As I argued below, private property anarchists need to demonstrate that private solutions will work for each branch of government to be privatized. The interesting thing is that each branch presents its own unique challenges. Let's start with law-making. I have defended the view that morality is intersubjective; it works only when there is agreement on what is right or wrong. But at the same time no more is required. Agreement need not presuppose identical moral theories. Nor does it cause relativism; some moral systems and sets of rules are better than others. But if morality, then so is law. First, private -- an in, subjective -- law is an oxymoron. If you think that doing drugs is permitted, and I think it should not be permitted, then no judge can adjudicate our differences: there will be a war to the death as I try to knock the crack pipe from of your hand, and you (perfectly righteously, from your point of view) defend yourself. We must agree on what is right and what is wrong. But, again, we may come from very different directions. A may think using drugs should be permitted, because the natural law says so. B thinks the same, because he is a pragmatic and is skeptical of the success of any drug war, though if he could prevent people from doing drugs at 0 cost, he'd do it. C may be a utilitarian and believe that government paternalism is, as a rule, absurd. The government is not, C thinks, the guardian of the ignorant and stupid populace. And so on. Now the question is, how to establish agreement on a wide range of issues among the citizens of a town or country? Only two ways suggest themselves: either through voluntary agreement or arbitrary legislation. If culture so permits and the administrative unit is small enough, rules are best established through custom, common law trial-and-error, natural law a la Rothbard, or some form of law and economics. But it can be that no agreement can be reached in this manner. Then the state can be useful in imposing law according to, say, majority rule. Even if some disagree, they have to persuade the majority and go through the motions of amending the legal code. At the very least, the law will be uniform over some population, something absolutely crucial to a functioning society. A combination of private and state solutions may be in the stars.
But once the law is however determined, I see no obstacles to competing private judges and arbitration agencies. Reputation will be key. In contracts a particular jurisdiction and judge could be specified. In torts, both parties can agree on a decent judge. It's no accident that ancient Israel, once it was given the "law," did not require the king but had judges only. An elaborate system of private lower and higher courts, appeals courts, rules of recognition, reputation, Consumers Digest reviews, advice from industry experts, etc. will likely arise and will be able to supplant the present regime completely. The state judicial system we have now is entirely unnecessary.
The final stage of any legal process, viz., enforcement, however, is, in my view, impossible to privatize. Once the question of what law is has been settled, and a judicial verdict, rendered, the offender must be overpowered, crushed (not in terms of the severity of punishment, of course, but in the sense of applying the sentence reliably). Only society as a whole, organized and represented by the executive branch of the state, can do so without fail. The community as a whole inflicts the punishment. Here the mayors/governors/etc. are merely tools of society ensuring that the (private) judges' efforts are not wasted. For the offender broke the law governing the behavior of an entire people, and as far as judges are trusted -- and why wouldn't they be, unless there is (infrequent) corruption -- everyone must be united in executing the sentence imposed on the criminal or tortfeasor.
In short, in a city, for example, I envision a government consisting of a part-time city council and a full-time major in command of a few tough deputies.
This analysis suggests that in many disputes anarcho-capitalists and minarchists talk past each other, because they fail to disentangle the different problems posed by each of the three branches of government.
No, there is no "right" to having a judge's verdicts enforced. This is a service provided on the market, and like any other, must be voluntarily acquired. There is no positive right to enforcement. I fail to see how it is "Impossible" to privatize this. I also fail to see how from the fact that agreement may not be feasible with regard to the content of the law, that the non sequitur that a state must therefore exist to force it upon others whether they like it or not holds any water; a mere argumentum ad populum.
-Jon
Freedom of markets is positively correlated with the degree of evolution in any society...
dchernik: As I argued below, private property anarchists need to demonstrate that private solutions will work for each branch of government to be privatized.
As I argued below, private property anarchists need to demonstrate that private solutions will work for each branch of government to be privatized.
That's shifting the burden of proof. It is up to the statist to show that only a government can provide said solutions. Whether or not the statist (which necessarily includes minarchist) wishes to take up that onus of proof is a different matter. Usually, they don't, And that is the true source of the problem you're attempting to describe. It's not that anarchists and statists talk past each other; it's that the statists refuse to understand that they alone (like theists) have the burden of proof.
Knight_of_BAAWA: dchernik: As I argued below, private property anarchists need to demonstrate that private solutions will work for each branch of government to be privatized. That's shifting the burden of proof. It is up to the statist to show that only a government can provide said solutions. Whether or not the statist (which necessarily includes minarchist) wishes to take up that onus of proof is a different matter. Usually, they don't, And that is the true source of the problem you're attempting to describe. It's not that anarchists and statists talk past each other; it's that the statists refuse to understand that they alone (like theists) have the burden of proof.
Spot on. The comparison is sound.
Let's assess what you've said.
dchernik: As I argued below, private property anarchists need to demonstrate that private solutions will work for each branch of government to be privatized. The interesting thing is that each branch presents its own unique challenges. Let's start with law-making. I have defended the view that morality is intersubjective; it works only when there is agreement on what is right or wrong.
As I argued below, private property anarchists need to demonstrate that private solutions will work for each branch of government to be privatized. The interesting thing is that each branch presents its own unique challenges. Let's start with law-making. I have defended the view that morality is intersubjective; it works only when there is agreement on what is right or wrong.
Incorrect. There are aspects of morality that are subjective (such as drug use or sex or whatever) but there are somethings that cannot be subjective. The one unsubjective aspect of morality is the idea of private property -- at it's basic level the right of self-ownership. You do not own me nor do I own you therefore as self-owners we have the right to determine in what way we shall use our property (our bodies, minds and life). The one thing you cannot do is violate the property right I have in my self nor can I violate yours. It is from this basic idea of self-ownership that all other rights come from. And in fact you can only arrive at what is right and wrong from the understanding that all people are self-owners.
dchernik: But at the same time no more is required. Agreement need not presuppose identical moral theories. Nor does it cause relativism; some moral systems and sets of rules are better than others.
But at the same time no more is required. Agreement need not presuppose identical moral theories. Nor does it cause relativism; some moral systems and sets of rules are better than others.
How is one moral system and set of rules better than others? What makes the moral system of a devout Christian better than that of a self-serving nihilist? Because you say so? I can say the sky is green with purple clouds but that doesn't make it so no matter how hard I protest. Therefore you cannot say one moral system and set of rules, as you put it, is inherently better than another.
dchernik: But if morality, then so is law. First, private -- an in, subjective -- law is an oxymoron. If you think that doing drugs is permitted, and I think it should not be permitted, then no judge can adjudicate our differences: there will be a war to the death as I try to knock the crack pipe from of your hand, and you (perfectly righteously, from your point of view) defend yourself.
But if morality, then so is law. First, private -- an in, subjective -- law is an oxymoron. If you think that doing drugs is permitted, and I think it should not be permitted, then no judge can adjudicate our differences: there will be a war to the death as I try to knock the crack pipe from of your hand, and you (perfectly righteously, from your point of view) defend yourself.
You can hate the crack pipe all you want but you cannot force me to stop smoking crack. To do so would violate my right to self-ownership and self-determination. Therefore your actions, that is knocking the crack pipe from my hand, is a violation of my property rights making you an aggressor.
dchernik: We must agree on what is right and what is wrong. But, again, we may come from very different directions. A may think using drugs should be permitted, because the natural law says so. B thinks the same, because he is a pragmatic and is skeptical of the success of any drug war, though if he could prevent people from doing drugs at 0 cost, he'd do it. C may be a utilitarian and believe that government paternalism is, as a rule, absurd. The government is not, C thinks, the guardian of the ignorant and stupid populace. And so on. Now the question is, how to establish agreement on a wide range of issues among the citizens of a town or country? Only two ways suggest themselves: either through voluntary agreement or arbitrary legislation.
We must agree on what is right and what is wrong. But, again, we may come from very different directions. A may think using drugs should be permitted, because the natural law says so. B thinks the same, because he is a pragmatic and is skeptical of the success of any drug war, though if he could prevent people from doing drugs at 0 cost, he'd do it. C may be a utilitarian and believe that government paternalism is, as a rule, absurd. The government is not, C thinks, the guardian of the ignorant and stupid populace. And so on. Now the question is, how to establish agreement on a wide range of issues among the citizens of a town or country? Only two ways suggest themselves: either through voluntary agreement or arbitrary legislation.
Or three -- respect for private property.
dchernik: If culture so permits and the administrative unit is small enough, rules are best established through custom, common law trial-and-error, natural law a la Rothbard, or some form of law and economics. But it can be that no agreement can be reached in this manner.
If culture so permits and the administrative unit is small enough, rules are best established through custom, common law trial-and-error, natural law a la Rothbard, or some form of law and economics. But it can be that no agreement can be reached in this manner.
The only "law" you need is thus: You cannot violate my property neither can I violate yours. Thus you have solved all of the problems. I can do drugs because it is my right to destroy my body if I want. You can live clean and exercise because you have the right to build up your body. I have the right to grow my grass as high as it will go because I own it. You have the right to mow it every week for that same reason.
dchernik: Then the state can be useful in imposing law according to, say, majority rule.
Then the state can be useful in imposing law according to, say, majority rule.
You must then explain how the "majority" is superior to the decisions of the individual? What makes the beliefs of 10,000 people better than 10? If "majority rule" is the guide post by which laws are made then we must then agree that no one can be an atheist, a homosexual, a Buddhist or anything else the "majority" might not like. If the "majority" of the people believe that everyone should be Catholic does that mean you have the right to force all people to be Catholic? If it does not hold true for that argument then it does not hold true for anything else. The "majority" of people might not like Jews either. Does that mean it's ok to kill them and burn them in a furnace?
dchernik: Even if some disagree, they have to persuade the majority and go through the motions of amending the legal code. At the very least, the law will be uniform over some population, something absolutely crucial to a functioning society. A combination of private and state solutions may be in the stars.
Even if some disagree, they have to persuade the majority and go through the motions of amending the legal code. At the very least, the law will be uniform over some population, something absolutely crucial to a functioning society. A combination of private and state solutions may be in the stars.
So again, prove to us by what divine right you have to be dictator to someone who might disagree with you. What makes your beliefs so much more superior to someone else's that you can enslave them and dictate how they should live their life according to your gospel?
dchernik: But once the law is however determined, I see no obstacles to competing private judges and arbitration agencies. Reputation will be key. In contracts a particular jurisdiction and judge could be specified. In torts, both parties can agree on a decent judge. It's no accident that ancient Israel, once it was given the "law," did not require the king but had judges only. An elaborate system of private lower and higher courts, appeals courts, rules of recognition, reputation, Consumers Digest reviews, advice from industry experts, etc. will likely arise and will be able to supplant the present regime completely. The state judicial system we have now is entirely unnecessary.
I agree. The current State run judicial system is entirely unnecessary but so is your insistence that a large group of people can dictate to a smaller group how they ought to live. The only "law" society needs is the law of private property. You cannot punch me in the face because that violates my property right in my self. You cannot steal my car because that is my private property. You cannot pollute the air I breath because it destroys my lungs, which are my private property. You cannot murder me because you are then taking my most valuable possession -- my life. You cannot rape my daughter because you have violated her right to the use of her body by forcing yourself upon her. Thus you can see that courts need only one guiding light in determining a court case: Has this individual violated or aggressed against the private property of another? If there has been no aggression then there is no victim thus there is no crime. A crime must have a victim and without one it is no crime. Thus my "victimless crime" of smoking crack, which harms no one but myself, is no crime at all! You may disagree with my smoking crack but you certainly cannot use force to stop me from doing it. Once you do use force in order to stop me from smoking crack you have just violated my property, aggressed against me, and committed a crime. You are the criminal and I am the victim.
dchernik: The final stage of any legal process, viz., enforcement, however, is, in my view, impossible to privatize. Once the question of what law is has been settled, and a judicial verdict, rendered, the offender must be overpowered, crushed (not in terms of the severity of punishment, of course, but in the sense of applying the sentence reliably). Only society as a whole, organized and represented by the executive branch of the state, can do so without fail.
The final stage of any legal process, viz., enforcement, however, is, in my view, impossible to privatize. Once the question of what law is has been settled, and a judicial verdict, rendered, the offender must be overpowered, crushed (not in terms of the severity of punishment, of course, but in the sense of applying the sentence reliably). Only society as a whole, organized and represented by the executive branch of the state, can do so without fail.
How is that? Please explain why only an "executive" branch can dispense justice?
dchernik: The community as a whole inflicts the punishment.
The community as a whole inflicts the punishment.
Can I not inflict punishment? If you punch me can't I punch you back? If you killed my wife can't I kill you? You assume that there is some kind of "society" in which crimes are committed against. I can assure you there is no such thing as a "crime against society." There are only two actors in the commission of a crime -- the plaintiff and the defendant, or the victim and the aggressor. If you steal from me you have only stolen from me not some ill defined "society." Therefore any punishment you receive must be brought about by me or someone I have so chosen to act for me. If you steal from me I have the right to pursue you myself and retrieve my property or hire another person or agency to do it for me. But I also have the right to not pursue you and forget the matter altogether. Once you are caught it is not "society" that has put you on trial but me, the victim, and any punishment you receive must be geared towards restitution for myself firstly and punishing you secondly.
dchernik: Here the mayors/governors/etc. are merely tools of society ensuring that the (private) judges' efforts are not wasted. For the offender broke the law governing the behavior of an entire people, and as far as judges are trusted -- and why wouldn't they be, unless there is (infrequent) corruption -- everyone must be united in executing the sentence imposed on the criminal or tortfeasor.
Here the mayors/governors/etc. are merely tools of society ensuring that the (private) judges' efforts are not wasted. For the offender broke the law governing the behavior of an entire people, and as far as judges are trusted -- and why wouldn't they be, unless there is (infrequent) corruption -- everyone must be united in executing the sentence imposed on the criminal or tortfeasor.
You use that world "society" again. Society cannot "ensure" anything concerning punishment. Only individuals can. These private judges will have the power and authority to execute the punishment you would so receive because I, the victim, have chosen them to do so. You do not need a "society" or an executive authority to see to it that the orders of the private courts are carried out. The private courts will see to that else they would go out of business.
dchernik: In short, in a city, for example, I envision a government consisting of a part-time city council and a full-time major in command of a few tough deputies. This analysis suggests that in many disputes anarcho-capitalists and minarchists talk past each other, because they fail to disentangle the different problems posed by each of the three branches of government.
Anarchy poses no problems but offers all of the solutions. Minarchist falsely believe that they can protect peoples rights by first violating them. Now that is an oxymoron!
Here is a link to an article I wrote for my blog talking about the moral issues surrounding minarchism.
"It does not require a majority to prevail, but rather an irate, tireless minority keen to set brush fires in people's minds. " -- Samuel Adams.
See Roderick Long's "The Nature of Law," the whole thing, but especially the section in part II titled The Lockean Case Against Locke wherein Roderick uses Locke's own arguments about the executive, legislative and judicial functions of law against him and the state.
See also his "Libertarian Anarchism: Responses to Ten Objections" and "Anarchism as Constitutionalism."
Yours in liberty,Geoffrey Allan Plauché, Ph.D.Adjunct Instructor, Buena Vista UniversityWebmaster, LibertarianStandard.comFounder / Executive Editor, Prometheusreview.com
C'mon, armchair anarchists, show us that you put your money where your mouth is. Identify an area, where you go and establish an anarcho-capitalist society and live what you are actually preaching!
Bluntly: At least "statists" have spent some effort into putting their ideas into practice. Not that one applauds all the results. But I think that for many years, while not having a perfect world, many people lived happy under their form of government. Where is the effort of the anarchists (anarcho capitalists) to do something similar? Are they to lazy or are they afraid their experiment is going to fail due to [put your favorite blame or excuse here]?.
Perhaps one should start a thread on founding an anarchists colony or something like that. Possibly some anarchists can pool their resources and get an island in the indian ocean, where they can get a free trade zone - or what about moving to Somalia?
I find the comparison with theists quite amusing, since in general religions are derived from a revelation and not from empirical or rational evidence.
... Regardless, where the burden of proof would be, what's the problem with empirically proving that one is actually right?
February 17 - 1600 - Giordano Bruno is burnt alive by the catholic church. Aquinas : "much more reason is there for heretics, as soon as they are convicted of heresy, to be not only excommunicated but even put to death."
Geoffrey Allan Plauche: See Roderick Long's "The Nature of Law," the whole thing, but especially the section in part II titled The Lockean Case Against Locke wherein Roderick uses Locke's own arguments about the executive, legislative and judicial functions of law against him and the state. See also his "Libertarian Anarchism: Responses to Ten Objections" and "Anarchism as Constitutionalism."
I thought that the Lockean case against Locke was brilliant when I stumbled upon it.
Torsten: Regardless, where the burden of proof woud be, what's the problem with empirically proving that one is actually right? C'mon, armchair anarchists, show us that you put your money where your mouth is. Identify an area, where you go and establish an anarcho-capitalist society and live what you are actually preaching!
Regardless, where the burden of proof woud be, what's the problem with empirically proving that one is actually right?
Which claim is it, exactly, that you want proven? Market anarchists don't make any claims to a system of how to organize society, besides speculation on some possibilities. We claim that markets provide solutions to problems at a cost less than the cost of living with the problem, or of individually solving the problem, whenever it is possible to do so. That's been well proven, in fact, it's tautological - it's the baked into the definition of voluntary exchange and free markets.
Of course there are problems for which no known solution is available at lower cost, and in such a circumstance, nobody would prefer that the problem be "solved".
What you really want proven is that anarchy can solve problems for which no solution is known, or no known solution is worth the cost. Statistst commonly claim that governments can do that, so I guess it's natural to want to apply the same impossible standard to any proposed alternative, except that government is actually never held to that standard - because cost is always hidden and/or explicitly removed from the analysis - and could never live up to it if applied to them.
As to your advice to just go and establish an anarcho-capitalist society, that's what agorism is all about. The problem is that there are a lot of people that are actively working to force us not to do so. It makes it harder, but not impossible in the long run - that's one of the problems a free market will be very good at providing solutions to. To that end, will you lobby your government to stop interfering? The results would speak for themselves, which is a major part of the reason the elected racketeers are so eager to put a stop to it.
The state won't go away once enough people want the state to go away, the state will effectively disappear once enough people no longer care that much whether it stays or goes. We don't need a revolution, we need millions of them.
Torsten: Regardless, where the burden of proof woud be, what's the problem with empirically proving that one is actually right?
Why does one need to when one does not have the burden of proof? I see no reason to do it.
Torsten:C'mon, armchair anarchists, show us that you put your money where your mouth is. Identify an area, where you go and establish an anarcho-capitalist society and live what you are actually preaching!
Why should we?
Torsten:Bluntly: At least "statists" have spent some effort into putting their ideas into practice.
And look at where their ideas have gotten us, especially when they claim it is empirical evidence that a state makes life better, etc.
Torsten:I find the comparison with theists quite amusing, since in general religions are derived from a revelation and not from empirical or rational evidence.
And yet it's precisely the same from burden-of-proof standpoint. I hope you're not verging on a special pleading fallacy.
Bad replies so far, bad. Except for the pointer to Long's work. Now the main point of contention seems to be my claim that we must have a rudimentary state to enforce judicial decisions. Consider this problem: a private protection agency breaks the law. It is sued and loses. Now who is going to enforce the verdict? In my scheme, on the other hand, if the mayor is sued and loses, the community can take the police power away from him, e.g., through the city council's impeaching and removing him.
The city council in my understanding would be "the legislator of last resort," when private law-making negotiations have gotten nowhere. It should be appropriately limited in powers. So, you see the pattern: the judicial branch can be fully privatized; the legislative branch, partially privatized; and the executive branch must remain monopolized.
The burden of proof is on the "statist"? Get out of here! Do you want to find the truth here or "win an argument," especially with such a crude sleight of hand?
dchernik:The city council in my understanding would be "the legislator of last resort," when private law-making negotiations have gotten nowhere.
Then your understanding isn't very deep. The "legislator of last resort" is me and my gun, or you and yours. There's no way around that, it's a simple fact of reality. Let anybody, claim of legitimacy or no, push someone farther than he's willing to take, and he has no further recourse, then he's going to take matters into his own hands. The question is not what the "last resort" consists of, it's how to minimize the necessity of resorting to it.
Your attempt to substitute an artificial agency of last resort for the one nature provides is definitively refuted by:
dchernik:It should be appropriately limited in powers.
And I should be able to squeeze gold nuggets out of my butt.
If your theory requires an impossibility, then your theory is impossible.
dchernik:Do you want to find the truth here or "win an argument,"
It's quite presumptuous to claim that you are assisting anyone in finding the truth. Either you are trying to "win an argument" and convince the rest of us to accept your false notions, for reasons of your own, or you are yourself attempting to find the truth, and your post was a plea for help. My responses are based on an assuption of the latter.
> How is one moral system and set of rules better than others? What makes the moral system of a devout Christian better than that of a self-serving nihilist? Because you say so? I can say the sky is green with purple clouds but that doesn't make it so no matter how hard I protest. Therefore you cannot say one moral system and set of rules, as you put it, is inherently better than another.
Do you contradict yourself when you write further on that "You cannot violate my property neither can I violate yours."? Apparently, for you a legal system in which private property rights are respected is better than one in which they are not respected.
> You can hate the crack pipe all you want but you cannot force me to stop smoking crack. To do so would violate my right to self-ownership and self-determination. Therefore your actions, that is knocking the crack pipe from my hand, is a violation of my property rights making you an aggressor.
What if I don't think of myself as an aggressor but as someone doing God's work preventing you from hurting yourself? The point I'm trying to make is that it doesn't matter whether my ethical system is good or bad, true or false, as long as we have an agreement. On the other hand, it doesn't matter if my legal theory is perfectly sound if we don't have agreement. In that case cooperation breaks down.
So, I am not assisting anyone in finding the truth? My arguments are completely worthless? I've put what seemed like an interesting idea out there for you guys to evaluate. It's up to you now what you do with it.
dchernik: Bad replies so far, bad.
Bad replies so far, bad.
By all means, please, explain WHY these are all bad replies. You can't just SAY they are bad replies. Prove it. Back it with something.
dchernik: Except for the pointer to Long's work. Now the main point of contention seems to be my claim that we must have a rudimentary state to enforce judicial decisions. Consider this problem: a private protection agency breaks the law. It is sued and loses. Now who is going to enforce the verdict? In my scheme, on the other hand, if the mayor is sued and loses, the community can take the police power away from him, e.g., through the city council's impeaching and removing him.
Except for the pointer to Long's work. Now the main point of contention seems to be my claim that we must have a rudimentary state to enforce judicial decisions. Consider this problem: a private protection agency breaks the law. It is sued and loses. Now who is going to enforce the verdict? In my scheme, on the other hand, if the mayor is sued and loses, the community can take the police power away from him, e.g., through the city council's impeaching and removing him.
Companies don't commit crimes, people do. You hold the person(s) accountable for the crime. The market will punish the company.
dchernik: The city council in my understanding would be "the legislator of last resort," when private law-making negotiations have gotten nowhere. It should be appropriately limited in powers. So, you see the pattern: the judicial branch can be fully privatized; the legislative branch, partially privatized; and the executive branch must remain monopolized.
And yet you provide no proof of that claim.
dchernik: The burden of proof is on the "statist"? Get out of here! Do you want to find the truth here or "win an argument," especially with such a crude sleight of hand?
You came here making the claims for your particular view point but provided no real argument to back them up. Provide some form of evidence that your system is better than ours. You made the claim, not us, so back it up.
dchernik: Do you contradict yourself when you write further on that "You cannot violate my property neither can I violate yours."? Apparently, for you a legal system in which private property rights are respected is better than one in which they are not respected.
Yes, because that is the nature of PRIVATE property. Of course if you live in a communal society which does not regard property as private then it would be impossible to violate someones property since the property belongs to everyone. So what do you advocate -- private or communal property? If you advocate private property then by its nature property must be protected. If you advocate communal property (which only works if EVERYONE agrees that all property belongs to everyone) then property cannot be violated and need not be respected. Private property protection solves all of our problems whereas communal property only creates more problems and solves nothing.
dchernik: What if I don't think of myself as an aggressor but as someone doing God's work preventing you from hurting yourself? The point I'm trying to make is that it doesn't matter whether my ethical system is good or bad, true or false, as long as we have an agreement. On the other hand, it doesn't matter if my legal theory is perfectly sound if we don't have agreement. In that case cooperation breaks down.
My question to you is this: By what right do you have to tell me how I should live my life? What makes you correct and me wrong? Why are you master and I slave?
I'll go ahead and answer that for you: You have no right to tell me how to live.
dchernik: Now the main point of contention seems to be my claim that we must have a rudimentary state to enforce judicial decisions.
So prove it. What's so special about judicial decisions that they require a state?
Consider this problem: a private protection agency breaks the law. It is sued and loses. Now who is going to enforce the verdict? In my scheme, on the other hand, if the mayor is sued and loses, the community can take the police power away from him, e.g., through the city council's impeaching and removing him.
dchernik:The burden of proof is on the "statist"?
Yes.
dchernik:Get out of here! Do you want to find the truth here or "win an argument,"
They are one and the same. And it's not a crude slight of hand: it's proper argumentation procedure.
Remember: fallacies kill arguments, and fallacies cannot lead you to the truth.
dchernik:What if I don't think of myself as an aggressor but as someone doing God's work preventing you from hurting yourself?
A rose by any other name...
What you think of your actions does not change the nature of them.
dchernik: I've put what seemed like an interesting idea out there for you guys to evaluate. It's up to you now what you do with it.
You put out an old, tired, and thoroughly refuted idea. I decided what to do with it the moment I read it - for the 100th time in various flavors, by the way. It's what to do with you that is the still open question. The answer is largely up to you.
To which I retort: bad OP.
Now the main point of contention seems to be my claim that we must have a rudimentary state to enforce judicial decisions. Consider this problem: a private protection agency breaks the law. It is sued and loses. Now who is going to enforce the verdict? In my scheme, on the other hand, if the mayor is sued and loses, the community can take the police power away from him, e.g., through the city council's impeaching and removing him.
Another private agency. Big deal.
Except, you're advocating the prohibition of competition of free individuals. So yes, the burden is most definitely on you.
About the burden of proof thing: the burden of proof is most definitely on the shoulders of the statist, who must prove both legitimacy and that state involvement is a solution. In some cases the anarchist might not think there truly is a comprehensive and absolute solution to a particular problem, and it is the statist who is being utopian by believing in a solution to an inevitable inequity. The anarchist is not necessarily making a positive assertion, they are deconstructing the positive assertions of authoritarianism and drawing conclusions from the result of the negation of such assertions.
The anarchist does not have to prove that anarchism will solve every concievable problem because no system, no state, can do so either. It is erroneous and nonsensical to critisize anarchism as if it is proposing a singular system. It would be more accurate to describe it as a process (otherwise known as "the free market") by which systems and associations with them are freely chosen. All the anarchist is really saying is that we should let people try to come up with their own solutions in a plural and dynamic process rather than arbitrarily imposing one onto them through a central coercive system called "the state".
On putting anarcho-capitalism into practice...
Knight_of_BAAWA:Why does one need to when one does not have the burden of proof? I see no reason to do it.
Knight_of_BAAWA:Why should we?
Knight_of_BAAWA:And look at where their ideas have gotten us, especially when they claim it is empirical evidence that a state makes life better, etc.
Knight_of_BAAWA:And yet it's precisely the same from burden-of-proof standpoint. I hope you're not verging on a special pleading fallacy.
Question to all the armchair anarchists here:
If you don't want to start such an anarcho capitalist society yourself, would you at least move into territory once anarcho-capitalism would be established in it?
Torsten:Because it's not about proving something, but about living once dream.
No, it's not. It's about the statist having to demonstrate that only a government can handle such things.
Torsten:Because you anarcho-capitalists say that their model is better then any statis model.
Rather, it is the statists who say their way is better and moral. We remain unconvinced, just as I, as an atheist, am unconvinced by the blatant assertions of the theists.
Torsten:Well, obviously the state doesn't make live miserable enough otherwise people would establish a territory with an alternative idea, like anarcho capitalism, being practiced.
And yet there have been revolutions and the like. Further, your claim is equivalent to "If there is no god, why isn't everyone an atheist". It's a distraction tactic, and has been exposed as such.
Torsten:your comparison was a category mistake.
No, it wasn't. It was precisely the same from burden-of-proof standpoint. I
Because you anarcho-capitalists say that their model is better then any statis model.
The fundamental error in your thinking here is the treatment of anarchism as a singular "model" for everyone within a huge territory per se. It isn't. The entire point is precisely the opposite, to remove all central plans from the picture. To remove the monopoly on force and ultimate decision-making. To be rid of the state's land monopoly and money monopoly and all around large-scale protection racket.
Well, obviously the state doesn't make live miserable enough otherwise people would establish a territory with an alternative idea, like anarcho capitalism, being practiced.
This is intellectually dishonest because you very well know that this is illegal and would require multiple large-scale secessions. It's just a cleverly phrased "love it or leave it" argument. The state threatens us with force and its interventions tend to curb the scope of our options. You assume precisely what you need to prove, I.E. the legitimacy of the state's territorial dominion as such. In either case, agorism is a subset of market anarchism that is the only comprehensive strategy for doing just that - mass economic secession and civil disobedience as such as a tranisatory stage to anarchism.
your comparison was a category mistake.
I find the comparison to be sound. The theist faces the burden of proof for the existance and legitimacy of a deity and the statist faces the burden of proof for the existance and legitimacy of the state. In the eyes of the anarchist, the state is just a particular collection of men, an institutionalized criminal organization, who claim special rights over everyone else and partial ownership over everyone else. The state is something to be demystified. In the eyes of the statist, the state is legitimized and is not seen as criminal in its essential nature. It is something more than mere flawed men in statist mythos.
Please note that I made some changes to the post that Brainpolice was replying to.
Brainpolice:The fundamental error in your thinking here is the treatment of anarchism as a singular "model" for everyone within a huge territory per se. It isn't. The entire point is precisely the opposite, to remove all central plans from the picture.
Brainpolice:This is intellectually dishonest because you very well know that this is illegal and would require multiple large-scale secessions. The state threatens us with force and its interventions tend to curb the scope of our options. You assume precisely what you need to prove, I.E. the legitimacy of the state's territorial dominion as such.
Here is a candidate for the project: http://www.privateislandsonline.com/isla-san-pedro-chile.htm
Brainpolice:I find the comparison to be sound. The theist faces the burden of proof for the existance and legitimacy of a deity and the statist faces the burden of proof for the existance and legitimacy of the state.
The question is: Does one really want to live in any thinkable anarcho capitalist model?
Obviously, by the very least, anarcho-capitalists do. By what justification does one bar them from seceding?
What I proposed isn't illegal. It doesn't have to be the US, since one could go to any existing country and ask to purchase secession rights over a specific territory of it. In the case of Somalia one would basically have to pay some of the warlords there and then move in to take possession of that territory. Other options are possible. The difference from conventional property purchases is simply that one would ask the state for abstinance of legal dominion as well. Hence let us assume that gaining some islands in the indian ocean would be perfectly possible for the purpose of practicing anarcho capitalism. So it's more a matter of real preference and will to practice that preference.
It nonetheless reduces to the good ole' "love it or leave it" argument, which assumes the legitimacy of the state to begin with and doesn't truly present one with the option to secede as an individual, to stop paying taxes and everything else that would go along with that. It is disingenous to basically say that all anarchists must become expatriates - to other states basically - in order to be consistant or live their values.
Consistantly living one's values as a libertarian is illegal. That's the plain truth of the matter. It seems very victim-blaming to place the responsibility on the person who's values and their actualization are outlawed by force. The burden of proof is on those trying to justify this. You must rationally legitimize the authority in question and the initiatory use of force or compulsion in general.
As said previously, most religions are a matter of revelation and faith in it. Hence I don't consider the comparison sound.
I consider the comparison to be sound because statist ideology works in precisely the same way. In various ways many people literally have faith in the ability of politicians and government agents to solve problems and that only those people are capable of doing certain things. They are effectively deified. And there is the strong convinction that without the state (or god), there can be no morality and the result would be absolute chaos. The notion of intelligent design can be compared to the notion that there must be a central planner of human activity. One faces a massive burden of proof for all of this.
The psychology of statism is fascinating.
Torsten:I don't see how removal of any statist central plans would be required to make an anarcho capitalist society outside of territories work.
Goes with the definition of anarchocapitalism. And anarchy.
Torsten:The question is: Does one really want to live in any thinkable anarcho capitalist model?
I would think that, given the existence of anarchocapitalists, the answer would be yes. However: your question isn't the crux of the matter. The real question is: what is so special about certain goods that only a state can provide them, i.e. mandate that no one else can, or at least only those so licensed by the state can do so.
Torsten:What I proposed isn't illegal. It doesn't have to be the US, since one could go to any existing country and ask to purchase secession rights over a specific territory of it.
And watch how that doesn't work out, since Leviathan never wants to give up power.
Torsten:As said previously, most religions are a matter of revelation and faith in it.
That's irrelevant, though. An existentially positive claim is made on the part of the theists, requiring them to back it. And on the part of the statists, an exclusive provision claim is made, requiring them to back it. What you're complaining about is wallpaper-and-curtain-color differences.
Brainpolice:Consistantly living one's values as a libertarian is illegal. That's the plain truth of the matter. It seems very victim-blaming to place the responsibility on the person who's values and their actualization are outlawed by force. The burden of proof is on those trying to justify this. You must rationally legitimize the authority in question and the initiatory use of force or compulsion in general.
Absolutely. It's like blaming me for being outside a grocery store at 9pm because some guy put a knife to my throat, rather than blaming the guy who held me up. It's not that I shouldn't have been there, it's that the guy shouldn't have assaulted me. Same with the state: it's not that we should have to leave; the state should stop violating our rights.
Torsten: Question to all the armchair anarchists here: If you don't want to start such an anarcho capitalist society yourself, would you at least move into territory once anarcho-capitalism would be established in it?
Question to the statist: If Russia invaded your precious state would you fight to defend it or would you leave and go somewhere else?
I have a home and it's right here. I have no plans to play the coward and leave my home simply because I have an oppressive tyrannical state that rules over me. I prefer to instead stay in my home, where I was born and raised, and fight the tyranny I live under. I prefer to educate everyone I meet and weaken the states power that way. I prefer to make my home safe for my children and their children by making my stand for liberty here. You can keep your "Love It or Leave It" attitude. I'd rather stand up to the enemy and fight rather than cower and flee to the safety of a foreign land.
Torsten:If you don't want to start such an anarcho capitalist society yourself,
Be careful in assuming that because the only thing you see people here doing is talking, that it's the only thing they're doing. It only looks like everyone is only talking because that's all you get to see.
Torsten:would you at least move into territory once anarcho-capitalism would be established in it?
You still misunderstand anarcho-capitalism if you think that it is something to be "established". I would and will move to wherever is most conducive to my ability to defend my rights and engage in mutually beneficial economic exchange, within the limits of the resources I have available for such a move. Somalia is not yet such a place. The absence of a strong interventionist state is one way to a place can be conducive, but it's not a sufficient condition in and of itself.
And remember, market anarchy is not a geographically determined condition. It doesn't need to be physically separate from an overweening state, only functionally isolated from it.
histhasthai: Torsten:If you don't want to start such an anarcho capitalist society yourself, Be careful in assuming that because the only thing you see people here doing is talking, that it's the only thing they're doing. It only looks like everyone is only talking because that's all you get to see. Torsten:would you at least move into territory once anarcho-capitalism would be established in it? You still misunderstand anarcho-capitalism if you think that it is something to be "established". I would and will move to wherever is most conducive to my ability to defend my rights and engage in mutually beneficial economic exchange, within the limits of the resources I have available for such a move. Somalia is not yet such a place. The absence of a strong interventionist state is one way to a place can be conducive, but it's not a sufficient condition in and of itself. And remember, market anarchy is not a geographically determined condition. It doesn't need to be physically separate from an overweening state, only functionally isolated from it.
Indeed. Organizations such as Terra Libra, and many individual agorists are already in a state of market anarchy.
Market anarchist, Linux geek, aspiring Perl hacker, and student of the neo-Aristotelians, the classical individualist anarchists, and the Austrian school.
Jon Irenicus:Now the main point of contention seems to be my claim that we must have a rudimentary state to enforce judicial decisions. Consider this problem: a private protection agency breaks the law. It is sued and loses. Now who is going to enforce the verdict? In my scheme, on the other hand, if the mayor is sued and loses, the community can take the police power away from him, e.g., through the city council's impeaching and removing him. Another private agency. Big deal.
But that's my argument: it can't! Read again what I wrote in the OP: "Once the question of what law is has been settled, and a judicial verdict, rendered, the offender must be overpowered, crushed (not in terms of the severity of punishment, of course, but in the sense of carrying out the sentence reliably). Only society as a whole, organized and represented by the executive branch of the state, can do so without fail." A protection agency can overpower any single human criminal. But it cannot overpower another protection agency, unless, perhaps, all of these agencies unite as one to make war on the outlaw agency. But such a union is equivalent to having the state and seems unlikely anyway.
Jon Irenicus:The burden of proof is on the "statist"? Get out of here! Do you want to find the truth here or "win an argument," especially with such a crude sleight of hand? Except, you're advocating the prohibition of competition of free individuals. So yes, the burden is most definitely on you. -Jon
Yes, I am advocating prohibition of competition in violence. The more competition there, the worse the situation is.
dchernik:Yes, I am advocating prohibition of competition in violence. The more competition there, the worse the situation is.
False. This assumes one or more of the following unsupported things: 1) that competitive legals services are competing to provide violence as a service rather than justice, or 2) that competition to provide justice necessarily will result in more violence than a lack of competition; 3) that a coercive monopoly in the provision of justice does not involve violence in the enforcement of this monopoly and/or 4) that this does not constitute rights violations, 5) states don't inevitably grow into Leviathan over time, 6) the inter-state violence involved in wars and the intra- and extra- state violence that results from statist policies (such as most terrorism, organized crime, unnecessary assaults and deaths resulting from the inefficacy and inefficiency of the state's judicial system) as well as all the other violence done by the state to its subjects all don't count in the comparison. I think all six of these assumptions are false.
dchernik:Only society as a whole, organized and represented by the executive branch of the state, can do so without fail." A protection agency can overpower any single human criminal. But it cannot overpower another protection agency, unless, perhaps, all of these agencies unite as one to make war on the outlaw agency. But such a union is equivalent to having the state and seems unlikely anyway.
It's not equivalent to having the state at all. I don't know where you're getting that from. It's simply cooperation among companies to eliminate a rogue agency.
Jon Irenicus:Except, you're advocating the prohibition of competition of free individuals. So yes, the burden is most definitely on you.
That runs counter to basic economic laws. More competition means more choices and better service.
dchernik: Jon Irenicus:Now the main point of contention seems to be my claim that we must have a rudimentary state to enforce judicial decisions. Consider this problem: a private protection agency breaks the law. It is sued and loses. Now who is going to enforce the verdict? In my scheme, on the other hand, if the mayor is sued and loses, the community can take the police power away from him, e.g., through the city council's impeaching and removing him. Another private agency. Big deal. But that's my argument: it can't! Read again what I wrote in the OP: "Once the question of what law is has been settled, and a judicial verdict, rendered, the offender must be overpowered, crushed (not in terms of the severity of punishment, of course, but in the sense of carrying out the sentence reliably). Only society as a whole, organized and represented by the executive branch of the state, can do so without fail." A protection agency can overpower any single human criminal. But it cannot overpower another protection agency, unless, perhaps, all of these agencies unite as one to make war on the outlaw agency. But such a union is equivalent to having the state and seems unlikely anyway.
And what is to prevent all other agencies from uniting to bring a rogue PDA to justice? It would be to their economic benefit to do such a thing as it shows their customers that they truly are dedicated to providing justice. You also assume that PDA's commit crimes which they do not. It is impossible for a non-person to commit a crime. It will be individual actors within the company that have committed the crime and they are the ones that will be arrested and punished. The market will deal with the company on its own and in do fashion. You further falsely equate a united effort by various PDA's to bring the criminals to justice to that of a state. It is in no way similar to a state because a state maintains a monopoly over a given territorial area. That monopoly extends to law making and punishing as well as a monopoly on force. You fail to recognize that companies even today regularly join forces to bring about something. One good example is that of the emerging technology called WiMAX which will revolutionize wireless internet service. Several companies (Alcatel-Lucent, Intel, Cisco, Clearwire, Samsung Electronics and Sprint) all joined together to form a patent alliance to make the creation of WiMAX services easier. Additionally another company known as Clearwire is now a consortium of several businesses some of which are competitors (Sprint Nextel, Comcast, Time Warner, Intel, Google, and Bright House) in an effort to create a company that will expand WiMAX to different markets. But there are hundreds of examples of competing businesses joining together for a common goal only to return to competition once that goal has been met. Why would they do that? Because by working together in the beginning it will create more profits for everyone in the end.
You also falsely assume that those working for the PDA who have been convicted, of say the crime of murder for the sake of argument but it could be any crime, would actually find protection even within their own company. Firstly it would not be in the companies interest to harbor a convicted murderer or perpetrator of any crime of any significance. It's bad press and since the press wont have a government to report on every day anything of this magnitude would become big news quickly. Customers would begin to lose faith in the company and might cancel their contracts with them and go to other providers. The financial consequences for protecting a murder who is employed with the company would cause them to arrest that individual themselves and turn them over to the responsible party. Secondly you assume that someone would actually come to the defense of a convicted murderer or whatever crime they were convicted of. Unlike nation-states companies have a hard time eliciting such fervent support that the employees would be willing to risk their own lives for this criminal. The viability, survivability and profitability of any private protection agency is based solely off of their reputation. If they have a reputation for protecting criminal employees then they will lose market share and eventually go out of business. It is in their best interest to see to it that anyone working for them who has been convicted of a crime be punished because it shows they are dedicated to running a clean house, are honest and trustworthy -- all things that make their market standing better.
dchernik: Jon Irenicus:The burden of proof is on the "statist"? Get out of here! Do you want to find the truth here or "win an argument," especially with such a crude sleight of hand? Except, you're advocating the prohibition of competition of free individuals. So yes, the burden is most definitely on you. -Jon Yes, I am advocating prohibition of competition in violence. The more competition there, the worse the situation is.
Because the State is so good at not going overboard with violence? The State is nothing but violence.
But it cannot overpower another protection agency, unless, perhaps, all of these agencies unite as one to make war on the outlaw agency. But such a union is equivalent to having the state and seems unlikely anyway.
Which has not been demonstrated. A state is a compulsory territorial monopoly of force. Whatever superficial features such an arrangement would bear to one are irrelevant if it differs in that defining characteristic. Besides, losing clients and being ostracized by other firms should be reason enough for it to desist.
Indeed - which is why the burden of proof is on you.
dchernik:Only society as a whole ... can do so without fail.
You're applying an impossible standard that no state or "agency of last resort" could live up to either. Society as a whole cannot do it without fail, and when society as a whole tries to, it generally causes more harm than good.
Again, if your theory relies on an impossibility - perfect execution, in this case - your theory is impossible.
I have a couple of point for you anarcho capitalists. In the text i have read, the issue of murder and how to deal with it is brushed under the carpet ...Knowing what is right and doing what is right is two very different things. One lives in the world of ideas, and the other is reality. Just about everyone knows and agrees violence, murder and theft is morally wrong. But people do it anyways. So anarcho capitalists must have a way to stop or punish murder that does not rely on self regulation threw morals, reason, contracts or promises. It must be a coercive law, one based on the threats of violence. And the threat must be credible, that is the enforcer of the law must have enough power of violence that he can actually deliver the punishment. Sending the neighbours kid to punish a mafia boss for murder will not work, simply because the violator of the law has more power of violence than the neighbours kid. So by logic, the enforcer must be more powerful than any other member or group of society in order to be able to enforce the law. If there is some individual or group (say a gang, a militia, a warlord) that has more power of violence than the private law enforcers.. then this group will be able to do whatever they want. There is no law as far as they are conserned. Or there is no law other than their own. And they would be right. The group would be able to make people respect and follow their rules.. because they have the power of violence to make sure that people do. And the private law enforcers could not do anything about it. If they tried they would get killed because they are weaker. No law will be respected without the power to enfirce it. Any law will be respected that some party has the power to enforce. Law has nothing to do with morals. It has all to do with power. Probably, the first thing that this more powerful group would do is kill all those private law enforcers off. The group would declare themselves the state, the owner of the land.You see the problem with the anarcho capitalism? It cant last, and it has never existed. Its a utopia. ( Even in Island, as in any society the law would get skewed towars the most powerful party aka the state. )Law must be enforced by the group with most power of violence. That is another way of saying that there must be a monopoly on violence in order for law to be enforced. A law that is not enforced is no law at all. The fundamental problem i think is that anarcho capitalists are caught up in talking about morals and rights, without taking into account reality and human nature. Rights are not real, but only imagined and idealistic, if the party that claims to have these rights does not have the power to enforce them.Even during the tribal age (some thousand years ago).. there was a monopoly of violence, in the form of the tribal chief and his gang. And life back then was no harmony as people imagine but very violent. The bones that have been dug up shows that most people died by the hands of other people (there is a great TEDTalks about it). Imagine how little use the anarcho capitalist ideas about rights and law would have done in this setting.When a theory does not work in reality, its the theory that is broken and not the other way around. Just as its not a fault of human nature that communism does not work, its not the fault of human nature that anarcho capitalism wont work. And when it comes to the burden of proof. We already know that laws work and are enforced in soceities where one party has a monopoly on violence. It has been proven countless times, govt always happensm every signle time. What is not proven is that there exist law in anarcho capitalist societies. We know there is no law under anarchism. And there is no evidence that there would be in anarcho capitalist ones either. Another problem with anarcho capitalist societies is how they could form. It is clear how states form threw civil war. Its clear that once there is a defacto monopoly of violence there is peace. (My theory goes something like Anarchism -> Civil War -> Dictatorship -> Peace and Slavery -> Trade -> Wealth -> Economic Freedom -> Political Freedom.) Anyways, what is not clear is how and by what method a anarcho capitalist society could ever form. (Please missunderstand me correctly. I'm no statist, but a libertarian (just not a rights libertarian). I'm not talking about rights or morals here. I'm talking about reality, and the impossibility of this system.)Cheers
Here's my advice to you - learn to write in concise paragraphs, or you will get no responses, and definitely none from me. I certainly do not have the time nor the patience to wade through walls of text on online debates, especially if all you're doing is rehashing familiar arguments against anarcho-capitalism and amateurish crap like "rights dun exist coz I can't see them!". Oh, and by the way, we're libertarians too - we're just consistent.
Your complete lack of understanding is clearly visable but that's not a bad thing. I once thought like you. I'm glad I don't anymore. A critique.
DriftWood: I have a couple of point for you anarcho capitalists. In the text i have read, the issue of murder and how to deal with it is brushed under the carpet ...
I have a couple of point for you anarcho capitalists. In the text i have read, the issue of murder and how to deal with it is brushed under the carpet ...
Then what have you read? There are numerous articles and books that deal with this subject.
DriftWood:Knowing what is right and doing what is right is two very different things. One lives in the world of ideas, and the other is reality. Just about everyone knows and agrees violence, murder and theft is morally wrong. But people do it anyways. So anarcho capitalists must have a way to stop or punish murder that does not rely on self regulation threw morals, reason, contracts or promises.
But isn't that all the law is? A set of established rules about moral and reason, contracts and promises?
DriftWood: It must be a coercive law, one based on the threats of violence. And the threat must be credible, that is the enforcer of the law must have enough power of violence that he can actually deliver the punishment.
It must be a coercive law, one based on the threats of violence. And the threat must be credible, that is the enforcer of the law must have enough power of violence that he can actually deliver the punishment.
So what you are suggesting is that to protect my rights the State must violate them? That makes a lot of sense.
DriftWood: Sending the neighbours kid to punish a mafia boss for murder will not work, simply because the violator of the law has more power of violence than the neighbours kid.
Sending the neighbours kid to punish a mafia boss for murder will not work, simply because the violator of the law has more power of violence than the neighbours kid.
Nice straw man! That's really good. Yeah, you killed my wife so I'll just hire the kid down the road to punish you! That is laughable. No one is suggesting we send "the neighbours kid to punish a mafia boss for murder." There really wouldn't be a mafia boss anyone in an anarcho-capitalist world because every "illegal" act the mob is involved in now would be perfectly legal under anarchy. Most people would hire a private security firm to do their police work who have specialist in dealing with homicides, not the neighbours kid.
DriftWood: So by logic, the enforcer must be more powerful than any other member or group of society in order to be able to enforce the law. If there is some individual or group (say a gang, a militia, a warlord) that has more power of violence than the private law enforcers.. then this group will be able to do whatever they want. There is no law as far as they are conserned.
So by logic, the enforcer must be more powerful than any other member or group of society in order to be able to enforce the law. If there is some individual or group (say a gang, a militia, a warlord) that has more power of violence than the private law enforcers.. then this group will be able to do whatever they want. There is no law as far as they are conserned.
Another strawman. You assume that there would be a gang, militia or warlord that would have more power than those whom they are trying to extort. Not likely. Of course there is an organization today that does those things and it's called the GOVERNMENT. Yes, the government -- the State -- is the warlord we have to worry about today. They rob us blind through taxation, they send out kids off to die in unnecessary, illegal and immoral wars, they create poverty, they violate our property and our life at every turn. It is the State more than any other organization in the history of man that has created more pain, suffering and death and to advocate for its existence is to advocate theft, murder and slavery. It's just that simple. No warlord or gang is going to exercise enough influence over a given area to matter much. The money and manpower isn't going to be there for them to exercise that kind of control. Not to mention most people in society would be armed, and much better than they are today, they would have to deal with an unruly populace that doesn't want to be controlled.
DriftWood: Or there is no law other than their own. And they would be right. The group would be able to make people respect and follow their rules.. because they have the power of violence to make sure that people do.
Or there is no law other than their own. And they would be right. The group would be able to make people respect and follow their rules.. because they have the power of violence to make sure that people do.
Isn't this what the State does right now? Why should I follow their rules? What makes their rules so much better than mine?
DriftWood: And the private law enforcers could not do anything about it. If they tried they would get killed because they are weaker. No law will be respected without the power to enforce it. Any law will be respected that some party has the power to enforce. Law has nothing to do with morals. It has all to do with power. Probably, the first thing that this more powerful group would do is kill all those private law enforcers off. The group would declare themselves the state, the owner of the land.
And the private law enforcers could not do anything about it. If they tried they would get killed because they are weaker. No law will be respected without the power to enforce it. Any law will be respected that some party has the power to enforce. Law has nothing to do with morals. It has all to do with power. Probably, the first thing that this more powerful group would do is kill all those private law enforcers off. The group would declare themselves the state, the owner of the land.
That's a really nice strawman. The private law enforcers couldn't do anything about it because they are weaker? So you assume that a more powerful warlord is going to rise up in a peaceful society to dominate the populace and NO ONE is going to be able to stand up against them? Highly unlikely. The United States has the most advanced and powerful military in the world and those poor Iraqi's are doing a bang up job beating them. These warlords are also going to need the loyalty of the immediate population. If that warlord can gain the loyalty of the immediate population and establish a State he must now go on a conquest. Who does he conquest? There isn't a nation with a government to topple but individuals. So he is going to have to conquer individuals and those same individuals have guns as well. So not only does he have to raise money to fund his war (which could be difficult if no one is trading with his new State) he is going to have to conquer the rest of humanity. Say he attacks City A what is to stop the people of Cities B and C from joining together to fight this aggressor if for nothing else than their own survival?
I like this quote: "Law has nothing to do with morals." So true. So true.
DriftWood:You see the problem with the anarcho capitalism? It cant last, and it has never existed. Its a utopia. ( Even in Island, as in any society the law would get skewed towars the most powerful party aka the state. )Law must be enforced by the group with most power of violence. That is another way of saying that there must be a monopoly on violence in order for law to be enforced. A law that is not enforced is no law at all. The fundamental problem i think is that anarcho capitalists are caught up in talking about morals and rights, without taking into account reality and human nature. Rights are not real, but only imagined and idealistic, if the party that claims to have these rights does not have the power to enforce them.
So you don't believe you have rights huh? You don't have a right to property? You don't believe you have a right to life? You don't believe you have a right to be left alone and to live your life free from coercion and violence? I thought you called yourself a libertarian? Perhaps slave is a better term for what you are.
DriftWood:Even during the tribal age (some thousand years ago).. there was a monopoly of violence, in the form of the tribal chief and his gang. And life back then was no harmony as people imagine but very violent. The bones that have been dug up shows that most people died by the hands of other people (there is a great TEDTalks about it). Imagine how little use the anarcho capitalist ideas about rights and law would have done in this setting.
Actually it probably would have done quite well. Even during the "tribal age" people were free to leave the tribe and establish their own or join another. And I seriously doubt "most people died by the hands of other people." If you would, please provide the scientific reference for that "fact" you just gave us.
DriftWood:When a theory does not work in reality, its the theory that is broken and not the other way around. Just as its not a fault of human nature that communism does not work, its not the fault of human nature that anarcho capitalism wont work. And when it comes to the burden of proof. We already know that laws work and are enforced in soceities where one party has a monopoly on violence. It has been proven countless times, govt always happensm every signle time. What is not proven is that there exist law in anarcho capitalist societies. We know there is no law under anarchism. And there is no evidence that there would be in anarcho capitalist ones either. Another problem with anarcho capitalist societies is how they could form. It is clear how states form threw civil war. Its clear that once there is a defacto monopoly of violence there is peace. (My theory goes something like Anarchism -> Civil War -> Dictatorship -> Peace and Slavery -> Trade -> Wealth -> Economic Freedom -> Political Freedom.) Anyways, what is not clear is how and by what method a anarcho capitalist society could ever form.
So if it has never been then it is impossible right? That's your argument? Not a very good one. Three hundred years ago people would have laughed at you when you talked about a car or radio and called you crazy. Would never work. Guess what -- if you went back 260 years ago and told people about a republican form of government they would have said it wouldn't work, that it has never existed, that it was Utopian and an impossible dream. I'm glad people like you never actually do anything for the world or nothing would ever get done.