Free Capitalist Network - Community Archive
Mises Community Archive
An online community for fans of Austrian economics and libertarianism, featuring forums, user blogs, and more.

Private law will be just like Statism

rated by 0 users
This post has 89 Replies | 10 Followers

Not Ranked
Posts 33
Points 1,515
MissMapleLeaf Posted: Wed, Oct 31 2012 4:09 AM

 

When private legal jurisdictions compete it will either be violent conflict with neighboring jurisdictions or to acquire the customers of a neighboring jurisdiction, which is really just war, right?  I don't see how competing private legal jurisdictions are any different from states. 

Doesn't the libertarian philosophy just suppose all these private jurisdictions will somehow "obey" the principles of voluntarism? 

  • | Post Points: 125
Top 50 Contributor
Posts 2,258
Points 34,610
Anenome replied on Wed, Oct 31 2012 4:10 AM

Why don't you educate yourself and read some of the literature rather than trolling over and over?

 

Autarchy: rule of the self by the self; the act of self ruling.
  • | Post Points: 20
Top 100 Contributor
Posts 985
Points 21,180
hashem replied on Wed, Oct 31 2012 2:40 PM

Yes, private law will be just like statism. Probably worse in many respects. But the OP is the wrong way to approach this topic. The proper approach is: private firms will still use violence based on the worst terms that society can be pushed to accept at any given time. The main difference is the violence will be used to defend moral system X instead of moral system Y. And to the extent they use courts, perfectly arbitrary judgments will be made which is no improvement over the arbitrary court systems we already have.

Whenever you find yourself on the side of the majority, it's time to pause and reflect. —Mark Twain
  • | Post Points: 65
Not Ranked
Posts 33
Points 1,515

So you just admitted it can't work, so how should it be done?

  • | Post Points: 20
Top 100 Contributor
Posts 985
Points 21,180
hashem replied on Wed, Oct 31 2012 2:47 PM

It shouldn't, that's the point.

Whenever you find yourself on the side of the majority, it's time to pause and reflect. —Mark Twain
  • | Post Points: 5
Top 50 Contributor
Posts 2,679
Points 45,110
gotlucky replied on Wed, Oct 31 2012 2:47 PM

Hashem,

Care to prove that bold assertion?

  • | Post Points: 20
Top 100 Contributor
Posts 985
Points 21,180
hashem replied on Wed, Oct 31 2012 2:50 PM

Which?

Whenever you find yourself on the side of the majority, it's time to pause and reflect. —Mark Twain
  • | Post Points: 5
Top 50 Contributor
Posts 2,360
Points 43,785
z1235 replied on Wed, Oct 31 2012 3:04 PM

hashem, is that Rothbard in your avatar? Just curious. 

 

  • | Post Points: 20
Top 100 Contributor
Posts 875
Points 14,180
xahrx replied on Wed, Oct 31 2012 3:40 PM

Doesn't the libertarian philosophy just suppose all these private jurisdictions will somehow "obey" the principles of voluntarism?

 
No.  It supposes that if enough individuals obey voluntarist principles, then so will the agencies, organizations, and institutions they create, even if a minority don't hold those principles.  Hashem is probably right in as much as it's acceptable to be a lying, cheating, statist prick, people will be lying, cheating, statist pricks, and behave accordingly.  That's why private law could collapse into statism, not because of the system, but because of the people not accepting its boundaries
"I was just in the bathroom getting ready to leave the house, if you must know, and a sudden wave of admiration for the cotton swab came over me." - Anonymous
  • | Post Points: 5
Top 50 Contributor
Male
Posts 2,439
Points 44,650
Neodoxy replied on Wed, Oct 31 2012 4:58 PM

Hashem,

You're really gonna have to explain this one, since a day ago you were railing at Ron Paul for not talking fully about his anti-statism

At last those coming came and they never looked back With blinding stars in their eyes but all they saw was black...
  • | Post Points: 5
Top 50 Contributor
Male
Posts 2,439
Points 44,650
Neodoxy replied on Wed, Oct 31 2012 5:20 PM

MML,

While I think that Anenome has a point that you might want to read something before making these sorts of posts (I'd reccomend chaos theory) I know that your intent is not trolling.

Your question can be divided into two questions: The first is what stops private law firms from continually conflicting violently? The second is what ensures that law will be voluntaryist.

1. The biggest reason is that it is extremely costly to fight with other law firms. While firstly I would not want to give my money to a firm which is prone to conflict for any number of reasons, secondly it is hard to see a situation where force would really be cost-effective between law firms. War is expensive, especially when you're paying soldiers to risk their lives without an ideological shield that is the state. Firms and their constituents would naturally wish to find a peaceful way to ensure that disputes between them are solved, and therefore arbitration will arise between the two firms.

Even if all of this fails then there's always the more voluntaryist solution. Why not have non-monetary courts? If a town has a court, or if people simply come together to make a court then there is nothing wrong with this. These groups will not want to fight one another and would likely arise specifically in response to abuses by firms.

Therefore it is extremely unlikely that firms will choose to fight with one another, and if they did "public" courts could still come about to restrict such conflict.

A useful recommendation I would make when dealing with the results of these sorts of systems is this: What are its incentives? Is a viable firm structure really one in which you have to hire a military to fight as opposed to simply having a voluntary compromise, possibly including third party arbitration.

2. There is nothing which ensures a libertarian law would arise, as much as anything it's to do with what incentives point to under a certain setting.

If not enough people believe in anti-statism then there will be a state and statist law, there is no way around that. This is obvious since we well... Have a state right now. However, as soon as the state itself is abolished and we have private law then we can guarantee that law will be generally libertarian, although there can certainly be noticeable differences between the law of different regions. This is because a libertarian law is the easiest to enforce. If one fails to enforce property rights then you're in a heap of trouble, and people are willing to pay a lot to see that property is protected. Property violations tend to be a threat not just to the person whose person or property is being violated, but all people and property owners in the region will likely feel threatened. Meanwhile, how much money are you really willing to spend of your own money to stop people from doing drugs?

Especially in the absence of the state it's really hard to see law being able to attain the funds for anything beyond a basic law: maintenance of property rights and protection against violence. Anything else is expensive, hard to justify in the first place, and unlikely to align with the views of the people who would not form a state in the first place.

Does this make sense to you?

At last those coming came and they never looked back With blinding stars in their eyes but all they saw was black...
  • | Post Points: 5
Not Ranked
Male
Posts 79
Points 1,490
Walden replied on Wed, Oct 31 2012 5:26 PM

Courts can wage war?

  • | Post Points: 5
Top 200 Contributor
Male
Posts 432
Points 6,830
Groucho replied on Wed, Oct 31 2012 5:58 PM

Who makes this crystal ball you gaze into, hashem and OP?

So the assertion is that private law would necessarily degenerate into marauders in search of conquest, or more simply "statism". Really? How would they perpetrate this when the only funds they have are from those who volutarily pay for their services and they don't have a monopoly claim on the use of force?

It would be a lot different if it were a trillion dollar racket like governments have going, but there's no way a private business can afford to expend its limited resources on caveman ideas like destructive clashes with its competitors. Those kind of situations require a government/mafia partnership to come about.

An idealist is one who, on noticing that roses smell better than a cabbage, concludes that it will also make better soup. -H.L. Mencken
  • | Post Points: 20
Top 200 Contributor
Posts 372
Points 8,230

See: http://youtu.be/jTYkdEU_B4o?t=2m55s

"Nutty as squirrel shit."
  • | Post Points: 20
Top 50 Contributor
Male
Posts 2,493
Points 39,355
Malachi replied on Wed, Oct 31 2012 6:50 PM
Who makes this crystal ball you gaze into, hashem and OP?
workers do but the capitalists took some of the labor so some of its missing so you cant see evrything
Keep the faith, Strannix. -Casey Ryback, Under Siege (Steven Seagal)
  • | Post Points: 5
Top 100 Contributor
Posts 985
Points 21,180
hashem replied on Wed, Oct 31 2012 8:15 PM

Video linked by Buzz Killington demonstrates pretty well exactly why "libertarianism" is statism under a different name. Violence by any name still smells like shit. The idea that someone's enforcement agency can threaten you (for example, with court), is statism. The idea that someone's court can use force against you, is statism. The difference is that the violence is decentralized (supposedly, in theory), and that the excuse for violence is "libertarian" morals instead of whatever else.

IN ANY CASE, people always get the worst service that they'll put up with. So it's unreasonable to posit some magically flawless theoretical ancap society, because markets don't work like that. And further, it's silly to posit the system in the first place—it doesn't exist, so it must be achieved through gradual change or else seasteading or something.

Sadly, almost every thread on this topic goes the same. I'm really losing faith in my fellow critical thinkers. Surely you can come up with something better than violence with a different excuse.

Whenever you find yourself on the side of the majority, it's time to pause and reflect. —Mark Twain
  • | Post Points: 50
Top 25 Contributor
Male
Posts 4,922
Points 79,590
Autolykos replied on Wed, Oct 31 2012 8:18 PM

Most of us don't have a problem with violence per se.

The keyboard is mightier than the gun.

Non parit potestas ipsius auctoritatem.

Voluntaryism Forum

  • | Post Points: 35
Top 50 Contributor
Male
Posts 2,439
Points 44,650
Neodoxy replied on Wed, Oct 31 2012 8:29 PM

^

And that will confirm everything that he has to say.

Hashem, if you could have any system put into place (without changing fundamental human nature, I.E some will still want to use force against other people) then what system would you impose exactly?

To say that you're losing faith in the Austrian orthodoxy still believing in violence sounds exceedingly Utopian. Because I think that the answer is no, thusfar no human being who has ever lived has developed a practical system devoid of any sort of violence, so I wouldn't blame those around you right now.

At last those coming came and they never looked back With blinding stars in their eyes but all they saw was black...
  • | Post Points: 35
Top 50 Contributor
Male
Posts 2,493
Points 39,355
Malachi replied on Wed, Oct 31 2012 8:29 PM
The idea that someone's enforcement agency can threaten you (for example, with court), is statism. The idea that someone's court can use force against you, is statism.
do you have a rigorous definition for statism or is this just a pejorative usage? Also, is it still a "bad thing" for the court to use violence to, stop smebody who attacked a witness, for example. Notice I am only asking. I may agree with you.
IN ANY CASE, people always get the worst service that they'll put up with.
yes, when they have more options they will put up with less.
So it's unreasonable to posit some magically flawless theoretical ancap society, because markets don't work like that.
I really dont think people have been suggesting that.
And further, it's silly to posit the system in the first place—it doesn't exist,
doesnt thought precede action?
so it must be achieved through gradual change
I would like to know your theory on why sudden changes do not occur.
Sadly, almost every thread on this topic goes the same. I'm really losing faith in my fellow critical thinkers. Surely you can come up with something better than violence with a different excuse.
education? Argumentative discourse maybe?
Keep the faith, Strannix. -Casey Ryback, Under Siege (Steven Seagal)
  • | Post Points: 5
Top 25 Contributor
Male
Posts 4,922
Points 79,590
Autolykos replied on Wed, Oct 31 2012 8:32 PM

Neodoxy:
And that will confirm everything that he has to say.

I'm sorry but I'm not exactly sure what this is supposed to mean.

The keyboard is mightier than the gun.

Non parit potestas ipsius auctoritatem.

Voluntaryism Forum

  • | Post Points: 5
Top 50 Contributor
Male
Posts 2,493
Points 39,355
Malachi replied on Wed, Oct 31 2012 8:32 PM
I have to say that Gandhi survived for years, even several assassination attempts, continually adhering to personal pacifism. Theres context, he didnt think everyone ought to be a pacifist bar all else, but even so. Ideas are far more powerful than violence.
Keep the faith, Strannix. -Casey Ryback, Under Siege (Steven Seagal)
  • | Post Points: 5
Top 100 Contributor
Posts 985
Points 21,180
hashem replied on Wed, Oct 31 2012 9:25 PM

@ Autolykos

Most of us don't have a problem with violence per se.

It's nice to see someone around here willing to admit that. Most people seem tricked into the belief that libertarians promote peace, which tends to aggrivate my sensibilities.

@ Neodoxy

Hashem, if you could have any system put into place (without changing fundamental human nature, I.E some will still want to use force against other people) then what system would you impose exactly?

I'd impose no change, except maybe that everyone must read 100 non-fiction books instead of going through public education, and that the topics must vary between philosophy, history, biology, math, logic, and maybe a few others, at least several different authors and schools of thought per subject. Beyond that, I would choose to be the most powerful person in the world.

@ Malachi

By statism I probably mean hegemony.

I really dont think people have been suggesting that.

Maybe not, but all these topics assume that ancapism has been established, without considering the types of change which would result in ancapism. People are just like, "OK how would ancapism solve C?" Well, we would only have ancapism because and if X, Y, and Z, in which case C wouldn't be a problem.

doesnt thought precede action?

I don't claim to think people will achieve ancapism.

I would like to know your theory on why sudden changes do not occur.

I think what you mean is, you want to understand why I don't think ancapism will suddenly occur. My answer has been the root of the contention between us for some weeks now: it's an established tendency of homo sapiens to establish and perpetuate hegemonic dominance hierarchies.

 

Whenever you find yourself on the side of the majority, it's time to pause and reflect. —Mark Twain
  • | Post Points: 35
Top 50 Contributor
Posts 1,711
Points 29,285

Could you elaborate more on how you don't feel that libertarianism promotes peace?

  • | Post Points: 20
Top 100 Contributor
Posts 985
Points 21,180
hashem replied on Wed, Oct 31 2012 9:39 PM

Sure. It seems to be a violent system of arbitrary morals enforcement. Thus my submission that private law (assuming the OP was using the term as synonymous with libertarianism) is statism under a different banner.

EDIT: To be clear, and relevant to the OP, private law doesn't degenerate into statism, rather it is statism with a different moral code.

Whenever you find yourself on the side of the majority, it's time to pause and reflect. —Mark Twain
  • | Post Points: 35
Top 25 Contributor
Male
Posts 4,922
Points 79,590
Autolykos replied on Wed, Oct 31 2012 9:42 PM

Hashem, what's your definition of "peace"?

The keyboard is mightier than the gun.

Non parit potestas ipsius auctoritatem.

Voluntaryism Forum

  • | Post Points: 20
Top 100 Contributor
Posts 985
Points 21,180
hashem replied on Wed, Oct 31 2012 9:48 PM

Pervasive nonviolence.

Whenever you find yourself on the side of the majority, it's time to pause and reflect. —Mark Twain
  • | Post Points: 35
Top 75 Contributor
Posts 1,133
Points 20,435
Jargon replied on Wed, Oct 31 2012 9:49 PM

Hashem you strike me as one of the most confused people I've ever read.

Land & Liberty

The Anarch is to the Anarchist what the Monarch is to the Monarchist. -Ernst Jünger

  • | Post Points: 35
Top 200 Contributor
Male
Posts 429
Points 7,400

He's just being cranky. Maybe they didn't have any Hello Kitty costumes left at Party City.

  • | Post Points: 5
Top 100 Contributor
Posts 985
Points 21,180
hashem replied on Wed, Oct 31 2012 9:51 PM

Then I'm sorry for you. Feel free to bring up rational points about why I would be confused from your perspective.

Whenever you find yourself on the side of the majority, it's time to pause and reflect. —Mark Twain
  • | Post Points: 5
Top 50 Contributor
Posts 2,360
Points 43,785
z1235 replied on Wed, Oct 31 2012 9:52 PM

hashem:

Pervasive nonviolence.

 
Like, for example, when everyone's dead?
 
 
  • | Post Points: 20
Top 100 Contributor
Posts 985
Points 21,180
hashem replied on Wed, Oct 31 2012 9:54 PM

What?

Whenever you find yourself on the side of the majority, it's time to pause and reflect. —Mark Twain
  • | Post Points: 20
Top 25 Contributor
Male
Posts 4,922
Points 79,590
Autolykos replied on Wed, Oct 31 2012 9:57 PM

hashem:
Pervasive nonviolence.

I'm assuming that means to you the same thing as "complete absence of non-violence" means to me. And in that case, no, libertarianism doesn't promote what you call "peace". But I think a libertarian world would be closer to that state of affairs than the statist world we live in today.

With that said, why do you (apparently) consider all violence to be bad?

The keyboard is mightier than the gun.

Non parit potestas ipsius auctoritatem.

Voluntaryism Forum

  • | Post Points: 20
Top 200 Contributor
Posts 372
Points 8,230

Video linked by Buzz Killington demonstrates pretty well exactly why "libertarianism" is statism under a different name. Violence by any name still smells like shit. The idea that someone's enforcement agency can threaten you (for example, with court), is statism. The idea that someone's court can use force against you, is statism. The difference is that the violence is decentralized (supposedly, in theory), and that the excuse for violence is "libertarian" morals instead of whatever else.

I've thought about this before, anarcho-capitalism can be viewed as just another form of government, though what's the use of getting caught up with labels? What matters is whether a private law society is superior to the current model, not the terms and slogans people use to describe it - though I suppose for the deontological libertarian "voluntaryists" it's a legitimate criticsm.

IN ANY CASE, people always get the worst service that they'll put up with. So it's unreasonable to posit some magically flawless theoretical ancap society, because markets don't work like that. And further, it's silly to posit the system in the first place—it doesn't exist, so it must be achieved through gradual change or else seasteading or something.

Libertarians don't promise Utopia. Where service is bad, there's an opportunity for profits. Even if markets don't work exactly perfectly, better than government monopoly. Why is it silly to posit the system as a future goal to move towards?

"Nutty as squirrel shit."
  • | Post Points: 5
Top 75 Contributor
Posts 1,133
Points 20,435
Jargon replied on Wed, Oct 31 2012 10:00 PM

Very well then

 

Hashem:

 

It's nice to see someone around here willing to admit that. Most people seem tricked into the belief that libertarians promote peace, which tends to aggrivate my sensibilities.

 
What is implied here is that Liberarians, in fact, do not promote peace. 
Oxford Dictionary gives these definitions for peace:
1freedom from disturbance; tranquillity:
-2a state or period in which there is no war or a war has ended:
 
So then, Libertarians, in fact, do not constantly advocate against war, police-statism, state-theft and other systemic aggressions? Are they not the ones whose entire moral code is effectively summed up by non-aggression? Apparently, in order to be considered a peaceful person in Hashem's eyes, one must be either an Anarcho-Communist (one who will not defend private property by force) or one who would allow an aggressor to dominate himself.

If it is the former, then I think you'll be sorely disappointed with the AnCom camp, as most of them advocate 'killing the rich'. As for the latter, if that's what being a 'peaceful person' is, I don't want to be one; it is indistinguishable from cowardice.
 
Am I wrong here? Is your ideally 'peaceful man' the one who will not defend anything? If Libertarians can't be considerd peaceful then who the hell in the world can?
Land & Liberty

The Anarch is to the Anarchist what the Monarch is to the Monarchist. -Ernst Jünger

  • | Post Points: 20
Top 100 Contributor
Posts 985
Points 21,180
hashem replied on Wed, Oct 31 2012 10:10 PM

@ Autolykos

I was saying that I'm glad to see you acknowledge that people around here aren't opposed to violence. I said most people seem to be tricked into the belief that libertarianism promotes peace, and I stand by that. I feel that if you asked 100 people who had an opinion on the matter, most people would say it's generally felt that libertarians promote peace—that is, whatever 100 opinionated people feel the term 'peace' to mean within the context of libertarianism. When you asked me what I personally mean by peace, my answer was "pervasive nonviolence", not "complete absence of violence".

But I don't claim to believe violence is necessarily "bad", whatever that would mean. I can't fault you for not reading every post I make in every thread, but my general view is that violence is a type of behavior. Either someone will or won't engage in it, and that decision is made by each person individually without the need to retreat to mystical concepts like god or morality or rights.

@ Buzz Killington

I was saying it's silly to posit ancapism, that is, just to say "OK start with ancapism, now how does it solve X". As for why it may be silly to work toward ancapism, well it's silly because it's a violent system of arbitrary morals enforcement, which is no improvement over the current situation from my perspective.

Whenever you find yourself on the side of the majority, it's time to pause and reflect. —Mark Twain
  • | Post Points: 35
Top 50 Contributor
Posts 1,711
Points 29,285

@ Hashem

I was going to make a post asking how that would be brought about, but I understand now where you're coming from. Who cares if the world accepts libertarianism? We can live the lifestyle right now and be peaceful ourselves, regardless of how the world isn't accepting of it. I'm not saying I whole-heartedly agree with your position, but I do get the picture.

  • | Post Points: 20
Top 50 Contributor
Male
Posts 2,439
Points 44,650
Neodoxy replied on Wed, Oct 31 2012 10:19 PM

Hashem, you talk about other people not being able to make rational statements and yet you would not prevent violence and statism while at the same time desparing against violence and statism. How do you reconcile these views?

At last those coming came and they never looked back With blinding stars in their eyes but all they saw was black...
  • | Post Points: 20
Top 75 Contributor
Male
Posts 1,018
Points 17,760

Violence and coercion will only be used in self defense.

“Since people are concerned that ‘X’ will not be provided, ‘X’ will naturally be provided by those who are concerned by its absence."
"The sweetest of minds can harbor the harshest of men.”

http://voluntaryistreader.wordpress.org

  • | Post Points: 5
Top 100 Contributor
Posts 985
Points 21,180
hashem replied on Wed, Oct 31 2012 10:28 PM

@ Jargon

Now I see why you thought I was confused. It's because you weren't paying attention to what I've been saying, and for that I can't really fault you.

Is your ideally 'peaceful man' the one who will not defend anything?

No, and you'd know that if you read my posts. You thought I was confused because you were confused about my views. Anyone is free to use violence whenever he wants, all I'm saying is that he shouldn't retreat to mystical concepts like god or rights or morals as justification.

If Libertarians can't be considerd peaceful then who the hell in the world can?

Who in the hell, indeed.

@ Neodoxy

[you may be seen as irrational while claiming to support rational thought because] you would not prevent violence and statism while at the same time desparing against violence and statism. How do you reconcile these views?

I would personally not like violence used against me, but I'm sure if I was the most powerful person in the world I would't be opposed to others using violence on my behalf. My main point has been that if anyone wants to promote violence, let him do it without retreat to mystical concepts like god or rights or morals. Just understand why violence is a pervasive tendency among homo sapiens, and why you support it in any given situation, without making excuses.

Whenever you find yourself on the side of the majority, it's time to pause and reflect. —Mark Twain
  • | Post Points: 35
Previous | Next
Page 1 of 3 (90 items) 1 2 3 Next > | RSS