Considering that private courts would be competing for consumer money, and, therefore, consumers would have a choice over what kind of "law" they want to live under, wouldn't a minarchy or kritarchy be more libertarian? My point being that if consumers can choose law, it is no different from democracy in that you still have a "majority rules" system. Wouldn't it be possible for anti-drug courts being the most popular? What about anti-homosexual, anti-polygamy, anti-religious/ethnic minority courts?
Perhaps a very strict, clear, concise constitution could limit government and make minarchy/kritarchy superior to anarchy?
Political Atheists Blog
What kind of constitution would you have in mind?
"As long as there are sovereign nations possessing great power, war is inevitable."
Well that's nice, if you want to force libertarianism on everyone. Under anarchism some societies will be libertarian in the full sense - most will probably not be. I see no reason why the ideology ought to be foisted upon anyone. Provided there is no violation of one's rights and one is free to leave a community at any given moment, there is no problem. Perhaps libertarian societies will flourish most and out-compete their non-libertarian analogues, which do not tolerate drugs &c. The positive aspect of anarchism is that it allows a diversity of societies to co-exist without imposing one model on everyone, so long as aggresive use of force is prohibited.
-Jon
Freedom of markets is positively correlated with the degree of evolution in any society...
krazy kaju:My point being that if consumers can choose law, it is no different from democracy in that you still have a "majority rules" system.
Consumers would not choose law. The consumer would choose law.
The fallacies of intellectual communism, a compilation - On the nature of power
krazy kaju: My point being that if consumers can choose law, it is no different from democracy in that you still have a "majority rules" system. Wouldn't it be possible for anti-drug courts being the most popular? What about anti-homosexual, anti-polygamy, anti-religious/ethnic minority courts?
My point being that if consumers can choose law, it is no different from democracy in that you still have a "majority rules" system. Wouldn't it be possible for anti-drug courts being the most popular? What about anti-homosexual, anti-polygamy, anti-religious/ethnic minority courts?
As said before its the consumer singular who chooses his law. But this is not like democracy since your "vote" is with soley your own property like voting in a PLc AGM. Democracy is not a property based vote. Its naked theft.
The atoms tell the atoms so, for I never was or will but atoms forevermore be.
Yours sincerely,
Physiocrat
I think the real philosophy that we are going at is full self-determination. In Mises' day full individual independence seemed an unworkable likelyhood, thus he advocated self-determination by a majority of the citizens within any given administritive body. This could be at the town, village, or even Homeowner's Association level. Mises conceded that if it were anyway possible to give literal SELF-determination on the individual level, it would have to be done. With today's advances in technology it is possable, but probable?
I still am skeptical about full-on-anarchy. Indeed, the word anarchy was ill chosen if you ask me. It is loaded with connotations that hurt, not help, the cause of liberalism.
This is apparently a Man Talk Forum: No Women Allowed!
Telpeurion's Disliked Person of the Week: David Kramer
Call it consistent liberalism then, or polycentric order, or whatever you want.
ama gi: What kind of constitution would you have in mind?
The kind of constitution that had everything laid out clearly in itself. I think a major problem with our Constitution is that you have to read several other documents to understand the extent of the powers granted to the three branches of federal government. I think it could be possible to keep
Jon Irenicus:Well that's nice, if you want to force libertarianism on everyone. Under anarchism some societies will be libertarian in the full sense - most will probably not be. I see no reason why the ideology ought to be foisted upon anyone. Provided there is no violation of one's rights and one is free to leave a community at any given moment, there is no problem. Perhaps libertarian societies will flourish most and out-compete their non-libertarian analogues, which do not tolerate drugs &c. The positive aspect of anarchism is that it allows a diversity of societies to co-exist without imposing one model on everyone, so long as aggresive use of force is prohibited.
I'm not against communities that have certain rules within them - i.e. communes where you can't own your own land or means of production. What I am against is what I would call "democratic law" - the idea that consumers choose the law and that that law could be hoisted upon others.
The difference being that the former is consistent with libertarian ideology and property rights while the latter is not. In the former, people can form "social contracts" of sorts which dictate what they can and can't do with their land. A real world example would be contracts based on race. I remember studying a Supreme Court case (forget the name, sorry) in which a black person was suing a white race-contract group for not selling land to them. The race-contract group operated under the premise that they signed a contract that nobody sells their property to non-whites. I believe that this kind of society is entirely consistent with libertarianism because it is based on private people deciding what they want to do with their property and society. Religious communities could form similar contracts (i.e. no deviant sexual practices).
On the other hand, anarchy posits that people choose their own law by the arbitration services they hire. The issue with this is that if the majority of arbitration services favor law that is not based on liberty and property rights - i.e. anti-drug and anti-homosexual laws - then the rights of some will be unfairly overridden in the name of the law.
For example, a homosexual might own land in the "Bible Belt." Even though that homosexual has his own land and can presumably do whatever he wants with it as long as it doesn't enroach on other peoples' property rights, an anarchist society might unrightfully force the homosexual off of his/her land. The point being that the "extreme minority" status of the homosexual amidst millions of strict Christians will favor the anarchist forms of law towards the Christians at the expense of the homosexual, since arbitration services will probably find it more profitable to tailor the law more towards the beliefs of strict Christians.
On the other hand, if we accept a minarchy or kritarchy that only defends property rights, that homosexual would not be unfairly driven off his/her land by bible-based arbitration services. Instead, the strict Christians of the so-called "Bible Belt" could form land contracts preventing homosexual ownership, but not be able to violate the rights of the homosexual.
Stranger:Consumers would not choose law. The consumer would choose law.
Physiocrat:As said before its the consumer singular who chooses his law. But this is not like democracy since your "vote" is with soley your own property like voting in a PLc AGM. Democracy is not a property based vote. Its naked theft.
By that reasoning, thieves and robbers won't have to worry about violating other people's property rights because they, as individuals, will be able to hire their own pro-theft, pro-robbery arbitration services. Of course, as we all know, that would not be able to happen in an anarchist society because the majority of people would hire anti-theft, anti-robbery arbitration services. These pro-property courts would be able to drive the anti-property courts out of business by physical force, if necessary. Also, when two people who hire different services meet, they would have to settle for an third party court to try them - one that probably has different laws that both individuals can agree on.
The problem with this being that "extreme minorities" like homosexuals in the bible belt would not be able to find private courts providing necessary protection, since they'd essentially be in the same position as thieves and robbers in terms of arbitration service. In essence, even if they hire a pro-property rights private court, they'd still have to settle with third party courts that might not have the same feelings toward homosexuals as they would desire. In essence, the majority bible believers would be able to violate the homosexual's property rights and even possibly drive him/her away from his/her land.
Hence, it would be fair to say that anarchy is akin to democracy in the sense that the majority of the people in a given area choose the law. On the other hand, a minarchy, as long as it is strictly limited, would be obliged just to defend private property rights and that's it. Any other additional rules would have to be imposed by people on themselves when it comes to land contracts, etc.
Ah right, so we need a monopoly on force and order to avoid the effect of some majority from unjustly infringing of the rights of others. Got it. Because we know how benign monopolies are in this regard.
I am at a loss why people who are otherwise vehemently anti-socialist have such a strong fetish for law-and-order socialism. Apply economic analysis to socialistic provision of law-and-order (i.e. which cannot be established without contradiction from the outset), and the ability of any "minarchist" government to protect a minority will be rent asunder. Moreover, I can just as forcefully apply every supposed criticism of anarchism with fuller force against governments. In reality, minorities have no shield under a minarchist government. They are at the mercy of the caprices of the majority of the population, and with nothing but a monopolist of law and order to seek recourse from, they are in a terrible position. If it is a minority elite that is imposing restraint at large, it cannot stop the secession of parts of itself who no longer find its rule agreeable and who, failing to use it to coerce others, devolve into smaller states to live by their own vision of society. The minarchist state can prohibit secession, at its own peril and in contradiction with its own fundamental principles. So either it becomes a decentralized order, much like anarchism, or it reduces to tyranny. In an anarchist society a minority can attain their protection by any agent they so wish, and there is no reason to assume they will subscribe to "minority" PDAs, as opposed to PDAs which have a wide clientele and are profit-oriented, hence unwilling to sacrifice their gains for whatever small benefits can be reaped by abusing some minority. or other large-scale institutions that provide protection to such individuals. Contrast to the state that can force others to pay for this. Indeed, maybe minarchism does have a point!