Possibly our thinking is fixed in the concepts of the modern state of area, jurisdiction and the workings of bureaucracy and organs of the state like the police.
... What if the offender would be able to rely on his own protection agency to repel the attempted arrest?
That is where my previous comment about trying cases before councils has its impact. Any protection agency that protected people convicted by a respected council would quickly be regarded as a criminal organization itself (and protecting a convicted criminal would probably be grounds for conviction and punishment itself). Then, public opinion would come into play and the protection agency would probably lose most or all of its legitimate, non-criminal customers.
Grant: justinx0r:This is one of the major reasons I do not identify myself as an anarcho-capitalist. I've read about free market courts and how they would work but (at least in my eyes) there is a fundamental flaw.Say I steal someones car in Baltimore and drive it up to Boston. The person I stole from would go to a free market court and press charges on me, ordering me to appear in court. What if I refuse? They can't do anything about it since I own myself and I am innocent until proven guilty. How would you solve a dilemma such as this? There is no ideal "solution", the problem in market anarchy is the same as it is with governments. If you refuse to appear in court, the police firm(s) which have jurisdiction over Boston would need an agreement with firms in Baltimore to be able to arrest you (or have you arrested, depending on the level of cooperation between the firms). If they did not have permission from the Boston firms, they would not be able to arrest you peacefully. Similar things happen between countries today.
justinx0r:This is one of the major reasons I do not identify myself as an anarcho-capitalist. I've read about free market courts and how they would work but (at least in my eyes) there is a fundamental flaw.Say I steal someones car in Baltimore and drive it up to Boston. The person I stole from would go to a free market court and press charges on me, ordering me to appear in court. What if I refuse? They can't do anything about it since I own myself and I am innocent until proven guilty. How would you solve a dilemma such as this?
How would you solve a dilemma such as this?
There is no ideal "solution", the problem in market anarchy is the same as it is with governments. If you refuse to appear in court, the police firm(s) which have jurisdiction over Boston would need an agreement with firms in Baltimore to be able to arrest you (or have you arrested, depending on the level of cooperation between the firms). If they did not have permission from the Boston firms, they would not be able to arrest you peacefully. Similar things happen between countries today.
You are trying to think of a free market way to enforce the status quo, but thats not what would happen.
Firms would not have jurisdictions, only clients.
In a free market, or any truly libertarian justice system, people would not be arrested until after they have been convicted. You have fallen for the Statist contradiction that people are innocent until proven guilty, but we hold them in jail until a trial proves them innocent.
Peace
Webster:You speak as if a firm needed jurisdiction to arrest someone. Why would jurisdiction be necessary if the firm does not have a monopoly on force in the area (in which case it just becomes a different form of government) and if no consent was required on the part of the person arrested?
Because the arresting firm needs to travel to another area and enter other's property in order to make the arrest. They must have permission to do this. Each individual property owner could grant them this permission, or (more likely) permission would be granted indirectly by the protection agencies those properties have contracted. If the needed permission is denied, the firm may choose to use force (and it may have good reasons to do so).
This permission could be denied for good reasons. For example, Taliban police cannot come to America and enforce laws which require men to have beards of a certain length. Their permission to do this is denied, just as it would be denied under market anarchism. Under anarchism, the network effect would give firms representing culturally similar clients incentives to cooperate in aprehending criminals.
JonBostwick:You are trying to think of a free market way to enforce the status quo, but thats not what would happen. Firms would not have jurisdictions, only clients.
Firms would not have jurisdictions on their own, as you say. But they would have jurisdiction through their contracts with clients.
JonBostwick:In a free market, or any truly libertarian justice system, people would not be arrested until after they have been convicted. You have fallen for the Statist contradiction that people are innocent until proven guilty, but we hold them in jail until a trial proves them innocent.
I disagree. Their behavior would be determined by their contracts. This may lead to arrests before trials, or it may not. The individuals buying protection would choose what they feel is best for them, and the market would provide.
If you have stolen money from me, I have a right to enter your property and seize it by force, regardless of whether you allow me to do it. As far as I can see, this is a fundemental rule of nature that no political system can erase, Yes, they would need to obtain the permission of all other property owners, but that does not change the essential rule. The Taliban should not be permitted to come over and enforce beard lengths simply because having a beard of the wrong length would be a victimless "crime", or, in more accurate words, no crime at all.
I actually question whether your form of anarchanism has any advantages over an enforcement-only minarchism. Your state has corporations with a monopoly on force who are responsible for enforcing laws. The only difference is that you control these corporations by market forces, rather than votes. I refuse to call any system in which I cannot collect restitution for a crime commited against me because some bureaucracy disallows my claim anarchy.
There is a reason for why don't want a minarchy beyond your analysis webster. And that is because the state harbors an anti-effective organizational structure as Michael Rozeff explains in his lecture, The State as an Organization. It always wreaks havoc whatever checks and balances you try to impose because those checks are of an artificial structure and not part of the natural systems of accountrability. Just look, how long did it take for the Federal government to break it's cage? A couple of years! The founding fathers themself started to tear down the checks and balances.
States are unreignable!
Grant: Webster:You speak as if a firm needed jurisdiction to arrest someone. Why would jurisdiction be necessary if the firm does not have a monopoly on force in the area (in which case it just becomes a different form of government) and if no consent was required on the part of the person arrested? Because the arresting firm needs to travel to another area and enter other's property in order to make the arrest. They must have permission to do this. Each individual property owner could grant them this permission, or (more likely) permission would be granted indirectly by the protection agencies those properties have contracted. If the needed permission is denied, the firm may choose to use force (and it may have good reasons to do so). This permission could be denied for good reasons. For example, Taliban police cannot come to America and enforce laws which require men to have beards of a certain length. Their permission to do this is denied, just as it would be denied under market anarchism. Under anarchism, the network effect would give firms representing culturally similar clients incentives to cooperate in aprehending criminals. JonBostwick:You are trying to think of a free market way to enforce the status quo, but thats not what would happen. Firms would not have jurisdictions, only clients.Firms would not have jurisdictions on their own, as you say. But they would have jurisdiction through their contracts with clients. JonBostwick:In a free market, or any truly libertarian justice system, people would not be arrested until after they have been convicted. You have fallen for the Statist contradiction that people are innocent until proven guilty, but we hold them in jail until a trial proves them innocent. I disagree. Their behavior would be determined by their contracts. This may lead to arrests before trials, or it may not. The individuals buying protection would choose what they feel is best for them, and the market would provide.
You need to read Rothbard.
If you hold someone in jail, then a trial determines they were innocent you have kidnapped an innocent person and are now liable. It doesn't matter if you want to hire someone to arrest people before they are convicted, you have to find a firm that is willing to expose themselves to that risk in order to do it. You are dramatically underestimating the power of voluntary industry standards.
How can you say market anarchy would deny the Talban to come to America? Under market anarchy there would be no Talban, no America, and no regional security monopolies. It would be nothing a like!
Under market anarchy, the only thing keeping the Talban from imposing their rules on non-clients is the collective might of the security industry and fear out being denied access to other markets. Firms that do not adhere to industry standards would be subject to a continual state of warfare, as other firms defend their clients. For this reason, they will either live peacefully or be destroyed. But fortunately, the market system maximizes incentives to live peacefully.
JonBostwick:If you hold someone in jail, then a trial determines they were innocent you have kidnapped an innocent person and are now liable. It doesn't matter if you want to hire someone to arrest people before they are convicted, you have to find a firm that is willing to expose themselves to that risk in order to do it. You are dramatically underestimating the power of voluntary industry standards.
No, I'm just assuming that people will not suddenly become radical libertarians if market anarchism is adopted. Given that people obviously see some utility in non-libertarian forms of justice, I don't think it is reasonable to say that they would find imprisonment before conviction such a bad thing. And it would not be unjust either, if it was allowed through contracts signed by the property owner the arrested was on when he was arrested. I think what would end up happening is that firms would arrest before conviction in cases where they'd have public support (so hopefully only for things like murder, and not "disturbing the peace" and other such silly "crimes").
It would not be treated as kidnapping simply because most people don't consider arrests kidnapping. If you are assuming a population of libertarians, then of course you'd be correct.
JonBostwick:How can you say market anarchy would deny the Talban to come to America? Under market anarchy there would be no Talban, no America, and no regional security monopolies. It would be nothing a like!
There could be. Market anarchy is capable of reproducing the exact same system of government that we have now, all through voluntary contracts. I don't think that is very likely, but it is possible. America and would still exist in geography and culture, and so its likely that the police forces across America, while not being monopolies, would all follow similar procedures. The network effect and economics of scale mean that uniformity in procedure would probably be common among similar cultures. As Rothbard pointed out, this isn't the same thing as a true monopoly.
JonBostwick:Under market anarchy, the only thing keeping the Talban from imposing their rules on non-clients is the collective might of the security industry and fear out being denied access to other markets. Firms that do not adhere to industry standards would be subject to a continual state of warfare, as other firms defend their clients. For this reason, they will either live peacefully or be destroyed. But fortunately, the market system maximizes incentives to live peacefully.
I'll agree with that, but my point was that the network effect produces uniform operating standards in both America and Afghanistan. Well, America is a large country, and so all procedures would certainly not be uniform, but there are many things American security forces would like share (such as trial by jury). In any case, the networks of America and Afghanistan would most certainly be incompatible, and would not allow each other to enforce crimes on their soil.
This is one of the major reasons I do not identify myself as an anarcho-capitalist. I've read about free market courts and how they would work but (at least in my eyes) there is a fundamental flaw.Say I steal someones car in Baltimore and drive it up to Boston. The person I stole from would go to a free market court and press charges on me, ordering me to appear in court. What if I refuse? They can't do anything about it since I own myself and I am innocent until proven guilty.
They wouldn't order you to appear in court. There are really two considerations. 1) You are insured 2) You are uninsured
If you have insurance, your agent would contact the car owner's agent in order to avoid further liability. An arbitration hearing would be held where your agent defended you. You would be found guilty and damages would be assessed. Your agent would pay the damages, which would, no doubt, involve a deductable (assuming, of course, that you are insured for stealing cars). You might then have your insurance cancelled or your premium increased to mitigate the risk you pose. If you were unable to pay, you would be held as an indentured servant until your debt was payed (anything from wage garnishment to forced labor depending on the danger you pose and your ability to conform. You would be responsible for paying to collect your debt. If you allowed your wages to be garnished you could pay your debt faster than if you required incarceration and forced work detail to collect because you would pay for your own incarceration).
Without insurance, you would be represented by either yourself or a defense lawyer that you hired. You would not be arrested, and would not be required to appear in court. If you won the case, the lawyer would be paid for by the firm which made you defend yourself, and you would be free. If you lost, you would be made to pay for your lawyer, the cost of bringing you to justice, and damages to the plaintiff.
In either case, you would not be held until you were guilty. If you are guilty and present in the court, you would be arrested then. If you were guilty and not present, a warrant would be issued. If you were dangerous or a flight risk, a bounty hunter (or several) would be hired, at your expense, to arrest and deliver you.
The advantage of this system is 4-fold:
1. Everybody would be free until proven guilty. (Habeous corpus would not be necessary)
2. Nobody would be required to hold insurance. (Coersive taxation would be eliminated)
3. Only the broadest laws would be used to prosecute. (Technicalities would be removed from defenses to speed prosecution)
4. Victimless crimes would not be prosecuted. (Law would refocus on justice - not politics)
Grant: No, I'm just assuming that people will not suddenly become radical libertarians if market anarchism is adopted. Given that people obviously see some utility in non-libertarian forms of justice, I don't think it is reasonable to say that they would find imprisonment before conviction such a bad thing. And it would not be unjust either, if it was allowed through contracts signed by the property owner the arrested was on when he was arrested. I think what would end up happening is that firms would arrest before conviction in cases where they'd have public support (so hopefully only for things like murder, and not "disturbing the peace" and other such silly "crimes"). It would not be treated as kidnapping simply because most people don't consider arrests kidnapping. If you are assuming a population of libertarians, then of course you'd be correct.
Grant: I'll agree with that, but my point was that the network effect produces uniform operating standards in both America and Afghanistan. Well, America is a large country, and so all procedures would certainly not be uniform, but there are many things American security forces would like share (such as trial by jury). In any case, the networks of America and Afghanistan would most certainly be incompatible, and would not allow each other to enforce crimes on their soil.
Grant:There could be. Market anarchy is capable of reproducing the exact same system of government that we have now, all through voluntary contracts. I don't think that is very likely, but it is possible. America and would still exist in geography and culture, and so its likely that the police forces across America, while not being monopolies, would all follow similar procedures. The network effect and economics of scale mean that uniformity in procedure would probably be common among similar cultures. As Rothbard pointed out, this isn't the same thing as a true monopoly
Well, if market anarchy reproduces the results governments do right now, why would one prefer it over present day governmental systems?
But you are having a point. Even without a government in the conventional sense people similar in culture and character tend to follow similar patterns in their actions.That's why business practices in a country and amongst certain population groups are so similar, even predictable.
I agree that no form of government is truly safe, but I also believe that your system of government by private bureaucracy would be liable to the same corruptions. It is not the name government that causes corruption, but the power given to government. If we place enough power in private security companies, they would find a means to enslave us.
I do not think that any system of justice dependant on the consent of the criminal is likely to succeed. I would assume that no person who wishes to go about stealing cars would consent to a contract that would allow him to be imprisoned without a conviction. Besides, does holding someone in jail for a week or two make a trial somehow more legitimate? I think not. Simply announce a trial date and render judgement in absentio if necessary.
This system sounds like lawyer hell. I do IT for a corporate defense law firm, and I get a pretty good look at how the current legal system works regarding legal contracts between our clients and our clients' clients. The proposed system will replace the government machine with an explosion of additional lawyers, mediations, and trials. Utlimately, you are seeking to expand the judicial branch of government to encompass the executive and legislative branches of government... whether or not you assign judges in some kind of convoluted free market system only complicates the process, but it doesn't change that you've created an all powerful judical branch and dispensed with the checks and balances that protect citizens in a democracy.
I am not at all convinced that economic forces will prevent corporate misdoings. From my vantage point, it appears corporations will rape and pillage for a profit. Leaving it to individuals to take corporations to court for redress is very impractical. Huge corporations can use motions and counter motions to draw out litigation indefinitely, bankrupting small parties in court. Also, many corporate crimes are against the environment in general, and individual harms won't be evident until long after the fact, if ever.
Claiming that the rich get away with murder in the U.S. is a broad and unsupported claim. I'm sure we can throw around antecdotes, but show me proof that our current legal system doesn't hold the wealthy accountable for murder. Yet this claim is being used to promote a system where human life is reduced to economics and the ability to hire protection. This sounds a lot like how the mob runs neighborhoods and cities.
In my humble opinion, those supporting this system of governance are asking us to trust our environment, our safety, and the well-being of our children to economic mob rule, hordes of lawyers, and corporate self interest without even a publically elected body to provide oversite. Before countering with how the free market will magically make this system into a utopia, show me statistics of how free enterprise brings security and order in the absence of government. If I'm not mistaken, the wild west was short on government and heavy on free enterprise.
Pennsuedo:This system sounds like lawyer hell. Ultimately, you are seeking to expand the judicial branch of government to encompass the executive and legislative branches of government... whether or not you assign judges in some kind of convoluted free market system only complicates the process, but it doesn't change that you've created an all powerful judicial branch and dispensed with the checks and balances that protect citizens in a democracy.
Pennsuedo:I am not at all convinced that economic forces will prevent corporate misdoings. From my vantage point, it appears corporations will rape and pillage for a profit. Leaving it to individuals to take corporations to court for redress is very impractical. Huge corporations can use motions and counter motions to draw out litigation indefinitely, bankrupting small parties in court. Also, many corporate crimes are against the environment in general, and individual harms won't be evident until long after the fact, if ever.
Pennsuedo:In my humble opinion, those supporting this system of governance are asking us to trust our environment, our safety, and the well-being of our children to economic mob rule, hordes of lawyers, and corporate self interest without even a publically elected body to provide over site. Before countering with how the free market will magically make this system into a utopia, show me statistics of how free enterprise brings security and order in the absence of government. If I'm not mistaken, the wild west was short on government and heavy on free enterprise.
Here is an article and some excerpts:
"An American Experiment in Anarcho-Capitalsim: The NOT So Wild, Wild West." T. Anderson & P. Hill (http://www.mises.org/journals/jls/3_1/3_1_2.pdf)"1) The West, although often dependent upon market peace keeping agencies, was, for the most part, orderly.2) Different standards of justice did prevail and various preferences for rules were expressed through the market place.3) Competition in defending and adjudicating rights does have beneficial effects. Market agencies provided useful ways of measuring the efficiency of government alternatives. The fact that government's monopoly on coercion was not taken as seriously as at present meant that when that monopoly was poorly used market alternatives arose. Even when these market alternatives did become "governments" in the sense of having a virtual monopoly on coercion, the fact that such firms were usually quite small provided significant checks on their behavior. Clients could leave or originate protective agencies on their own. Without formal legal sanctions, the private agencies did face a "market test" and the rate of survival of such agencies was much less than under government." "In conclusion, it appears in the absence of formal government, that the western frontier was not as wild as legend would have us believe. The market did provide protection and arbitration agencies that functioned very effectively, either as a complete replacement for formal government or as a supplement to that government. However, the same desire for power that treates problems in government also seemed to create difficulties at times in the West. All was not peaceful. Especially when Schelling points were lacking, disorder and chaos resulted, lending support to Buchanan's contention that agreement on initial rights is important to anarcho-capitalism. When this agreement existed, however, we have presented evidence that anarcho-capitalism was viable on the frontier."
Pennsuedo:This system sounds like lawyer hell. I do IT for a corporate defense law firm, and I get a pretty good look at how the current legal system works regarding legal contracts between our clients and our clients' clients. The proposed system will replace the government machine with an explosion of additional lawyers, mediations, and trials. Utlimately, you are seeking to expand the judicial branch of government to encompass the executive and legislative branches of government... whether or not you assign judges in some kind of convoluted free market system only complicates the process, but it doesn't change that you've created an all powerful judical branch and dispensed with the checks and balances that protect citizens in a democracy.
Branches. And they aren't all-powerful; they only have rule where there is prior consent.
Huge corporations do use those tactics. Small corporations don't, because they can't afford to. The problem is the system which allows those tactics in the first place. If two actors form an agreement (contract) with one another and agree to 3rd-party enforcement (a system of justice), each does so because they believe it will benefit them. Assuming this belief is more or less correct (i.e., symmetrical information), they will both benefit from this enforcement. This is a market exchange, the same as a traded good. Because of this, both parties' self-interest involves an efficient and accurate resolution of any conflicts.
Ask yourself, absent of market forces, how can contract enforcement be done rationally? How can the enforcer know when the cost is too high because of excessive accuracy? How can the enforcer know the accuracy is too low because of excessive cost-cutting? The answer is, it can't. As Mises and Hayek pointed out, the only way to rationally arrive at prices is through the market mechanism. Absent that, there is no way to arrive at rational costs for speed and accuracy in judicial decisions.
Even in modern democracies, private arbitration is generally agreed to because its far easier and faster than public courts, e.g.: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arbitration_in_the_United_States_of_America
I do wonder if lawyers in their current incarnation would survive in market anarchism. I hope not many would.
Pennsuedo:Claiming that the rich get away with murder in the U.S. is a broad and unsupported claim. I'm sure we can throw around antecdotes, but show me proof that our current legal system doesn't hold the wealthy accountable for murder. Yet this claim is being used to promote a system where human life is reduced to economics and the ability to hire protection. This sounds a lot like how the mob runs neighborhoods and cities.
It already is reduced to that. Fortunately, America is rich enough to have good protection. There is a reason richer countries are safer. Aside from the fact that richer counties tend to be made rich by voluntary cooperation (the practical opposite of crime), rich countries can afford the division of labor necessary to train people like honest police. I won't say market anarchism will reduce the number of rich people getting away with murder, because it may very well be that our courts spend too many resources prosecuting the rich when it could go after easier and more plentiful targets.
Pennsuedo:In my humble opinion, those supporting this system of governance are asking us to trust our environment, our safety, and the well-being of our children to economic mob rule, hordes of lawyers, and corporate self interest without even a publically elected body to provide oversite. Before countering with how the free market will magically make this system into a utopia, show me statistics of how free enterprise brings security and order in the absence of government. If I'm not mistaken, the wild west was short on government and heavy on free enterprise.
I do not think rhetoric will win you arguments in this crowd. People would trust their safety and well-being to themselves, and their own decisions. No one would force a judicial system or lawyers on any of them. As I mentioned before, they could even reproduce a constitutional republic if they wanted to, through voluntary contracts. Judges could be appointed democratically, if that is what the market demanded. The only real difference between market anarchism and the US Constitution is that anarchism would allow secession from the constitutional contract (unless it was specifically prohibited, in which case it never would have been ratified). Unfortunately, the institution of slavery has given secession in the US a very bad name.
The state of law and order in the old American West is relatively irrelevant. It was a case of people appropriating unowned resources, and those will always be fought over unless the actors involve share compatible ethics and goals. This is the same whether or not the people appropriating come from democracies, monarchies, anarchies, or socialist communes.
If you want examples of how the market brings security in the absence of government, look around you! People aren't more honest than they were 500 years ago because police punish them for every wrong doing. They are more honest because they've grown to realize how voluntary cooperation and the division of labor produce more wealth and prosperity for everyone. Unlike voluntary cooperation, governments have a less-thrilling track record of protecting justice, as they've commonly done just the opposite.
You don't try to enforce contracts that someone backed out. You get the contract insured and create a fiscal accountability.
In regards to the OP: You've got it wrong. Courts are actually quite redundant in anarchy. You see, a person would protect themselves from theft in two manners.
1. Protection before the fact.
2. Restitution after the fact.
We are concerned with the second. In this case, individuals will purchase insurance and possibly services to track down the stolen property. Courts are unnecessary.
TravStew:In regards to the OP: You've got it wrong. Courts are actually quite redundant in anarchy. You see, a person would protect themselves from theft in two manners. 1. Protection before the fact. 2. Restitution after the fact. We are concerned with the second. In this case, individuals will purchase insurance and possibly services to track down the stolen property. Courts are unnecessary.
The main problem is that we are used to think in the terms of the existing court practices. First in a free society, if someone press charges he would have to enclose evidence, without the evidence, the court would dismiss the charges and nobody would bother you. If there is evidence, then the court would have the right to decide on the case even in case of absence of the defendant. Of course it would be in your interest to show up and to defend yourself (to prove that the evidence isn't convicting), but if you think you don't have to do that, you are perfectly free to don't show up in the court. But if the court finds you guilty, then according to the principles of the free society and moral, you would have to pay the damages to the injured side. If you don't want to do that, the court can order a use of force (not physical) and to size assets from you in the amount of damages you are owed. The reason of justice and courts in a free society is not punishment; it is to pay the damage to the injured side. In a case of fatal injuries, like murder it isn't possible, in that case the murder have to pay the damages to the family of the victim (if you kill somebody the family lost is in many domains, one of those domains is material especially in a case that you kill the income generating member of a family) and after that the society and the court which is made by the members of that society has the right to live without the convicted murderer, so they can send the murderer away. If he don't want to go away or if there is no such a place where he can go (present situation), the society should make one (prison, but not the kind of prison we have), but we don't have the right to execute him, nor has the right to restrain there freedom, we just have the right to live without interfering them, but they should be free outside the borders of our society (or inside the borders of the prison), the only justifiable killing is self defense, the only justifiable restrain of freedom is enforcing to pay the damages. Nor execution or the bonds on the hands of a murderer won’t bring back the killed one, so there is no justification and certainly no right in the natural rights philosophy for any of that solution. But we have the right to live without convicted murderers and we have the right to defend ourselves from them in a case they attack us or our property.
Well, let me know why would justice be the case that the people who are paying insurance have to pay the damages to the injured instead of the injurer? It has no sense. Courts would be a very important part of an anarcho-capitalist society, but as I told in a previous post, the reason of existence of the courts isn't punishment; it is a restitution of the damages to the injured side.
How is forcing someone to leave not restraining their freedom?
I agree. I dislike the typical market anarchist emphasis on insurance because ultimately an insurance company must extract its costs from its clients, and thus if your insurance makes the damage good without itself extracting damages from the original perpetrator you end up paying for the damage yourself. I also reject the argument that insurance companies are necessary to determine if the damages are worth recovering from the criminal, because the criminal should be liable for the costs in recovering damages as well. If I steal from you, neither you nor your insurance company nor your protection agency should lose anything financially.
The ansver is quite simple :) you can force someone from your property without restraining his freedom, that is what we call right to defence your life and your property. Now if someone is a convicted murderer there is no question that he is a threat to your life and your property. And the street, the city is somehow the property of the people living in that society (some parts are directly your property - your house etc. and some parts are shared property) so you as an individual can ask the court to defend your life, property and all other individuals can do the same, which mean when you forcing a convicted murderer out of the society, you actualy doing nothing else than defending your life and property. One question arise, what about the property of the murderer, do he have the same right, the right to defend his property? I think his property whatever large, is to small as a restitution to the family of the victim, so hes property should be seized and transfered to the family of the victim. Some other questions arise also, like what will happend with the family of the murderer, as they are not responsible for the crime. Well the same question can be asked, what happens to the family of a man who lose his property on a poker game? It is his responsibility and the responsibility of his famly also, the responsibility of the parents because they failed in transfering moral values to their kid (the murderer), and of course the responsibility of the other members of the family also. Another question, how will those folks survive? Another answer the same way as the family of the gambler who lose his property. Is it cruel? Not at all.
I think that it would be difficult to get a murderer banished from everyone's property without any court system (even a private one) to legitimize your accusation. I also think that seizing all of his property is no more justified than killing him (and less so, actually, as killing him can be justified by a law of retaliation while seizing his property is not justified under any standard of proportionality). If you follow a law of restitution, and I kill an aged and infirm relative of yours who contributes no money but is instead a financial drain on the family, and I am a billionare, what law of restitution allows you to take my billions?
Very interesting points. Lets utilize the Austrian school's marginal theory of value, so 1 life vs. 1 billion dollar, but if I am right, we can't put a number on this comparison (according to the marginal theory of value), we can only put it in a subjective order. You will probably think twice to kill a man if you know that you will lose your billion and will be banned from interaction and life with “normal people” and would spend the rest of your life isolated or among other murderers. In the other side most of the murderers kill with an expectation that they wouldn't be caught, so this would weaken my theory a little. But your family, especially your parents would probably do a much better job in transferring moral values on you if they know that the entire family can suffer if you murder someone. You will also think twice if you know that your crime is not simply a potential "jail" for you but that your children will also suffer. This would probably raise the feeling for responsibility so there would be a much bigger chance that you won’t become a murderer at all. Also seizing property is a reversible act, killing someone is not; and beside that the restitution to the victim (and because he is dead so it means to his descendants/family) is a just case. Execution anyway in practice means only one thing - you will REPLACE the murderer with yourself- killing a murderer would make you a murderer if we maintain that the only justifiable killing is self defense, and execution is not self defense.
Whether or not it is an insurance plan or the state. You are still paying for other people's evil deeds.
Regarding removing someone forcefully in a situation where your property rights are violated. Well you don't respond by force the first thing you do. You have to establish intention that the other person is out to harm you.
When someone is intentionally out to violate the laws you set for your kingdom. That human can no longer be seen in regards to right as anything but equal to a beast. Because the beast and the human-villian have one thing in common, the disrespect for your laws. You can splash his brains out on the ground if you deem so necessary just like you would do with a beast.
For anyone following a natural-rights position, an aggressor loses his rights to the extent that he violates yours, and may not coherently object to his rights being violated to that extent. It is also necessary that the aggressor make good for any harm they have caused. PDAs may ask their clients to refrain from executions and may refuse to carry them out of course. Additionally, if it is proven that someone has indeed perpetrated an act of aggression, then they must cover all the procedural costs involved - victimized individuals and their PDAs will not suffer liability.
Well, I am not sure about this. A man is a man he is a reasonable creature and this is true even if he don't act according to the moral principles and laws. A beast is not reasonable and as such it isn't violating your rights because it isn't aware of them. A man even a murderer is a completely different story. So you can't just kill him as a beast and say, I just kill the beast. You have the right to defend yourself and if the only way to do that is to kill him, then it is OK, other ways you become a murderer because you violate the attacker rights simply because you kill him without a reason or simply you could defend your life/property without killing the attacker. And of course he must pay you the damages, he don't have to be punished, because punishment is first totally incompatible with freedom and natural rights philosophy, second it won't do any good to the injured side so it is completely unnecessary. An injured has the right for his life and his property but not a right to someone else life and property, and punishment would mean exactly the later.
It is worth to mention, that probably the reason why Mises was not an anarchist is that he did not believed that the anarchist society (even if it has no logical flaw) is possible. Why? Because Mises never forget the importance of Praxeology. Most people know that Mises was a very important economist, most of us even repeat the line "Mises the best economist of all time", but the truth is that most people do not really understand the importance of Mises, the importance of Praxeology. One of the reason that we are basically unable to find any flaw in Mises works (except a few glitches / minor flaws maybe… which is nothing but a proof that he was just a human being), is because he applied Praxeology on every question when he tried to give an answer. And Praxeology told us, that a man acts because he is expecting that after this act his state, his position his life will be better than before the act. And if his believes are weak or "wrong" he is perfectly capable to act even against himself (both aware and unaware) and of course against other men. So this straightforward reason told Mises that anarchism is probably unachievable. That’s why he joined the club of a "strictly limited government as a necessary evil" gentlemen’s. And what would Praxeology tell us about private courts? First that if there is not a monopoly of the court over a certain territory (we can call it jurisdiction), and there would be competing courts, then there could and there will be competing court decisions. Rothbard would say, that the market would eliminate the bad court, because they will lose the clients the people who are need they services and pay for the services. But this assumption, I believe has a little flaw… that the reason we need courts in the first place is the criminals, the people who acts against our rights, life and property. So those people would want a bad court a court which will decide in their interest. This would lead us to the point where two or more courts decide differently and if we try to enforce any of those decisions, we will find ourselves in war, and war is not anarchy it is simply chaos.
One of the other problem why we make mistakes (other then not applying Praxeology) is that we are thinking about property inside the framework of the property rights derived from the state, which mean that most property are someone’s property because the law made by the state say so, in other words, my property is my because the state point a gun to you if you don't recognize this. But natural rights tell us that the only thing qualify as property is something from the nature MIXED with our work. So we can’t say, these 100 square miles is my property because I was here first. And I said - OK, but it can be your property only when you MIX your work with it and when I say that I don't think that killing a number of Indians you found on that area qualify as WORK. So there is a fundamental problem, that we are out of free land because everything become property (private or state doesn't matter as long as it is not a property in a sense of MIXING work with nature but as enforcing it with guns). So remember Praxeology because it is extremely important. If you apply Praxeology you will be home in a heartbeat, if you don'... well, you can get home, but it will be a long journey and most of the times you find yourself in places you really want to avoid.
And “A strictly limited state as a necessary evil”… well the problem is that Praxeology will tell us, that when we establish the state we enter in perpetual war. Why? Because there would be other states and it is not a wise thing to except that all of them will act in a way compatible with moral and natural rights. So individuals within a State would act in order to improve their odds of surviving in a case that other state attacks them. Remember the Louisiana Purchase? Jefferson was a wise man, a man of natural rights and he still act on this totally incompatible with his believes. Because he couldn’t avoid the laws of Praxeology, there was a possibility that the French empire attack the US, and Jefferson saw an opportunity to minimize this possibility, so he purchased the Louisiana territory (which was the property of the French empire – you probably notice that it is also because of the gun and not because the French empire MIXED work with that land, because it isn’t). So Jefferson had a choice and he had to put in order that two possibilities and answer to the question: What do I value more, the fact to be annihilated one day or the fact to violate my believes… on some level, because at the end he acted somewhat in accordance to the basics of freedom, he acted in order to defend his life and his property. The only difference is that he takes action against a future threat, but Praxeology / human action is possible only because we don’t know the future and we don’t know the consequences of our acting, and that he accepted that this land become the property of the state even if this property is not compatible with the natural rights philosophy, it is not qualify as property because it isn’t mixed with work.
So those are some of the reasons, why anarchy is probable impossible, because the laws of Praxeology tell us that man acts differently and some of them acts against anarchy against other men forcing all of us to from time to time to act against them because unfortunately, sometimes it is the only way to defend our life and property.
Mises more believed that people would, in the long run, get whatever sort of government they wanted. So he thought democracy and secession occomplished this without the violent revolutions required in other forms of government.
I agree with him, but I think democracy will eventually give way more and more to something resembling market anarchism. People in a democracy know the true costs of wars, and so generally do not participate in them if they can help it. The Iraq war is a minor thing compared to other unnecissary wars, and given the spread of information over the internet it may be the last of its kind. Economic progress only increases the costs of violence compared with cooperation. Once the people of a nation understand the costs of violence towards each other as well as other nations, the inwardly-focused violence of the state will be dismantled.
About 200 years ago some people in England said... "There won’t be wars anymore"… I am sorry to inform you but as long as we have the state we would have wars, in a stateless world we would have only fights between individuals, when we organize ourselves in a group (state or any other kind of group) we will be in a perpetual war against other states and other groups, and what we call peace in this conditions is just a period when the group isn’t interfere with the other group interest or they can hurt each other comparably so they prefer to pretend to be in peace instead to be in war. In freedom where there is no collectivist mindset, there can't be war, only a fight between individuals.
I should mention, that people can't understand, nation can't understand; only individuals can understand, only individuals can know, you simple can't value something as a group because every individual has its own subjective order of value. And if you know this, you basically can't measure the cost of a war for people, you can only measure it as the cost of a war to an individual, and the solder who die pay the ultimate price, the taxpayer will pay another price, and a number of men will actually gain in a war whatever the cost would be (like the “defense” industry complex for example). So talking about cost of war to people or nation is ridicules nonsense (no offense, but this is the truth). We must eliminate the collectivist mindset if we want to talk about freedom and free market. Democracy has nothing to do with freedom, democracy is just an instrument where you can eliminate a bad government and replace with a new one without a revolution, but it does not guarantee a good government. In democracy you also can have a dictator - rarely a person, but mostly a committee. If there is democracy, you can eliminate those people if you think they are acting against you, by voting on the elections, but history shows us that people will get rid of the ruler even if there is no democracy, they do this by revolution. So I prefer democracy over revolution, but if you don't have limited government, democracy won’t help you. If you have limited government, then actually you do not have to get rid the government because they can’t hurt you, they action is strictly limited to protect your life and property and not to run your life. In that case, you don’t even need democracy, because every opinion would count but it could be put in action only if it serving the limited purpose of the government, if it is serving the efficiency and usefulness of the government to protect your life and property. So the only reason you would need to get rid of a government is if it doesn’t serve its purpose, and the only purpose of democracy would be to choose another government in hope that they will do a better job protecting your life and property. But we live in a completely different word, where people expect something for nothing (and they vote according to this), they expects from the government to arbitrate, to run their life…, but no man can avoid the laws of Praxiology in whatever world he lives.
http://www.mises.org/journals/jls/12_1/12_1_3.pdf
This should explain my position.
Praxeology also tells us that coercive monopolies have negative results, i.e. lower quality, higher prices, less responsiveness to consumer demand etc. All the problems that you posited could arise under market anarchy are all the more likely to occur in the context of a State, however minimal.
BTW, could you maybe shorten your posts a little or write in smaller paragraphs? It'd make it easier to read them.
You assume that the only reason we punish criminals is to deter crime. But in that case why do you argue against execution from a standpoint of right? If by killing a man unjustly I do not sacrifice all of my rights (as you assert when you claim that execution is unjustified), then we must consider financial compensation in the same light of human rights, for property is no less important a right than life.
From the standpoint of deterrence, I believe that instant execution (none of our langishing in jail for decades) would be a fairly impressive deterrent. This is not, of course, exclusive of restitution that could devastate your family, so the added incentives from your obligation to your family would not be diminished. Therefore if punishment is determined by deterrence financial restitution/retaliation and execution are better than financial restitutio/retaliation alone.
From the standpoint of justice, in killing another you clearly are liable for any financial benefit lost by his family, but that covers the harm to his family alone: the harm to the murdered man is unpunished. It can only be punished by retaliation, for the victim is beyond restitution. Consequently, I find a justification for executing murderers. On the other hand, additional restitution cannot pay the price of his death. No standard of proportionality or of punishment in kind can justify the seizing of more property than is destroyed by the crime, and so justice also points toward execution and away from massive financial retaliation.
The problem with this is that, even though property is needed to sustain life, property and life is not the same. There is one major difference considering a loss of property and a loss of life. Losing property is reversible, so when someone steal or destroy your property, you can force him to pay the damage; you can transfer property from the criminal to the injured. Life is a different story, when you loss it there is no way back, you cant transfer the life from the criminal to the victim. I don’t think that punishment is compatible with freedom, because if you punish the criminal you won’t do any good to the injured/victim, so it is completely useless and it is only an exercise of power by the court. And power is the deadly enemy of freedom. The other problem is how can you make a restitution to the victim (or to his family) if he is dead. The court would make an arbitrary decision and order a seizure of some part of the murderer property and pay it to the victim’s family? How can arbitrary decision be compatible with freedom? What amount is equal to someone life? Especially if you know that value is subjective.
So execution means this:
Now you can say that a murderer lose his rights to live when he killed another man… but I believe that the natural rights philosophy doesn’t recognize such a thing, Life and Property is unalienable rights of man. And when someone steals your property he must return it to you because of this “that property is unalienable right”, when someone destroys your property, he can’t return it to you so he must “return” your property out of his property. When someone kills you, he can’t return your life and your life couldn’t be returned out of his life. So the only thing you can do and not violate the natural rights principles is to forbid to the murderer to cohabit with you to share the space with you and to visit your property because he is dangerous, but you can’t take his life (it is unalienable). Anyway you can take his property because out of that property you try to make restitution to the victim (his family) and as losing life is irreversible it is infinitely more valuable than any property, so whatever large the murderer’s property is, it isn’t even a near equivalent to the value of life he destroyed.
aludanyi: It is worth to mention, that probably the reason why Mises was not an anarchist is that he did not believed that the anarchist society (even if it has no logical flaw) is possible. Why? Because Mises never forget the importance of Praxeology. And Praxeology told us, that a man acts because he is expecting that after this act his state, his position his life will be better than before the act. And if his believes are weak or "wrong" he is perfectly capable to act even against himself (both aware and unaware) and of course against other men. So this straightforward reason told Mises that anarchism is probably unachievable. That’s why he joined the club of a "strictly limited government as a necessary evil" gentlemen’s.
It is worth to mention, that probably the reason why Mises was not an anarchist is that he did not believed that the anarchist society (even if it has no logical flaw) is possible. Why? Because Mises never forget the importance of Praxeology. And Praxeology told us, that a man acts because he is expecting that after this act his state, his position his life will be better than before the act. And if his believes are weak or "wrong" he is perfectly capable to act even against himself (both aware and unaware) and of course against other men. So this straightforward reason told Mises that anarchism is probably unachievable. That’s why he joined the club of a "strictly limited government as a necessary evil" gentlemen’s.
I am unsure, but I believe that you are claiming that one possible explanation for Mises' embrace of a limited-government doctrine could be as follows:
Man acts in an attempt to increase his satisfaction. The choices that man must make in order to increase his satisfaction are obstructed by uncertainty. The adoption of an anarchical legal order would increase man's satisfaction. The uncertainty which obstructs man's ability to make choices which do in fact increase his satisfaction, therefore, makes impossible his adoption of an anarchical legal order.
While, I won't doubt that this may have been Mises' thought process, it is invalid unless anarchy is a different sort of choice than is made to institute other types of legal orders. Otherwise, the same argument could be made for other types of legal arrangements.
aludanyi: And what would Praxeology tell us about private courts? First that if there is not a monopoly of the court over a certain territory (we can call it jurisdiction), and there would be competing courts, then there could and there will be competing court decisions. Rothbard would say, that the market would eliminate the bad court, because they will lose the clients the people who are need they services and pay for the services. But this assumption, I believe has a little flaw… that the reason we need courts in the first place is the criminals, the people who acts against our rights, life and property. So those people would want a bad court a court which will decide in their interest. This would lead us to the point where two or more courts decide differently and if we try to enforce any of those decisions, we will find ourselves in war, and war is not anarchy it is simply chaos.
And what would Praxeology tell us about private courts? First that if there is not a monopoly of the court over a certain territory (we can call it jurisdiction), and there would be competing courts, then there could and there will be competing court decisions. Rothbard would say, that the market would eliminate the bad court, because they will lose the clients the people who are need they services and pay for the services. But this assumption, I believe has a little flaw… that the reason we need courts in the first place is the criminals, the people who acts against our rights, life and property. So those people would want a bad court a court which will decide in their interest. This would lead us to the point where two or more courts decide differently and if we try to enforce any of those decisions, we will find ourselves in war, and war is not anarchy it is simply chaos.
I think that your argument is unsound. To argue that courts with exclusive jurisdiction will stop criminals from instituting competing courts is to assume that courts with exclusive jurisdiction are inherently non-criminal. So, the reason why your argument is unsound is that you are mis-using the word criminal.
In the light of this, I would like to make the case for Rothbard's point by answering the question - If it is true that courts are neither inherently good nor inherently bad, how is it that courts protect the innocent from criminals? The answer - They don't. A court is simply a social tool for arbitrating disagreements based on pre-established contract. Where no precedent exists, there is only war. For example, there is no precedent for two actors attempting to appropriate the same indivisible, unclaimed property at the same time. This is the essence of war (which is not incompatible with a just legal order). So, why is Rothbard right? Courts do not provide their service for free. For Rothbard to be correct, it must be the case that criminal courts are unable to generate the revenue necessary to avoid insolvency. And here all we need do is remember what a court is. Neither the innocent nor criminals will enter into contracts that do not protect them from corrupt legal proceedings or poor arbitration services. This means that corrupt courts do not arise to meet any longstanding demand. Neither criminals nor innocents benefit from using the services of corrupt courts, while both innocents and criminals stand to benefit from just courts. Which is why, even in an anarchical legal order, courts do not require protection from competing courts. In fact, according to this theory of court viability, setting up a non-competitive court system would tend to undermine the process of discovery necessary to ensure the highest level of arbitration services. In a non-competitive court system, corrupt courts would gain de facto support which would tend to prolong their rule and destroy the value of legal precedent, which is pretty much where we stand today.
aludanyi: And “A strictly limited state as a necessary evil”… well the problem is that Praxeology will tell us, that when we establish the state we enter in perpetual war. Why? Because there would be other states and it is not a wise thing to except that all of them will act in a way compatible with moral and natural rights. So individuals within a State would act in order to improve their odds of surviving in a case that other state attacks them.
And “A strictly limited state as a necessary evil”… well the problem is that Praxeology will tell us, that when we establish the state we enter in perpetual war. Why? Because there would be other states and it is not a wise thing to except that all of them will act in a way compatible with moral and natural rights. So individuals within a State would act in order to improve their odds of surviving in a case that other state attacks them.
Why do you think that only a state can defend itself from another state? During the US Revolution, the colonists successfully defended themselves from the government of England.
aludanyi: So those are some of the reasons, why anarchy is probable impossible, because the laws of Praxeology tell us that man acts differently and some of them acts against anarchy against other men forcing all of us to from time to time to act against them because unfortunately, sometimes it is the only way to defend our life and property.
Finally, I would say that anarchy is not impossible, it is actual. We live in anarchy right now. The methods that we have implemented to deal with this fact are just not the most conducive to prosperity. When this is acknowledged, a new order can arise to bring the way things are into harmony with social policy.
Or, to make this case in economic terms. To deny that the free market works and to implement the steps necessary to "fix it", is to cause greater problems than exist in a state of nature. To deny that anarchy works and to implement the steps necessary to "fix it", is to cause greater problems than exist in a state of nature.
I wold add one more thing. The only rule we need to bring a system in compliance with the actual is, "Nobody may use someone's property without their permission." ie. Private property must be held inviolable. All forms of taxes and conscription must be brought to an end. There is no moral justification for any other policy.
I agree with these things. But as I said, we have a problem, that most of the current property isn’t qualify as a property by the principles of the natural rights philosophy, because according to that property is a previously unowned natural resource MIXED with your labor. And in our society a very large portion of overall property is conquered or occupied put under a fence (physical or imaginary on the map isn’t matter). So it is hard to implement “you can’t use my property without my permission” is hard to implement because as I said a large portion of that property recognized by the current laws is not a property according to the principles of liberty and natural rights philosophy.
What about the case that the Russians argue that the North Pole is their property? (no labor MIXED ever withthe North Pole)
Are you really held that the collectivist nanny states we are living in are qualified as anarchy?
Beside this, I mostly agree with you (no taxes, no conscription etc.)
Anyway I have read my posts… and I must say a few more things because someone would believe that I am a lunatic :)
Everything I wrote here is a kind of a blueprint very hard if not impossible to implement in practice. Why? Man has emotions. It is difficult even to imagine, but if someone murder my child, I will probably be the first who would blow off the head of the murderer. So yes, I still think it isn’t right but I would do it anyway, emotions are a very powerful driver, sometimes even more powerful than reason, so man can act this way also, and this is perfectly normal. Should a man be responsible for such an emotionally driven act just as any other murderer? I believe no. He is not a danger to the society. He can stay and live among normal people. He can keep he’s property also because the murderers property already belongs to him (after the murderer killed his family member – child). A man, who kills a murderer in deep pain because of he’s ultimate loss, on emotional basis, is not a criminal. He does not represent a danger to the society and he can’t be hold responsible for he’s non-reasonable act. Of course this isn’t a sound theory, I agree, but as I told, we can have a blueprint, but our reality would be far away from it, because nothing is perfect and no man is perfect.
I never said that courts are inherently neither good nor bad. I just said that in a case of two or more courts would lead us to different court decisions and that enforcing any of them will lead us to war. I never said a word about the validity of any of those court decisions. I just said that there will be some people who would pay the corrupt court because of their interest. Also some normal people will pay to those courts also because even normal people can misunderstand issues. Free market never eliminates bad products or bad services, just minimize them. But in a free market you don’t need to buy a bad product. But can you say to the court “sorry I think you are not good, so I don’t think that I should pay the damages to John, because the court I recognize told me so” and what would you do in that case? It is like in a family, if you are alone, you are the undisputed “authority” in your house, but if you live in a family, then conflict is possible or even unavoidable. Now if one family member made a monopoly on decision inside of a family other family members will be upset, the difference is that they can leave the family, they can fill a divorce etc. But you can’t leave a community because of conflicting decisions. Well you can, but what about your right to your property?
The US Revolution was a war for independence between the British Crown (state) and the United States of America (state) established shortly after the revolution has began with the Declaration of Independence and the Articles of Confederation. A short period before the United States of America was established the colonies were also a form of state (Thirteen Colonies). Not independent from the British Crown but they have almost all the other characteristics of the state.
In a stateless society (anarchy) you can defend yourself and you can help others to defend themselves, but there is no state to defend.