical deliberation — or let your subconscious accumulate a junk heap of unwarranted conclusions, false generalizations, undefined contradictions, undigested slogans, unidentified wishes, doubts and fears, thrown together by chance, but integrated by your subconscious into a kind of mongrel philosophy and fused into a single, solid weight: self-doubt,like a ball and chain in the place where your mind's wings should have grown. ("Philosophy: Who Needs It?" by Ayn Rand)
You definitely need philosophy.
AnalyticalAnarchism.net - The Positive Political Economy of Anarchism
yes, you favour monopoly as a result of knowing so much economics
nirgrahamUK: ama gi:What if nobody consents to be an entrepreneur? What if nobody consents to be a worker, or an employer, or a retiree? huh? Then they are offered money ('purchasing power') this is an attempt to overcome their disutility of labour, and to effect their cooperation without recourse to violence.
Exactly!
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).
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).
I think I get your concern and what you are aiming for, but I can not accept the means that you are using. Basicly: you are centrally planning a society; no different than a state. (To be fair: I think I would prefer your system to the current state any day.)
What you are doing is presenting a end-state result of a society: 'this' is the way society should like. And this would be fine, if you would agree (but I assume you don't; otherwise you'd still be a anarcho-capitalist) that this should be a voluntary system, of which people can opt out in a way that doesn't violate their rights. Again: to be an anarchists is to say that we don't believe in agressive violence against innocent people - I think you and 'the anarchists' share thát concern. What you are saying is: I'm afraid anarchy will lead to a lot of violence. And this may or may not happen: that is true. But you have to ask yourself 2 questions. Questions I can't answer for you. First of all: does a state of anarchy - like the average anarchist sees it - tend to reduce violence or enlarge it, _given_ the way people think in what quantity and for what purpose violence is justified? My answer is: yes, it does. Given how people think about violence and when it should and should not be used: I think an anarchist system will produce less of it than a statist system. Second question: obviously the assumption 'a given state of views concerning violence' is an assumption witch, in the long run, is untendable: views change. But what kind of system will tend to have a more positive effect on what constitutes justified violence: anarchy or a state? Again: my answer is that in anarchy, the changes are higher that this view will be more peaceful than in a state. If all else fails - custom, mores, etc. - just for the simple fact that violence costs money and if you have to pay for it, you'll tend to use less of it. (I'm not saying that the homo oeconomicus assumption is the best one. I would prefer the case being made on empathy, sympathy, custom, etc. but after all of this, the simple fact that it is often very costly to use violence, will tend to reduce it as well. That is one of the reasons I'm an anarchist. People don't need centralized institutions to govern their affairs. Absence of coercive, centralized institutions doesn't mean a violent war of all against all - history proves this over and over again. (Not that 'anarchy = peaceful', but anarchist societies tend to be more peaceful then their statist counterparts - given relative the same background.)
I see no reason to a priori object to 'pda's', 'insurance companies' and 'private courts'. (I would say your 'trial by jury' in 'anarchy' would constitute a private court; though.) If you are against it: fine. If you can motivate enough people to join fraternal 'justice' organizations (or something of the sort): fine! Anarchy is, fundamentally, about the way people interact (and the lack of centralized coercive institutions.) (Their could be decentralized customary law which, for a libertarian perspective, is 'coercive' - like in the past - but this is always less than possible in a state.)
The fact that you say: 'the court will have automatic jurisdiction' doesn't sound very anarchistic to me. Simple economic thinking gets me to think that this would be (necassarily) a coercive monopoly (because, as I read your proposal, it should have a monopoly?) I see no reason too enact 'laws' by petition. I see no difference between a legislature and a direct democracy to which I didn't subscribe. Again: I think direct democracy will tend to be less coercive than a parliamentary system, but that doesn't make it anarchist. It will still be based on coercion; which I think is unjustified and cannot be a part of a anarchist society.
The state is not the enemy. The idea of the state is.
ama gi:Exactly!
ama gi: If you have a myriad of competing arbiters, PDAs, insurance companies, etc., it seems inevitable that a lot of haggling would take place. Whereas If you have a legal right to a trial-by-jury at the nearest courthouse, it makes things a bit simpler.
And how does "simple" not happen without the state. The state is arbritrary. Understand what that means. It means it is illogical. It doesn't make sense. It has piles and piles of arbritrary codes and rules that don't make sense at all. The ONLY way to even understand most of the legal code according to the state is to have to look it up because no logical person could EVER think up the state's legal code on their own. Why? because it's arbritrarily decided and forced together without due reason. That's what's complicated. I want what is simple too. The market is usually very simple because shops that get too complicated will get no consumers cause nobody could ever possibly understand them.
ama gi: wilderness:"large" is arbritrary and vacuous in meaning. You gave a number but not a quality, meaning, and identity of who this 'group' is. The idea is that the petitions would serve as guidelines for the courts. For example, if one petition required the death penalty for certain crimes, and another petition with more signatures abolished the death penalty, the death penalty would become unconstitutional, unlawful, null and void. The people are the legislature, and they make the laws.
People always make the laws. Robots currently don't. I merely said that to show contrast to what you asserted. How is what you said not achievable in a free market? Meaning, you like the idea of people petitioning together and deciding upon a set of rules. So they voluntarily get together and decide. Those that come up with any ideas to add to the petition have to market those ideas to all the people involved in drawing up the petition, unless, of course, you are saying this petition is drawn up by coercion and it is not voluntary.
ama gi:What I'm arguing against is a pluralty of arbitration services in favor of one single jury system that would be universally binding.
ama gi: I'd take direct democracy over an-cap any day. An-caps seem to think that it's a good idea to have a hundred different PDAs and a hundred different courts with different law codes--and what could possibly go wrong? I, for one, prefer not to take that chance.
I'd take direct democracy over an-cap any day. An-caps seem to think that it's a good idea to have a hundred different PDAs and a hundred different courts with different law codes--and what could possibly go wrong?
I, for one, prefer not to take that chance.
I would say that this is a straw man, since you are attacking a certain kind of end-result that you predict, whilest the anarchist way is principles of interaction; not the end-result.
It's a shame you don't know that the history of the Western world is, in essence, build upon different law courts, different protection agencies and different courts. And while the history isn't a peaceful, I'll doubt it would be any more peaceful if it were to be monopolized. The era of the nation state doesn't seem to be peaceful to me - to you? (The interesting link between the nation state and big business is another matter; Deirdre Mccloskey has some interesting stuff on it in "The Argument of Bourgeois Dignity: Why Economics can't Explain the Modern world".
I see no problem in diversity in organizations giving us justice. Coöperation and competition can go together. Your predicting 'clash' - or so it reads - but why is this more likely in an anarchist society than in your 'direct democracy'? Direct democracy can only work if the minority thinks the process through witch decisions are made is legit. No different assumption is made for anarchy.
ama gi: What I'm arguing against is a pluralty of arbitration services in favor of one single jury system that would be universally binding. Sorry if I didn't make that clear.
That is an argument for a world state, as there are hundreds of sovereign states in existence today, each with their own laws and court system.
How do they manage?
The fallacies of intellectual communism, a compilation - On the nature of power
laminustacitus: 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.
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.
I am sorry you think this is how it actually works.
If a man breaks into your house:
1. He does his crime.. a rape or a theft or a murder, then he takes off into the night. You call the cops, the cops arrive in 5 minutes, and they try to find evidence of what happened and who did it. Nobody was protected. They could only act after the fact.
2. You pull a gun and he runs for his life. Then you call the police, they try to find evidence of what happened and who did it. They still protect nobody. You protected yourself. Maybe you pulled a knife and you wielded it effectively, or you know some kung fu. You are your own best protection.
The police can never protect you in a majority of situations.
Laws do nothing to protect us or to prevent crime. Laws can only prohibit. Prohibit.. Prohibition on Alcohol in American. Which is now gone, but we still have Prohibition on Drugs. Which is showing to be an utter failing of protecting us from people doing bad things.
The private market, with the security systems and devices, night-watchmen, bodyguards, owning your own gun, owning your own mace/pepper spray, private security all do a more efficient job at protecting human beings than the statist police do.
You observe, but you do not see.
Justin Laws: laminustacitus: 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. I am sorry you think this is how it actually works. If a man breaks into your house: 1. He does his crime.. a rape or a theft or a murder, then he takes off into the night. You call the cops, the cops arrive in 5 minutes, and they try to find evidence of what happened and who did it. Nobody was protected. They could only act after the fact. 2. You pull a gun and he runs for his life. Then you call the police, they try to find evidence of what happened and who did it. They still protect nobody. You protected yourself. Maybe you pulled a knife and you wielded it effectively, or you know some kung fu. You are your own best protection. The police can never protect you in a majority of situations. Laws do nothing to protect us or to prevent crime. Laws can only prohibit. Prohibit.. Prohibition on Alcohol in American. Which is now gone, but we still have Prohibition on Drugs. Which is showing to be an utter failing of protecting us from people doing bad things. The private market, with the security systems and devices, night-watchmen, bodyguards, owning your own gun, owning your own mace/pepper spray, private security all do a more efficient job at protecting human beings than the statist police do.
Also in such a situation plan on waiting months, or years for your supposed justice to come.
Knight_of_BAAWA: bloomj31:The flaw is not the system. It's humans. We're the problem.So the solution is to put humans in charge? The solution is a human-run coercive monopoly?
I'm saying there is no permanent solution. There will always be governments. So what do we do?
bloomj31:I'm saying there is no permanent solution. There will always be governments. So what do we do?
Make them as responsive to incentives as possible.
Sage: Power is determined by ideas. Ideas are determined by philosophy. Therefore, power is determined by philosophy.
Power is a function of numbers and arms. There is no morality to power and no philosophy. It's a separate subject.
Knight_of_BAAWA: Eventually he'll die, as we all do. If nothing else, that will be the justice. Your questions belie a naive belief in Ultimate Justice.
Eventually he'll die, as we all do. If nothing else, that will be the justice. Your questions belie a naive belief in Ultimate Justice.
That's not good enough for me.
Angurse: Make them as responsive to incentives as possible.
Isn't that a nice idea. But their incentives is power. How do you deincentivize power?
bloomj31:Isn't that a nice idea. But their incentives is power. How do you deincentivize power?
No their incentive is running and maintaining a coercive monopoly and reaping the benefits there in. Remove that and they would have to seek their power elsewhere, perhaps on the market making something of actual value.
bloomj31: Angurse: Make them as responsive to incentives as possible. Isn't that a nice idea. But their incentives is power. How do you deincentivize power?
Power is the ability to injure without retaliation. You can eliminate power by giving everyone the means to retaliate with maximum force.
filc: bloomj31:Isn't that a nice idea. But their incentives is power. How do you deincentivize power? No their incentive is running and maintaining a coercive monopoly and reaping the benefits there in. Remove that and they would have to seek their power elsewhere, perhaps on the market making something of actual value.
But you can't eliminate the government.