QuisCustodiet: The legal code the government has monopolized.
The legal code the government has monopolized.
You don't understand how a libertarian legal code would be implemented.
It would not be monopolized by a government. Rather it would be used associatively.
The idea would be that you'd create a system based on voluntary cooperation, and the primary agreement would be to agree on a legal basis. And that would be the basic legal code. So the first two people to form a new libertarian society do so by adopting an overall legal code.
Then they simply ask those they do business with to agree to the same legal code as a condition of doing business, as it covers dispute resolution and lowers the cost of doing business thereby.
As more people sign on to the legal code and time passes, it becomes more likely others will too, until you have a full scale society running on the basis of a particular legal code, etablished by voluntary means. There's no monopoly on law or force involved.
Neither would there be only one legal code, there's likely to be a great many, all "competing" for adherents.
Courts would enforce w/e legal code comes to their door with disputes, and there'd be a process of creative struggle that would produce new law via that struggle.
People could then propose new legal codes, or modify existing ones, etc. It would be a return to crowd-sourced law. And the most important enabling technology would be one which lets people compare laws, exchange them, and quickly adopt or modify them!
jaredsmith:Side Question: Is the non-agression principle a contradiction of itself, if it is enforced (by way of forcing people to not use force)?
Is the non-agression principle a contradiction of itself, if it is enforced (by way of forcing people to not use force)?
I think the non-aggression principle is different from the non-force principle.
The keyboard is mightier than the gun.
Non parit potestas ipsius auctoritatem.
Voluntaryism Forum
QuisCustodiet:The people in government with no legitimate property rights wrote the legal code, and it's exactly the leal code that a "libertarian society" would ask for. I think we've established that it's not likely.
I'm sorry but I don't understand your point in including "with no legitimate property rights". Could you please explain?
tl;dr - scroll down
I think the real issue here is what I call moral symmetry.
The idea of privilege requires a criterion for determining who are the privileged and who are the de-privileged. The criterion might be "has the name King Edward" and that's all there is to it... i.e. because he's King Edward, therefore, he is privileged and all others are de-privileged. Or, it might be "is employed by the US Government". Or whatever.
The key is that once we establish the privilege criterion, then we can engage in social criticism of the privilege criterion. Why this criterion rather than that criterion? An alien observing from space would be puzzled why any particular criterion should be preferred apart from some structural characteristic in the privileged individual(s). For example, when we observe an ant or bee colony, we can see in the anatomy of the "queen" why she is treated differently than the others and we can also see how this factors into the reproductive logic of the species. In wolf packs, we can see the genetic and social dynamics (alpha male mating, male-to-male competition/dominance, etc.) that determine why this wolf rather than that wolf should be "in charge", so to speak.
The characteristics that aliens observing us would identify, of course, would be vastly more complex than the dynamics that we observe in other animals. But the key is that even if we could get the study notes of such an alien and read them and understand why it is that some of us are privileged while others are not, this would still not serve as a justification for privilege. In other words, it would still be special-pleading and a circular argument for the privileged to invoke the natural causes of their privileges in the course of settling a dispute.
Hence, the causes of moral asymmetry are irrelevant to dispute-resolution. For this reason, moral symmetry (rights appear the same from each individual's point-of-view, aka the Golden Rule, Categorical Imperative, etc. etc.) is the only possible basis on which to conduct dispute-resolution. Note that the existence of privilege is not incompatible with dispute-resolution... it is only the invocation of privilege in the course of settling the dispute that is incongruent. Alice may be able to have Bob beaten up if he tries to claim damages against her for having publicly insulted him. But she may not invoke this fact in the course of settling the dispute with Bob.
Using force to defend oneself is not morally asymmetrical... that is, everyone has the same natural ability to defend themselves (fists, claws, etc.). Hence, pacifism is not more symmetrical (i.e. more congruent with a fair dispute-resolution) than NAP. Stated differently, no one may claim during the course of a dispute that a failure to respond pacifistically is inconsistent with dispute-resolution, that is, a procedural violation of the legal process. For example, let's say Alice takes a swing at Bob and Bob pushes Alice away from himself. Now, Alice sues Bob. When Bob tries to claim self-defense, Alice states: "Bob has not kept the peace. In reacting to my swinging fist and pushing me away, he used violence and this is a contradiction of peace. Hence, Bob's claim of self-defense is invalid because it is made on the basis that violence is justifiable, which is a contradiction of the whole premise of dispute-resolution."
Here, we have the opposite extreme of claiming privilege. The disputant who claims privilege engages in the logical contradiction of saying, "Settle this dispute with me nonviolently on terms X or else there will be violence." The insertion of "nonviolently" into the last sentence is gratuitous... it may as well not be there and is merely a pretense.
The person who claims pacifism claims a non-existent moral high-ground. "Settle this dispute with me and admit you were wrong to use violence in defense of your property and pay me these damages." Or else what? You will become violent? You cannot deny another person's right to self-defense in the course of settling a dispute without contradicting the very purpose of dispute-resolution which is to settle a dispute non-violently instead of violently.
---
tl;dr - It is a mistake to think of NAP as being "enforced" by anyone - rather, it is "enforced" by each individual in respect to his own affairs. If you break into Bob's house, Bob might shoot you. But Jerry can't shoot you for breaking into Bob's house. So, collectivizing NAP does lead to the contradiction you mention. Also, pacifistic interpretation of NAP (no one may use force under any circumstances... not even defense) is contradictory if it is intended to be enforced in any way besides shunning.
Clayton -
@Autolykos
You're right, that was irrelevant. My point was that even though the state has no legitimate property rights, the State of Ruritania I described would not be coercive.
What I think it comes down to is whether or not monopolizing a legal code based on the NAP would be coercive. I don't understand how it could be coercive.
One more note on this idea of "enforcing". The whole concept comes from a mistaken way of thinking about violations of the law. Like we do in many areas of thought, we tend to attribute a real existence to wholly imaginary things (e.g. "money", "value", etc.) In this case, we take the idea of "violation of the law" and turn it into a thing-in-itself and then we classify this as "bad" or "wrong" or "sin" and something to be eradicated at any cost, a process that is to be supported by any decent person. Hence, we have law enforcement. The police are there to stop crimes. In older language, they would be said to be stopping people from committing sins.
On the liberal conception, there is no such thing as a criterion of law violation that exists apart from the judgment of an interested individual. For example, a simplistic legal system might say "thou shalt not hit except in self-defense." Now, what about sado-masochism? Or how about boxing matches? Neither case of hitting is an instance of self-defense and is clearly a violation of the Thou Shalt Not. So, what we're really after is something along the lines of the full and free consent of all parties to an action (and only those parties) in order for that action to legitimate.
I was thinking about it, an I really think "monopoly of law over a territorial area" is the best definition of a state. Think about it. We already have competing defense agencies and private arbitration agencies in the US. There are rent-a-cops, concert security people, etc. Also, you can chose to resolve a dispute you may have -- say your neighbor keeps dumping garbage on your lawn -- with a private arbitrator instead of pressing charges in the government's courts.
A-ha. So what is it that ties this all together? Surely it cannot be said that the US is not a State. The monopolistic legal code! If someone accuses the private protection or arbitration agency of not upholding the laws of the US, it can be brought to public court! For example, if you're not satisfied with the settlement your neighbor wants to give you in restitution for the garbage on your lawn, you can bring it to public court claiming the government's laws against dumping garbage on your neighbor's lawn. It's not against the law to use a private arbitrator if you want. It is against the law to use a legal code that competes with (contradicts) that of the State!
QuisCustodiet: I was thinking about it, an I really think "monopoly of law over a territorial area" is the best definition of a state. Think about it. We already have competing defense agencies and private arbitration agencies in the US. There are rent-a-cops, concert security people, etc. Also, you can chose to resolve a dispute you may have -- say your neighbor keeps dumping garbage on your lawn -- with a private arbitrator instead of pressing charges in the government's courts. A-ha. So what is it that ties this all together? Surely it cannot be said that the US is not a State. The monopolistic legal code! If someone accuses the private protection or arbitration agency of not upholding the laws of the US, it can be brought to public court! For example, if you're not satisfied with the settlement your neighbor wants to give you in restitution for the garbage on your lawn, you can bring it to public court claiming the government's laws against dumping garbage on your neighbor's lawn. It's not against the law to use a private arbitrator if you want. It is against the law to use a legal code that competes with (contradicts) that of the State!
I dunno. While states have historically held monopolies on courts and police, or at least ultimate decision-making, I think you could establish a government that performs any service. It wouldn't necessarily have to be involved in courts and policing.
What distinguishes a government from any other organization is that a government claims that it has the legitimate right to use force generally and to decide when that use is legitimate.
Dispute resolution just happens to be the one area in life where we cannot use anything but force to effect the needed service. Technically only policing requires that.
Would it be impossible to imagine a government that demanded taxes in order to pay only for something like schooling and not policing or DisRes? It's possible. What links them then is that use of force that a private citizen would not be allowed to use.
now with the government deciding guilt thing.
in the usa, normal citizens serve as a jury to decide if someone is guilty or non guilty, not some government suite, unless the jury is considered a suite?
consent of the governed, cases judged by citizens,
now a government can abuse the citizens decision and use power not granted, but the idea of the government is limited government power.
with jury nullification, that allowed citizens to nullify laws with people that would otherwise be guilty.
cab21: now with the government deciding guilt thing. in the usa, normal citizens serve as a jury to decide if someone is guilty or non guilty, not some government suite, unless the jury is considered a suite? consent of the governed, cases judged by citizens, now a government can abuse the citizens decision and use power not granted, but the idea of the government is limited government power. with jury nullification, that allowed citizens to nullify laws with people that would otherwise be guilty.
When's the last time you saw the Supreme Court use a jury?
/rest my case
when was the last time the supreme court decided a manslaughter case?
the supreme court does use all the decisions of previus courts when it makes a decision, it weighs all the previus decisions as part of the evidence in the case.
cab21:the supreme court does use all the decisions of previus courts when it makes a decision, it weighs all the previus decisions as part of the evidence in the case.
when i say use, i mean look at evidence, not follow the decision of the lower court.
cab21: when i say use, i mean look at evidence, not follow the decision of the lower court.
the justices are approved by the elected and nominated by the elected in representative republics.
if the legislaters don't like the supreme courts decision, they can amend or write a new legislation. states and congress have amended the consittution in order to make a court decision no longer apply
there is also the decision of the supreme court vs the enforcement of not court agencies. 9 people in robes are not going out enforcing manslaughter or murder charges on people who shot burglers.
yes, the supreme court is the supreme court of the land, that does not mean there are no checks and balances in other branches from legislative to executive.
this page has some checks and balences mentioned between the three branches.
http://www.usconstitution.net/consttop_cnb.html
some private system likely won't offer such checks and balances, so both will end up tyranical anywaym just a matter of degree. any social interaction will be people putting their fate in the hands of others some way or another to one degree or another. courts with nonbinding recommendations won't stop someone from going around murdering people the way a bullet can.
QuisCustodiet:@Autolykos You're right, that was irrelevant. My point was that even though the state has no legitimate property rights, the State of Ruritania I described would not be coercive. What I think it comes down to is whether or not monopolizing a legal code based on the NAP would be coercive. I don't understand how it could be coercive.
To me, "legitimate property rights" is a redundant phrase, because I see rights as being legitimate by definition.
I'm still trying to figure out what exactly you mean by "monopolizing a legal code". Let me ask you this: if a group of businesses in a given area follow a common standard for something, would you say that standard then constitutes a monopoly? Why or why not?
QuisCustodiet, I'd also like to point out something based on the first part of your OP:
QuisCustodiet:If your neighbor is murdering his girlfriend in his living room, even though you don’t have his okay to be on his property, it’s justified to barge in and save his girlfriend, right?
I think it's important to note that my neighbor's property rights in the house and the lot it sits on don't trump his girlfriend's property rights in herself. So I don't think I'm violating his property rights if I barge in and save his girlfriend. IMO, violating another person's rights estops someone from claiming that his own rights were subsequently violated.
I'll further note that I'm not satisfied at this point by the definition you gave for "law" - "the legal code the government has monopolized". Assuming by "legal" you mean "relating to law", then your definition of "law" becomes "the code relating to law that the government has monopolized". That's clearly a circular definition. (It also makes "monopoly of law" redundant, as law is necessarily a monopoly according to your definition, but that's beside the point here.) So I now respectfully ask you to provide a non-circular definition for "law".
It depends on what the standards are and whether or not they differ with those of the State. (Don’t pick this apart too much, I’m going to elaborate later in my post.)
I think it's important to note that my neighbor's property rights in the house and the lot it sits on don't trump his girlfriend's property rights in herself. So I don't think I'm violating his property rights if I barge in and save his girlfriend.
What gives you the right to do that? Don’t the individuals who make up the State (for example, police officers) have the right to do that? If this was all the police did (safeguarded against aggression), provided they were not funded by government taxation of any innocent party, would that not be justified?
I'll further note that I'm not satisfied at this point by the definition you gave for "law" - "the legal code the government has monopolized". Assuming by "legal" you mean "relating to law", then your definition of "law" becomes "the code relating to law that the government has monopolized". That's clearly a circular definition. (It also makes "monopoly of law" redundant, as law is necessarily a monopoly according to your definition, but that's beside the point here.) So I now respectfully ask you to provide a non-circular definition for "law". (Emphasis added)
I suspect I haven’t been using the right words to express my ideas. Maybe I could lay out my ideas and you could help me learn how to phrase them. I would really appreciate that:
The government of Ruritania has established rules for all the inhabitants of Ruritania. The rules are just that you may not aggress against anyone else. No murder, no theft, no rape, no fraud, etc. The government does not make every rule, but the foundational ones that apply to everyone (the ones that say you may not aggress against anyone), it does. So you cannot compete with these laws (you cannot say, "In my livingroom in my house in Ruritania, aggression is legal"). All other rules like what you may wear in the office building where you work are the rules of private entities. They don’t compete with the rules of the Ruritanian government.
In the office building (A), the dress code is a monopoly, because an employee of office building A cannot try to follow the dress code of another office building (B) if it differs with that of (A).
So the government of Ruritania wouldn't make all the rules, but the ones it did make cannot be competed with.
@Anenome
Dispute resolution just happens to be the one area in life where we cannot use anything but force to effect the needed service.
Not necessarily. You could negotiate an agreement and not need to use force at all.
Technically only policing requires that.
"That" meaning force, right? Didn't you say that dispute resolution was the only area of life where force is necessary?
so what would the negotiation be like when you try to nonviolently stop the man from beating his girlfriend to death?
what kind of power does each have and how the does the imminent danger effect the girlfriend and your actions?
i don't think the guy beating his girlfriend gives much about agreements that don't use force.
Nah, nah, nah.
I said it's possible to negotiate an agreement without force. It's not always possible. If you come up with a mutually-beneficial solution to a problem between you and someone else, it can be adopted without use of force.
@QuisCustodiet
I think I see the disconnect between you and Autolykos (and Clayton). There can only be one law or norm or custom or rule regarding a certain dispute. In other words, you cannot have the norms: "Thou shalt drive on the right side of the street" and "Thou shalt drive on the left side of the street" for the same road at the same time (unless it's a one way, but that's clearly not the context).
The point of norms and customs is that there is only one way in that specific context. So if there is an accident on Road X, whichever disputant was driving on the normal side of the road (or the mandated side by an owner) is the disputant who was in the right. Of course, if they both were, then we would have to look to a different norm or rule. But if one of the disputants was driving on the wrong side of the road, then he is in the wrong.
It's the same with murder and theft. You cannot have simultaneous norms and rules (for a specific context) saying that "Murder is right" and "Murder is wrong". It's one or the other. This is true of any legal system. For example, if you or I were to tase a man trying to prevent his house from burning down, we would be charged with assault (or whatever the relevant torts are), and rightfully so. But if a cop were to do the very same thing, it's legal. At first glance, you might think I'm contradicting myself, but if we look closer, we can see that the context is different. One of us is an agent of the state, and the other isn't. And that changes the context entirely. But there cannot be simultaneously contradictory norms or rules for the same context. In other words, there cannot be a rule saying that it's okay for you to tase this man where at the same time there is a rule saying that it's wrong for you to tase this man.
There can always only be one law. But in a private law society, there is not necessarily only one group helping to resolve disputes. I think that should clear up the disconnect, but maybe not. I may be misunderstanding what you guys are arguing.
Did you see what I posted @ you? It's possible it got lost under the later posts. Your input would be greatly appreciated.
Autolykos: Hang on - what definition of "state" are you using here?
Hang on - what definition of "state" are you using here?
Nah, nah. It's appropriate to define the word in this context.
QuisCustodiet:It depends on what the standards are and whether or not they differ with those of the State. (Don’t pick this apart too much, I’m going to elaborate later in my post.)
With all due respect, I think that's irrelevant to my question.
QuisCustodiet:What gives you the right to do that? Don’t the individuals who make up the State (for example, police officers) have the right to do that? If this was all the police did (safeguarded against aggression), provided they were not funded by government taxation of any innocent party, would that not be justified?
I believe that everyone has the right to do that to begin with. What do you think doesn't give me the right to do that?
The notion that only members of a particular organization that's been labelled with the word "state" have the right to do that itself constitutes aggression IMHO, except in the case of people outside that organization who've already voluntarily agreed to give up that right. But I don't see why anyone would do that.
QuisCustodiet:I suspect I haven’t been using the right words to express my ideas. Maybe I could lay out my ideas and you could help me learn how to phrase them. I would really appreciate that: The government of Ruritania has established rules for all the inhabitants of Ruritania. The rules are just that you may not aggress against anyone else. No murder, no theft, no rape, no fraud, etc. The government does not make every rule, but the foundational ones that apply to everyone (the ones that say you may not aggress against anyone), it does. So you cannot compete with these laws (you cannot say, "In my livingroom in my house in Ruritania, aggression is legal"). All other rules like what you may wear in the office building where you work are the rules of private entities. They don’t compete with the rules of the Ruritanian government. In the office building (A), the dress code is a monopoly, because an employee of office building A cannot try to follow the dress code of another office building (B) if it differs with that of (A). So the government of Ruritania wouldn't make all the rules, but the ones it did make cannot be competed with.
Do you think that, if a particular purported organization that you're calling "the government of Ruritania" didn't set down those rules, then people necessarily wouldn't follow them? Aside from that, when you say things like "cannot be competed with", what do you really mean? To say that a person cannot (i.e. is physically unable to) do something doesn't necessarily mean that he actually cannot do it. With your office-building example, it seems to me that an employee of office building A certainly can try to follow the dress code of office building B even if it differs from that of office building A.
Well I think you have the right to, but if someone were to argue that you don't have the right to, I suppose it would be on the grounds that you do not own your neighbor's property. Kind of like how the State does not own your neighbor's property, or any property. So if your action is legitimate, why not the actions of those in the Ruritanian government?
The notion that only members of a particular organization that's been labelled with the word "state" have the right to do that
I'm not arguing that. I suggested that individuals who work for the State also have the right to estop aggression.
Do you think that, if a particular purported organization that you're calling "the government of Ruritania" didn't set down those rules, then people necessarily wouldn't follow them?
No. But what I'm trying to determine is whether or not setting down those rules with "the government of Ruritania" is coersive, not whether or not it's necessary (i.e. could not be provided by other entities).
Aside from that, when you say things like "cannot be competed with", what do you really mean?
As in it would not be permitted.
QuisCustodiet:Well I think you have the right to, but if someone were to argue that you don't have the right to, I suppose it would be on the grounds that you do not own your neighbor's property. Kind of like how the State does not own your neighbor's property, or any property. So if your action is legitimate, why not the actions of those in the Ruritanian government?
If you think I have the right to, then why did you ask "What gives you the right to do that?", which to me clearly implies that you don't think I have the right to do it?
But to answer your question, if I think everyone inherently has the right to stop aggression against third parties, then it doesn't matter what organization(s) he happens to be a part of.
QuisCustodiet:I'm not arguing that. I suggested that individuals who work for the State also have the right to estop aggression.
Could you please point out where you suggested that? It seemed otherwise to me.
QuisCustodiet:No. But what I'm trying to determine is whether or not setting down those rules with "the government of Ruritania" is coersive, not whether or not it's necessary (i.e. could not be provided by other entities).
Well it seems to me that all you mean by "setting down those rules" is the organization in question simply saying that it expects people to follow particular rules and that it will use force against known violations of them. That in no way physically prevents anyone else from saying the same thing, either with different rules or with the same ones. If you ask me, nearly everyone already does this implicitly.
Furthermore, it seems to me that what you're really trying to determine is whether a monopoly over "law" is necessarily aggressive (a.k.a. "coercive" in your apparent semantics). I'm not yet sure what determination to make about that, because I'm still not sure what you mean by "law". For instance, would you say that "law" is a (set of) procedure(s), or a (set of) outcome(s), or both?
QuisCustodiet:As in it would not be permitted.
In other words, any employee of office building A who violated its dress code would then be considered a trespasser by the owners of office building A and their agents?
To try to track your reasoning.
I'll try to be clearer next time. My writing skills are inferior. :/
Well it seems to me that all you mean by "setting down those rules" is the organization in question simply saying that it expects people to follow particular rules and that it will use force against known violations of them.
Yes, over property the organization does not own. So "the government of Ruritania" lays down the rules for all of the property within the "national" boarders.
would you say that "law" is a (set of) procedure(s), or a (set of) outcome(s), or both?
Hmmm...
Yes, if the rule is you get fired for breaking the dress code at work. That wouldn't be aggressive. So would it be aggressive for "the government of Ruritania" to remove someone who broke the rules the government established (let's say, the rule that you can't steal from anybody)?