In a strict interpretation of libertarianism, If there is a conflict between two people, you should not interve, as it doesn't concern you. You shouldn't use your sense of justice to resolve the dispute. Perhaps some people will think the rich was right, other people will think the poor was right. Why do you have the right to intervene in this matter?
If you do think you have a right, because according to you, aggression was used, then what is wrong about a supreme court which will also enforce its own sense of justice, or with American intervention in Iraq where Americans enforced their own justice on behalf of a good portion of Iraqis who suffered from Sadam's aggression?
Are you suggesting that it's not possible to act on behalf of someone else?
Is it not ethical to work as a bodyguard, because you may have to use violence to defend your employer when he's being attacked, and you otherwise wouldn't be?
If you're walking along the street with your girlfriend, and some random lunatic attacks her, must you just stand there and wait for the situation to resolve itself without coming to her aid, even though she's shouting for you to help her, because it would be unjust to interpose your sense of justice in this dispute which is clearly between her and the rabid psychopath?
That's insane. You are misinterpreting libertarian ethics if you believe that.
The entire lie inherent to government is that it is acting on behalf of the people when it does anything. That's why it can't intervene in disputes. It can't do anything ethically. I don't even know how to compare government military action to personal disputes... Maybe if you saw two people having a heated argument or maybe even a fistfight in the street, you walk up to them and blow one of their brains out with a .45, point it at the second guy and declare, "Now you're free. Do what I say."
Oh, and the gun is stolen.
So if it is okay for a third party to use aggression to resolve conflicts, then why a supreme court would be wrong? Naturally some will disagree with the supreme court rulings, but some people will surely also disagree with any other third party. What makes a supreme court worse than any other kind of intervention? At least the supreme court is the vote of the majority, unlike a regular court that can be very well be a vote of a minority, and that minority can theoretically be anything from Nazis to serial rapists.
At least the supreme court is the vote of the majority, unlike a regular court that can be very well be a vote of a minority, and that minority can theoretically be anything from Nazis to serial rapists.
I don't understand what you mean here. "The majority"?
What's stopping any court from being wrong? Why should any particular court have universal jurisdiction? No court has that under the present system. Who is going to decide who the judges are in this supreme court?
How does a supreme court establish jurisdiction over parties that don't want anything to do with it? What makes it supreme in their eyes?
Look I understand the problems with the supreme court. You mentioned them. But I also see problems with particulary strong groups of people (especially economically) that will enforce their values on others. I'm afraid of what happened in Russia (I am an immigrant from Russia), which in a state of semi-anarchy the mafia took over most of the country. Apparently there were not enough "good" people to stop the bad guys. The current situation in Russia is that the rich use aggression against others quite freely. I am afraid of that.
The mafia has bribed the monopolised security and legal apparatus over to its side. Because these services were monopolised, innocent third parties now have no recourse to defend themselves. The police are too scared/crooked to help you out against the mob, but they will still crack down on you if you try to buy an AK rifle with which to defend yourself. The mafia exists because the state exists. Open borders, free trade and an end to sanctioned violence in the workplace gets rid of 99% of what the mafia actually is.
What happened in Russia in 90's is not even near libertarianism, and I'm sure that you know it too. Mafia uses state's monopoly of violence, and in libertarianism there is no monopoly.
It's economicaly unprofitable for rich people to try to opress others and very profitable to cooperate, and this cuts incentives for even hoping opression. "Un-rich" people can arm themselves very cheaply. If rich try to buy all police and armies, prices will rise, more people will start to offer those services etc. and circle continues until rich people are bankrupt. And rich people have the same problem as a state trying to invade stateless territory - they don't know how much people there is in stateless area and they don't know how much people have arms in there. It's impossible.
Eugene:Look I understand the problems with the supreme court. You mentioned them.
Well it is mighty big of you to finally acknowledge those issues. Now how will you resolve them?
Eugene:But I also see problems with particulary strong groups of people (especially economically) that will enforce their values on others.
You are proposing EVERYONE gets one set of values forced on them. How is that any better? Isn't it potentially much worse?
Eugene:I'm afraid of what happened in Russia (I am an immigrant from Russia), which in a state of semi-anarchy the mafia took over most of the country. Apparently there were not enough "good" people to stop the bad guys. The current situation in Russia is that the rich use aggression against others quite freely. I am afraid of that.
That's not anarchy of a libertarian sort.
Eugene:So if it is okay for a third party to use aggression to resolve conflicts, then why a supreme court would be wrong?
Consent.
Eugene:At least the supreme court is the vote of the majority, unlike a regular court that can be very well be a vote of a minority, and that minority can theoretically be anything from Nazis to serial rapists.
The minority can also be Jews, gays and blacks.
Democracy is mob rule, nothing more. If some people are not wise enough to decide for everyone, then more people who are not wise enough will not solve the problem.
There is no consent in the bargaining process described by David Friedman. It is the fear of aggression that drives this process. If anarcho-capitalism looks like Friedman's version I wouldn't want to be a part of it, that's for sure.
Regarding Russia. Police had nothing to do with it. The mobsters just attacked factories all over the countries, killed the management and captured them. Apparently the peaceful population didn't have enough firepower to stop that. Police usually fought the mafia rather than the regular folk. Large portions of police did cooperate with the mafia, or at least didn't interfere, but even bigger portions did try to stop them. So if anything, the police was a problem for the mafia. So blaming the government in this case, when it was clearly not the government's fault is unnecessarily dogmatic.
Eugene:There is no consent in the bargaining process described by David Friedman. It is the fear of aggression that drives this process.
Obviously there is consent when people agree to use a process. The reasons for that consent (motive) cannot ever be determined conclusively.
Eugene:If anarcho-capitalism looks like Friedman's version I wouldn't want to be a part of it, that's for sure.
If you refuse to use reason and logic, and if you continue to make logically fallacious arguments and ignore economics, then I cannot imagine what use you would be to an ancap society. It's better to return to Plato's cave.
liberty student: z1235:The free market cannot provide something (justice) without which it cannot even exist in the first place. The baby cannot provide its own mother. In my long time on this forum, I have yet to see anyone address this blatanly obvious logical contradiction It's not a contradiction because it is a non sequitur. We already dealt with your misunderstanding about what a market is in the other thread. At the risk of losing my patience, these posts you keep making are the sort that statists make when they first arrive here, not when they have been here a long time, with access to hundreds of discussions, and arguably the largest media library for these concepts in the history of man. Seriously dude, pick up a book or something. At least understand the arguments and positions before you start criticizing them. You're a bright guy, but you're definitely not meeting the standard of debate around here when you post this stuff.
z1235:The free market cannot provide something (justice) without which it cannot even exist in the first place. The baby cannot provide its own mother. In my long time on this forum, I have yet to see anyone address this blatanly obvious logical contradiction
In my long time on this forum, I have yet to see anyone address this blatanly obvious logical contradiction
It's not a contradiction because it is a non sequitur. We already dealt with your misunderstanding about what a market is in the other thread. At the risk of losing my patience, these posts you keep making are the sort that statists make when they first arrive here, not when they have been here a long time, with access to hundreds of discussions, and arguably the largest media library for these concepts in the history of man.
Seriously dude, pick up a book or something. At least understand the arguments and positions before you start criticizing them. You're a bright guy, but you're definitely not meeting the standard of debate around here when you post this stuff.
LS, if you care to know, I don't see any value in replies like these. Surely, it wouldn't have taken nearly as many characters to explain how/why something is a "non-sequitur" (logically inconsistent). I believe my posts include enough exposition about how a certain conclusion is being reached.
IMO, responses like "pick a book", "we dealt with your misunderstanding", or implying mental feebleness on my part (as in not even being able to understand your argument) are what doesn't meet the standard for debate. Seems, value is subjective, after all.
Btw, my contradiction remains unanswered.
Z.
z1235:The free market cannot provide something (justice) without which it cannot even exist in the first place.
z1235:Btw, my contradiction remains unanswered.
I answered but you seemed to ignore me or missed it. Unless I am misunderstanding you here is my response.(FYI LS also answered you but I think you missed it).
A) There is no such thing as a universal or objective system of justice. The concept of justice is subjective.
B) If you agree with point A then you necessarily must agree that a state's attempt at making a universal justice system will necessarily undermine the subjective differences held by it's members. The only way a justice system can best serve individuals is by organically being serviced on the market. Catering to the cultural norms and consumer preferences from location to location and from subscriber to subscriber.
So your contradiction has been answered on 3 occasions now.
Tex2002ans: z1235, have you read "The Not So Wild Wild West" yet? http://blog.mises.org/11672/the-no-so-wild-wild-west/
z1235, have you read "The Not So Wild Wild West" yet?
http://blog.mises.org/11672/the-no-so-wild-wild-west/
Tex, thanks for the link. I enjoyed reading the article. Anything in particular you'd like emphasize from it in relation to my posts in this thread?
I have repeatedly stated that coherence in subjective perferences (values/customs/norms) is key for establishing a free market. I don't find it particularly surprising that a group of humans out in the wild would be strongly incentivized toward converging their subjective values/customs/norms. I've gone hiking/camping in the wilderness with other humans before and I can confirm that no one stole anyone's food or water even though the closest court or law enforcer was perhaps days of walking away from us.
z1235:LS, if you care to know, I don't see any value in replies like these.
I can't control that, so I don't particularly care. I have zero control over your sense of value.
z1235:Surely, it wouldn't have taken nearly as many characters to explain how/why something is a "non-sequitur" (logically inconsistent). I believe my posts include enough exposition about how a certain conclusion is being reached.
I said your statement does not follow (non sequitur). You have not proven that it does follow.
z1235:IMO, responses like "pick a book", "we dealt with your misunderstanding", or implying mental feebleness on my part (as in not even being able to understand your argument) are what doesn't meet the standard for debate.
You're not mentally feeble. You're BSing your way through discussions. I believe you're really intelligent, which is why I am kinda annoyed that you continue to post stuff that is way below what I expect(ed) and think you're capable of.
z1235:Seems, value is subjective, after all.
That was never in question.
It is a non sequitur. There is no logical answer to be found to an illogical query.
Z,
It's likely that I don't understand your criticism of why you think a market here is inadequate. Or perhaps thats not even your position, so go easy on me. :)
Liberty Student, I again quote David Friedman:
Each agency can threaten to refuse to agree to any arbitrator, subjecting both to the costs of occasional violence, or at least ad hoc negotiation to avoid violence. Each knows that the other would prefer even a rather unfavorable set of legal rules to no agreement at all
I think he makes it perfectly clear that in his view of an-cap, a threat of violence is what makes the bargaining process meaningful. A threat of violence is definitely a non consentual thing, and since agencies that have few rich customers would be as powerful as agencies with many poor customers, it is clear that the rich will get better justice for themselves. In fact Friedman admits that the poor will have the shorter end of the stick in these compromises. Now I definitely prefer an an-cap society with a supreme court rather than an-cap society where the rich routinely use aggression against the poor.
and since according to Friedman agencies
I am failing to understand why you keep whittling away at the same point which is: wealth has an advantage.
It has been acknowledged everyone is in agreement wealth has an advantage. So what do you want to do about this advantage? Advocate violence to threaten wealth?
I will not advocate that. I will advocate competition. A healthy demand for competition is the only way wealth is constantly under any real threat without resorting to violence.
I desire to inspire people to look in the mirror and be a part of the solution. Demand competition. Demand violence not be used to stifle competition.
What kind of a world do you want to live in... one with more violence or more competition?
Eugene:I think he makes it perfectly clear that in his view of an-cap, a threat of violence is what makes the bargaining process meaningful.
Because violence is expensive. It is economically inefficient. The threat of having to resort to violence is a deterrent to engaging in violence.
I do not understand why you would take issue with this. The reason you don't attack people, is that they might kick your ass. Seems pretty sensible to me.
Eugene:A threat of violence is definitely a non consentual thing, and since agencies that have few rich customers would be as powerful as agencies with many poor customers, it is clear that the rich will get better justice for themselves.
The former is a mistake, the latter everyone has agreed with you 1000 times already Eugene.
Eugene:In fact Friedman admits that the poor will have the shorter end of the stick in these compromises. Now I definitely prefer an an-cap society with a supreme court rather than an-cap society where the rich routinely use aggression against the poor.
You can't have an ancap society with a supreme court. It wouldn't be an ancap society. Maybe you want the USSR back. Maybe things were better then. But I suggest there is a better way Russians haven't tried yet. Liberty. Maybe they could ditch the monopoly state AND the oligarch criminals.
Your solution has already been tried. It doesn't work. Monopoly politicial institutions get corrupted and then the poor and unpopular people have no where to turn. Again, look at what democracy and monopoly courts did to the Jews in Germany. Think if this is the better world you want to create.
filc: A) There is no such thing as a universal or objective system of justice. The concept of justice is subjective. B) If you agree with point A then you necessarily must agree that a state's attempt at making a universal justice system will necessarily undermine the subjective differences held by it's members. The only way a justice system can best serve individuals is by organically being serviced on the market. Catering to the cultural norms and consumer preferences from location to location and from subscriber to subscriber.
How do you discern that this is not what's happening right now (and at all times, for that matter)?
z1235:How do you discern that this is not what's happening right now (and at all times, for that matter)?
Because various groups are not allowed to express the norms that suit them best. Proof being members of this forum.
[EDIT] THis is the equivilent of arguing that options of any good/service are not diminished when the state becomes the sole monopolist. I'm not sure, given your history here, how you can conclude this.
filc:Because various groups are not allowed to express the norms that suit them best. Proof being members of this forum.
Why do you think you are entitled to expressing the norms that suit you best (your subjective sense of justice)? Perhaps the market is already providing justice commensurate to everyone's ability to afford it. As someone already noted in this thread: "Justice is not a right....Justice services are not free."
Looks like you demand a free market so you can buy yourself some justice but it is the very lack of justice that makes the market not free. Quite a predicament, you must admit.
z1235:Why do you think you are entitled to expressing the norms that suit you best (your subjective sense of justice)? Perhaps the market is already providing justice commensurate to everyone's ability to afford it
The question isn't whether or not I have the right to express my norms. The question is whether or not I don't. The question isn't whether or not I have the right to purchase an apple, the question is whether or not I don't.
In this case I don't have the option to reject the services that the state renders to me. So it's incomprehensible to say that the market is currently servicing me justice when in fact I've never been given the option to to decide for myself what types of services I desire. This mechanism that the state mandates participation from me is identicle to that concept of slavery, serfdom, so on and so forth. It is the very opposite concept of the types of markets that are expressed here on these forums.
I feel as if you are going back on a bent definition of what you think the market is.
z1235:Looks like you demand a free market so you can buy yourself some justice but it is the very lack of justice that makes the market not free. Quite a predicament, you must admit.
Not really. It's not hard to understand why compulsion effects the market negatively. That is after all the very basis for every other critical analysis we give to government.
Odd that you seem to marvel on this.
1. Can you provide evidence of this? Not allowed? Not allowed by who?
2. Can you refute the logical statement I made previously stating it does not follow the market is a process of voluntary exchange?
Live_Free_Or_Die:1. Can you provide evidence of this? Not allowed? Not allowed by who?
It would be illegal for me to withdraw my participation in state protection, and it would be illegal for me to create a competing protection agency. As stated in the message you quoted "Proof being members of this forum".
Live_free_Or_die:2. Can you refute the logical statement I made previously stating it does not follow the market is a process of voluntary exchange?
I'm afraid I don't understand.
Is what recently occured in Egypt illegal? For purposes of this line of thought I do not understand what you mean by illegal? Do you mean illegal in that there is a risk violence would be used against you and the term illegal is your subjective way of measuring a risk of violence?
Is there something stopping hypothetically 2000 people on this very forum from moving to a county with less than 500 people and eliminating property taxes or public roads in that county?
Live_Free_Or_Die:Do you mean illegal in that there is a risk violence would be used against you and the term illegal is your subjective way of measuring a risk of violence?
Correct.
Let me amend this by stating that I am forced to adher to a set of laws I never agreed to. I am forced to adopt a set of ethics/morals that are not in line with mine.
Live_Free_Or_Die:2. Can you refute the logical statement I made previously stating it does not follow the market is a process of voluntary exchange?
Yes. The United states government.
On the other hand if we got 20,000 people to move to a specific county we could likely cause some change. My method of tackling statism involves one of educating my neighbor. So this comment would be in line with that. The only reason why the state exists is due to ideological support.
Your "logical statement" contains very sloppy premises. There are a whole bunch of issues in statements like, "Violence is a service," and the words "voluntary" and "exchange" could use some precise definitions. If you really think you have something here, you'll need to work through the argument step-by-step, probably with the aid of a hypothetical scenario.
If a market is a process of voluntary exchange,
And a market is comprised of individual actors with subjective values,
And valuation is always directed at a good or service,
And violence is a service,
And the United States government is a violence service provider.
Then It does not follow that a market is a process of voluntary exchange because services from the United States government is not always voluntary.
It does follow that a market is a process of exchange.
Government is a majority system so presently if 2000 people on this forum moved to a county with a population of 500 it is an overwhelming majority.
Eliminating property taxes, public roads, etc. creates a distinct local economic advantage. Of course there is a risk of violence for people in so called free county exporting goods or services. But what would the risk of violence be for people exchanging unregulated goods locally?
This
Live_Free_Or_Die:If a market is a process of voluntary exchange,
contradicts this
Live_Free_Or_Die:And the United States government is a violence service provider
Also I am not interested in hiriing violence. I am interested in hiring property protection and arbitration services. The fallacy here is the continued conflation of aggression with coercion.
Live_Free_Or_Die:Then It does not follow that a market is a process of voluntary exchange because services from the United States government is not always voluntary.
Correct and if you accepted Grayson's definition of markets then the State could not be classified as a "service" offered in the free market. It is never offered. A slave master services his slave with shelter but it cannot be said that the relationship between the two is mutual. That is not the type of market we are referring to when we say "Free Market". I believe Grayson already covered this pages ago.
Live_Free_Or_Die:It does follow that a market is a process of exchange.
I am confused. Did you reject the definition of Capitalism that Grayson presented? If so I don't think we will be able to proceed. We'd be talking past one another with different terms.
creates a distinct local economic advantage.
It does not follow that we would have less interestate commerce in the absence of public roads. In fact interstate commerce exploded on it's own prior to public roads.
Live_Free_Or_Die:Of course there is a risk of violence for people in so called free county exporting goods or services. But what would the risk of violence be for people exchanging unregulated goods locally?
I don't understand the question. Are we talking about aggression or just force in general?
Live_Free_Or_Die:And violence is a service
*sigh*
Supreme Court & Anarcho-Capitalism are antithetical to eachother. They contradict. The two cannot occupy the same space at the same time. Whatever your wording, these two concepts are not compatible. If you haven't yet figured out why this is, then you need to carefully read the responses in this thread--let alone evalute your entire comprehension of what Anarcho-Capitalism is.
To be concise, any advantages afforded to the wealthy in an Anarcho-Capitalist society are only compounded and exacerbated in a society with a monopoloy on justice and law. An-Cap courts may not be perfect, but they are conceptually less flawed than the monopolized systems than exist today.
You exaggerate the effect of corruption of modern courts. Corruption is relatively minor, and it can decrease dramatically if only the supreme court will remain. It is a lot easy to track 12 juges than a 1000. It is also easier to give them very high salaries to counter any possible corruption on their part
However in Friedman's view the rich will be sysematically better off through their advantage in the bargaining process. The rich today are actually worse off with all the welfare system and the progressive taxation.
filc: resist272727:Capitalism isn't necessarily about appeasing the masses Do you know what consumer sovereignty is? I see you mention it but I don't feel any real refernece to it whatsoever. How else are the rich made if not by appealing to the masses? There is nothing wrong with people being rich and I completely understand that they become rich by creating something that is highly demanded and by beating out the competition. What I am saying is that there are certain cases in which it is not as important to meet the demands of the many as opposed to the demands of the few. Banks do not equally weigh the needs of the rich and the poor, nor should they because it is not their business to do so and it would have adverse effects because the poor are not as reliable to meet their payments. But the justice system should not give any advantage to the rich because contractual obligations are a key part of capitalism. I see no reason why private courts would NOT give advantages to those who could offer them the most money. Yes, there is competition, but why wouldn't the courts that are fair to poor people be run out of business when the poor make up a very small portion (when considered that they are incapable of paying as much) of demand for their services? Could journalism or some sort of charity solve this problem, or is there something I am missing that would make sure private courts were not corrupt? | Post Points: 5
resist272727:Capitalism isn't necessarily about appeasing the masses
Do you know what consumer sovereignty is? I see you mention it but I don't feel any real refernece to it whatsoever. How else are the rich made if not by appealing to the masses?
filc:Oh I am confused is there an objective definition of fair now? Also does your example mimic the hypothetical example I am refering to? A case where arbitration and courts are sold on a retainer contract or subscription basis? Did the court in the early 19th century risk loosing it's subscription base due to a faulty ruling? Were the consumers genuinely sovereign? Could the slave appeal to another 3rd party court? Also lets keep in mind the other issue of cultural norms that you may currently disagree to.(Which I do as well but my disagreeing with cultural norms is not a defense for a state. For example if people are going to be racist in the free market that type fo aditude will only flourish in a state). The state does not correct bad cultural norms, people vote those bad cultural norms into power and only establish a stronghold.
Also does your example mimic the hypothetical example I am refering to? A case where arbitration and courts are sold on a retainer contract or subscription basis? Did the court in the early 19th century risk loosing it's subscription base due to a faulty ruling? Were the consumers genuinely sovereign? Could the slave appeal to another 3rd party court?
Also lets keep in mind the other issue of cultural norms that you may currently disagree to.(Which I do as well but my disagreeing with cultural norms is not a defense for a state. For example if people are going to be racist in the free market that type fo aditude will only flourish in a state). The state does not correct bad cultural norms, people vote those bad cultural norms into power and only establish a stronghold.
Fairness in this case quite certainly means fulfillment of contracts and proper justification of private property violation. Also, elimination of incentive for private courts to rule otherwise.
I suppose you are right that a public court would not likely be any more fair to a disadvantaged citizen. Mostly what I want to emphasize is that it seems unlikely that the poor would be on equal footing in making sure their contracts were carried out fairly. There is nothing egalitarian or anti-capitalist about wanting contracts to be obliged regardless of who is better able to pay more.
resist272727:There is nothing egalitarian or anti-capitalist about wanting contracts to be obliged regardless of who is better able to pay more.
For sure but...
resist272727:Mostly what I want to emphasize is that it seems unlikely that the poor would be on equal footing in making sure their contracts were carried out fairly.
As I stated before there is no such thing as an equal footing. Not in a statist society nor in an anti-statist society.
People are going to be treated at different degrees, regardless of their wealth really
It's like talking to a wall.
liberty student: It's like talking to a wall.
Conversations have been repeated for a number of folk. Things are going in circles.
I'm not talking about buying judges at all. Laws are formed by politicians. Politicians are subject to a vast array of influences. The most significant of these influences being that of business lobbies, and PACs. The law itself is subverted by the wealthy for the benfit of the wealthy. This is inclusive to all law, whether it be tax law, regulation, or even civil/criminal.
One of the most important aspects of An-Cap philosophy is removing The State, which is the mechanism for wealthy & powerful interests to hinder others. Classic corruption of judges may or may not be low. Regardless of that status, the law itself is what has been perverted both through design and complexity as to specifically protect the status quo. The system is more grevious than those adjudicating it. An-Cap courts allow a flawed system to be weeded out and shunned for the mockery that they are.