Have Austrian Economics and Libertarianism Influenced You in Daily Life?

Jacob Bloom:

Tell me about Private Defense Agencies.

Well again, here is where you can read literature.  I was stuck on minarchism for a while, I was perplexed on the ideas of private police, courts, environment, and roads.  For A New Liberty is what finally convinced me, I would recommend reading the whole book, but for the relevant section on PDAs, read chapter 12:

http://mises.org/books/newliberty.pdf

The PDA would be able to protect your property, just like the police supposedly do, except the PDAs job would be to actually lower crime.  This would be done through lots of preventative measures (lower monthly fees if you install a security system, lower monthly fees if you install a camera, lower monthly fee if you install modern locks, etc.).  The more crime they can prevent, the lower their costs will be.  The profit motive, and competition amongst PDAs, would bring about higher security (less crime), at lower costs.  If that PDA fails to suit your needs, you may switch to a more competent one, unlike the government monopoly of police, you have no choice, and you are forced to pay whether you want it or not.

Onto the courts.. if a crime happens, it would be in your best interests to go to court to settle it in a civilized manner.  You would probably lose your PDA coverage, or get much higher monthly fees if you do not comply.  If you cause too much of a ruckus, you would probably be denied protection from all PDAs.  This would not be in your best interests.

I have to go look for some more topics, I remember they were posted here a while back about "what if I don't agree to this court," "what if the guy refuses all courts," "what if I don't have a PDA" etc. I will have to find that topic and link you to it.

For now let us just take the example that both of you have PDAs.  In the contract with the PDA (for both the victim and the alleged criminal), there would probably be permission for them to choose an unbiased court for you.  If both parties agree to go to this court, then you go to court.  After the case is heard, if you think the verdict was corrupt, wrong, etc... you would be free to get an appeal to another court... your PDA would probably allow a certain number of appeals (1, 2, 3, it all depends on the contract), after which the PDA would NOT pay, it would be on your dime then (and probably higher monthly fees).  It would probably be just cheaper to settle than to continually fight in more than 2 or 3 appeals.  You would then pay reparations to the victim in order to cover for the damages you have caused.

Also, through competitive courts, naturally law would gravitate towards only protecting property.  It would become impossible/uneconomical for many of these "laws" we have now to be passed, things like minimum wage, monopoly of money, discrimination, banning gay marriage, tariffs, banning smoking, wearing a seatbelt, War On Drugs, etc.

Jacob Bloom:

Daniel:

Jacob, what do Austrian economics, libertarianism, or anarcho-capitalism promise that makes them utopian?

A perfectly free society where disputes are easily resolved without force and where no one with more guns than anyone else decides to just take over and start a new government.  It promises something that we all...kind of emotionally want.  Like communism.  A unity of philosophy dedicated to individual freedom but maintained in no way by anyone with the power to enforce the rules authoritatively and to maintain a free market.  You argue that it's possible for a government to infringe on a free market.  This is indisputably true.  But you seem to think without government, no one would infringe on other people's rights or on the market.  This seems...naive.  There will always be people who have the will to control others and aren't particularly concerned how they do so.  They will exist in your society. 

I suppose it is easy to misunderstand AE, libertarianism, and An-cap-ism if you havn't read the books by their main proponents. Anywho, libertarianism doen't promise that disputes will be solved easily (especially since easiness is subjective), nor does it promise that crime (or any violation of rights) will ever occur. What libertarianism says is that it is a contradiction to have a state when the very implimentation of the state violates the rights that the state promises to protect. Libertarianism doesn't promise that Private Defense Agency will prevent rights from being violated, nor does it promise that justice will ever be completely satisfied; that is, true libertarianism doesn't hold the view of "final arbiter". You are correct about this: it would be naive to believe that, in a libertarian society, no violation or right would ever occur; just like it is naive to believe that the state would succeed in protecting rights. Of course there will always be people that want to violate the rights of others, but that doesn't the state.

Jacob Bloom:

AE seems to imagine a society of men who act like perfectly civilized beings when in fact we are just animals with big brains.  That's why it's utopian.

What do you mean by "perfectly civilized" beings?

Jacob Bloom:

1.  Because Mises and Hayek and Rothbard are dead.  ...

Thank Jesus of Nazareth that Marx is dead. Btw, have you read Walter Block?

Jacob Bloom:

  Because you all are the...mimetic descendants of Rothbard. 

This is true to an extent. Then again, I just mimic-ed the person who invented the phrase "[t]his is true to an extent."

Jacob Bloom:

2.  First concern: what happens if I go to a private court, they tell me I am guilty or whatever, so I go to another court, they say I'm innocent?  Is there going to be a court war to decide whose judgement needs to be upheld?

No final arbiter.

Jacob Bloom:

3.  You're right, I should probably just ignore them.

I will not read your books until I'm convinced I want to think like you.  So talk to me.

No problem with this. We won't make you read anything. However, I suppose you should be glad that we're not state, because then we would force you to read Rothbard and write a book review, and if we disgree with your book review, we will fail you and make you repeat the assignment.

Jacob Bloom:

1.  Because Mises and Hayek and Rothbard are dead.  A book only has power if you're willing to act out its ideas.  I'm not concerned with what's in a book.  I'm concerned with what's in YOUR minds.  Because you all are the...mimetic descendants of Rothbard.  Anyways, I know this sounds lazy, but I don't really feel like combing through pages of text to find examples where someone made humans sound like totally rational beings.  Suffice it to say, I don't think you will find it difficult to imagine someone on here might have said such a thing and then used that as a rationalization for an anarchic region.

About posters on here, sure, I can agree not every poster here knows what he or she is talking about. However, Rothbard et. al may be dead, but I am not saying you should care what their ideas were. I am saying that the ideas in those books are, for the most part, our ideas. Those ideas are what's in our minds here. Why I am suggesting that you read - really most of them are not very long articles - is just because we cannot articulate all our ideas to perfectly to you right here off the tops of our heads. The issue is too big, too alien, too complex. I know, I went through the transformation two weeks ago. There were 101 objections in my mind, each of which seemed insurmountable. But when a few had great, logical, thoroughly convincing answers, I was impressed. I realized that my other objections might go down in the same way, so I studied furiously for day or two, and suddenly I could not but acknowledge that the anarchists had a case. I do not agree with all of them, or everything they say, but by and large I can see that they are right about their central tenet.

Now I know you will say that if we cannot sell ourselves to someone so near us as you, we are lost. I don't really disagree. I think the situation is hard. The subject is complex and alien, and requires rethinking of so many things and questioning so many assumptions that it simply can't be sold so easily in a single spiel. We have no choice but to systematically destroy the statist fallacies bit by bit, until people gradually move toward us. If you doubt it is possible and think we have a lost cause, do a search for microsecession. There are actually quite a few viable ways besides "selling" our idea, and I again fully agree we are not doing a good job of selling it now. I myself don't give up, because I know Internet privacy technologies will eventually make it possible, even inevitable, without even having to educate anyone.

Jacob Bloom:

2.  First concern: what happens if I go to a private court, they tell me I am guilty or whatever, so I go to another court, they say I'm innocent?  Is there going to be a court war to decide whose judgement needs to be upheld?

Answered in other thread.

Jacob Bloom:

I will not read your books until I'm convinced I want to think like you.  So talk to me.

First, it's not books, just some articles. I haven't read any full-length books myself. Second, yeah, I suppose just telling you to read is not very convincing.

Thinking about it more, I don't really understand why you want us to sell you on this idea. If we be sales people, our job must only be to whet your appetite. We cannot do your studying for you, and our whole worldviews are just too detailed and complex to explain in a single post anyway. We could give you a skeletal argument, which at least I myself have, but then there will be the inevitable objections. In that spirit, I can only explain how my appetite to read those articles was whetted:

I was a minarchist. I knew monopoly was bad, for reasons I think we all can see. If we support monopoly for police and courts, we do so because we believe that despite the evils of monopoly, a lack of monopoly would be worse. The first thing I thought of was battling warlords and people going court shopping. The police sound chaotic and dangerous, and the courts sound utterly silly.

I trust you're with me so far.

Now what got me reading more was that I was thinking, "How can people possibly have good arguments to defend this craziness? This I'd like to see, if only for amusement." Then I saw smart arguments, careful reasoning. I was impressed, and I enjoyed it, so I continued.

That's all I can say to sell you on it. I can only try to sell you on the endeavor of learning, not the knowledge and understanding itself.

Jacob Bloom:

...

2.  I want to see a monopoly of force because if there's one things governments can actually handle pretty well, it's the use of force.  I don't think humans are capable of handling force privately.  And...to be honest, I can't think of any example of it working in real life.  Someone suggested to me a few days ago...the IJC.  But it turns out that it has only handled like 125 cases in 60 something years.  I'm not against statism.  I just disagree with the way the state is being used right now.  It's not just the scope of government I have an issue with, but the role it plays.  I believe governments are necessary and natural tools humans have developed to control one another.  But there is certainly a lot of room to talk about what needs to be controlled and what doesn't.  I believe markets work pretty well on their own.  Courts?  Not so much.

It's not true that "governments can actually handle pretty well". Hundreds of nations have been invaded by other nations for thousands of years. Ask the poeple of Iraq if Saddam Hussein did a good job at keeping out the US government. I suppose what you favor is a world government, is this true? Every time someone defends his property succesfully, that is evidence against your claim that "I can't think of any example of it working in real life." We know you are not against statism; it's obvious to us. Private "courts" do very well, such as out-of-court settlements, mediation, and arbitration. You hardly ever hear about them, however.

Jacob Bloom:

Perhaps you're the ignorant one for believing what someone else tells you as opposed to what's empirically obvious?  Also, is it possible you haven't read the things I've read?

What have you read?

Tex2002ans:

Jacob Bloom:

Tell me about Private Defense Agencies.

Well again, here is where you can read literature.  I was stuck on minarchism for a while, I was perplexed on the ideas of private police, courts, environment, and roads.  For A New Liberty is what finally convinced me, I would recommend reading the whole book, but for the relevant section on PDAs, read chapter 12:

http://mises.org/books/newliberty.pdf

The PDA would be able to protect your property, just like the police supposedly do, except the PDAs job would be to actually lower crime.  This would be done through lots of preventative measures (lower monthly fees if you install a security system, lower monthly fees if you install a camera, lower monthly fee if you install modern locks, etc.).  The more crime they can prevent, the lower their costs will be.  The profit motive, and competition amongst PDAs, would bring about higher security (less crime), at lower costs.  If that PDA fails to suit your needs, you may switch to a more competent one, unlike the government monopoly of police, you have no choice, and you are forced to pay whether you want it or not.

Onto the courts.. if a crime happens, it would be in your best interests to go to court to settle it in a civilized manner.  You would probably lose your PDA coverage, or get much higher monthly fees if you do not comply.  If you cause too much of a ruckus, you would probably be denied protection from all PDAs.  This would not be in your best interests.

I have to go look for some more topics, I remember they were posted here a while back about "what if I don't agree to this court," "what if the guy refuses all courts," "what if I don't have a PDA" etc. I will have to find that topic and link you to it.

For now let us just take the example that both of you have PDAs.  In the contract with the PDA (for both the victim and the alleged criminal), there would probably be permission for them to choose an unbiased court for you.  If both parties agree to go to this court, then you go to court.  After the case is heard, if you think the verdict was corrupt, wrong, etc... you would be free to get an appeal to another court... your PDA would probably allow a certain number of appeals (1, 2, 3, it all depends on the contract), after which the PDA would NOT pay, it would be on your dime then (and probably higher monthly fees).  It would probably be just cheaper to settle than to continually fight in more than 2 or 3 appeals.  You would then pay reparations to the victim in order to cover for the damages you have caused.

Also, through competitive courts, naturally law would gravitate towards only protecting property.  It would become impossible/uneconomical for many of these "laws" we have now to be passed, things like minimum wage, monopoly of money, discrimination, banning gay marriage, tariffs, banning smoking, wearing a seatbelt, War On Drugs, etc.

What keeps a powerful PDA from turning on us?

Daniel:

Jacob Bloom:

...

2.  I want to see a monopoly of force because if there's one things governments can actually handle pretty well, it's the use of force.  I don't think humans are capable of handling force privately.  And...to be honest, I can't think of any example of it working in real life.  Someone suggested to me a few days ago...the IJC.  But it turns out that it has only handled like 125 cases in 60 something years.  I'm not against statism.  I just disagree with the way the state is being used right now.  It's not just the scope of government I have an issue with, but the role it plays.  I believe governments are necessary and natural tools humans have developed to control one another.  But there is certainly a lot of room to talk about what needs to be controlled and what doesn't.  I believe markets work pretty well on their own.  Courts?  Not so much.

It's not true that "governments can actually handle pretty well". Hundreds of nations have been invaded by other nations for thousands of years. Ask the poeple of Iraq if Saddam Hussein did a good job at keeping out the US government. I suppose what you favor is a world government, is this true? Every time someone defends his property succesfully, that is evidence against your claim that "I can't think of any example of it working in real life." We know you are not against statism; it's obvious to us. Private "courts" do very well, such as out-of-court settlements, mediation, and arbitration. You hardly ever hear about them, however.

Jacob Bloom:

Perhaps you're the ignorant one for believing what someone else tells you as opposed to what's empirically obvious?  Also, is it possible you haven't read the things I've read?

What have you read?

1.  Lol, the only reason people settle out of court is to avoid having to deal with actual court.  If you remove the actual court, no one would settle a damn thing, there would be no reason to.  Sure, people can settle things privately.  But they need to know that if they can't, they can always go to an arbitrator who has force behind his/her decision.   Saddam Hussein didn't lose to a private militia.  He lost to the US military, a federally funded entity.  So, in a way, you're arguing that the US military was very effective, right?

2.  First and foremost, my main influence is Machiavelli's The Prince.  My next big influence is Sun Tzu's Art of War.  I don't see anyone quoting either on this forum.  Presumably because no one here takes Machiavelli seriously enough, even though The Prince is probably the most common sense explanation of politics, militaries and humans I've ever read.  I would say my third main influence that got me on the path to conservatism was the Lucifer Effect by Phil Zimbardo.  He showed that power, left unchecked, will corrupt even the most innocent of humans.  Power, however, can only be checked by power.  Not by just words, but action.  Without some means to act against unchecked power, the system will erode into tyranny or chaos.

 

 

Daniel:

Jacob, what do Austrian economics, libertarianism, or anarcho-capitalism promise that makes them utopian?

Jacob Bloom:

A perfectly free society where disputes are easily resolved without force and where no one with more guns than anyone else decides to just take over and start a new government.

Mmmhmm. Interesting strawman.

 

Daniel:

Jacob Bloom:

Daniel:

Jacob, what do Austrian economics, libertarianism, or anarcho-capitalism promise that makes them utopian?

A perfectly free society where disputes are easily resolved without force and where no one with more guns than anyone else decides to just take over and start a new government.  It promises something that we all...kind of emotionally want.  Like communism.  A unity of philosophy dedicated to individual freedom but maintained in no way by anyone with the power to enforce the rules authoritatively and to maintain a free market.  You argue that it's possible for a government to infringe on a free market.  This is indisputably true.  But you seem to think without government, no one would infringe on other people's rights or on the market.  This seems...naive.  There will always be people who have the will to control others and aren't particularly concerned how they do so.  They will exist in your society. 

I suppose it is easy to misunderstand AE, libertarianism, and An-cap-ism if you havn't read the books by their main proponents. Anywho, libertarianism doen't promise that disputes will be solved easily (especially since easiness is subjective), nor does it promise that crime (or any violation of rights) will ever occur. What libertarianism says is that it is a contradiction to have a state when the very implimentation of the state violates the rights that the state promises to protect. Libertarianism doesn't promise that Private Defense Agency will prevent rights from being violated, nor does it promise that justice will ever be completely satisfied; that is, true libertarianism doesn't hold the view of "final arbiter". You are correct about this: it would be naive to believe that, in a libertarian society, no violation or right would ever occur; just like it is naive to believe that the state would succeed in protecting rights. Of course there will always be people that want to violate the rights of others, but that doesn't the state.

Jacob Bloom:

AE seems to imagine a society of men who act like perfectly civilized beings when in fact we are just animals with big brains.  That's why it's utopian.

What do you mean by "perfectly civilized" beings?

Jacob Bloom:

1.  Because Mises and Hayek and Rothbard are dead.  ...

Thank Jesus of Nazareth that Marx is dead. Btw, have you read Walter Block?

Jacob Bloom:

  Because you all are the...mimetic descendants of Rothbard. 

This is true to an extent. Then again, I just mimic-ed the person who invented the phrase "[t]his is true to an extent."

Jacob Bloom:

2.  First concern: what happens if I go to a private court, they tell me I am guilty or whatever, so I go to another court, they say I'm innocent?  Is there going to be a court war to decide whose judgement needs to be upheld?

No final arbiter.

Jacob Bloom:

3.  You're right, I should probably just ignore them.

I will not read your books until I'm convinced I want to think like you.  So talk to me.

No problem with this. We won't make you read anything. However, I suppose you should be glad that we're not state, because then we would force you to read Rothbard and write a book review, and if we disgree with your book review, we will fail you and make you repeat the assignment.

Ok, If there is no final arbiter then the laws are ultimately unenforceable and everyone will know that, not just the really smart ones.

By perfectly civilized beings I mean...like...that humans would be able to be like angels.  Just purely benevolent creatures who act totally rationally and with the luxury of infinite time.  This is not our situation.

Lol, if you could force me to read this stuff, you'd probably be more likely to convince me and get what you want, but this goes against your creed.  Which is ironic.  As you can imagine, someone else might not be so scrupulous.

I was listening to some music, and I heard some lyrics that pretty much sum up my philosophy:

Credulous at best
Your desire to believe in
Angels in the hearts of men.
But pull your head on out your hippie haze
And give a listen
Shouldn't have to say it all again

The universe is hostile
So impersonal
Devour to survive
So it is, so it's always been

This is basically how I see life.

Knight_of_BAAWA:

Daniel:

Jacob, what do Austrian economics, libertarianism, or anarcho-capitalism promise that makes them utopian?

Jacob Bloom:

A perfectly free society where disputes are easily resolved without force and where no one with more guns than anyone else decides to just take over and start a new government.

Mmmhmm. Interesting strawman.

Do you know what Blackwater is?

I see that you ignored my previous post, Jacob Bloom.

I. Ryan:

I see that you ignored my previous post, Jacob Bloom.

I did not mean to.  I will go back and check now.

Jacob Bloom:

What keeps a powerful PDA from turning on us?

Competition... Also war/violence is expensive, thus the violent PDA would have higher monthly fees/costs and would be driven out of the market by more efficient PDAs.

Those courts who make corrupt rulings, and PDAs which do not protect property will be driven out of business by honorable courts and those PDAs that actually do protect your property.

Jacob Bloom:

Ok, If there is no final arbiter then the laws are ultimately unenforceable and everyone will know that, not just the really smart ones.

Giving the "final arbiter" position to the monopoly itself is not the best way to protect rights/property... ESPECIALLY in cases against the government.  In a system of private courts, there will always be a non-biased third party to take the case... and as I explained a little earlier, there are consequences for not following the courts decision.

I. Ryan:

Jacob Bloom:

Ok, well if AE is akin to Platonic forms that exist in some ethereal realm where we have to pluck the perfect ideas out of the sky and make them real despite the fact that they don't seem to be, I don't want anything to do with it.

Have you ever taken a mathematics course? Around two thousand years ago, Euclid derived a comprehensive geometrical system without the use of observation; yet, his system seems to describe reality. Do you think that Euclidean geometry is "akin to Platonic forms that exist is some ethereal realm where we have to pluck the perfect ideas out of the sky and make them real despite the fact that they don't seem to be"?

The main claim of AE is that economics (that is, the study of human action) is methodically akin to mathematics instead of methodically akin to natural sciences such as physics.

Jacob Bloom:

I have observed that markets work well without interference.  I know that history has shown us this.  I don't think that history has shown us that law is best handled privately.

Has a private law system existed in a developed country? No. And, you have not "observed that markets work well without interference". Non-intervention has never existed in a developed country in the modern world.

Jacob Bloom:

If you're inferior versions of the ideology, what makes you think you are capable of handling an anarchist society anyways?

Anarcho-capitalism does not presuppose that any one actually understands economics. Economics is the study of how humans act; economics is not the study of how humans ought to act

1.  Can we test Euclidean Geometry to see if it works?  I think so.  Can we test anarchy to see if it works for a large society?  No, not really.  At least not safely.  Well, if AE is a mathematical study of human behavior, it's failing the actual test.   Human behavior is not entirely rational, nor is it always "pro-social."  Anti-social behavior is common between out-groups.  Anarchy is basically going to make every person an in group unto themselves and make everyone else an out group.

2.  A private law system has not existed in a developed country because it's such a ridiculous idea, no one even wants to try it.  I mean think about what happens if you're wrong.  Free markets can be tried with much less risk.  So we've tried them, they mostly work.

3.  Well, humans are more than willing to act in "anti-social" ways against one another if they feel the action is worth it.  The only way to create a deincentive this is to make sure people understand that such actions will be punished rigorously and without exception.  Private courts cannot promise this because there is no final arbiter.

Tex2002ans:

Jacob Bloom:

What keeps a powerful PDA from turning on us?

Competition... Also war/violence is expensive, thus the violent PDA would have higher monthly fees/costs and would be driven out of the market by more efficient PDAs.

Those courts who make corrupt rulings, and PDAs which do not protect property will be driven out of business by honorable courts and those PDAs that actually do protect your property.

Jacob Bloom:

Ok, If there is no final arbiter then the laws are ultimately unenforceable and everyone will know that, not just the really smart ones.

Giving the "final arbiter" position to the monopoly itself is not the best way to protect rights/property... ESPECIALLY in cases against the government.  In a system of private courts, there will always be a non-biased third party to take the case... and as I explained a little earlier, there are consequences for not following the courts decision.

1.  Who is going to drive a violent PDA out of the area if they've declared martial law and taken over everything?  All the other PDAs will either have to give up or go into hiding or die.  You need someone to protect you against these private militias.  You seem to think that competition will keep them all relatively small and not able to overpower another one, which is naive, I think.  Plus, imagine the cost of a internal private war between two PDA fighting for control of a territory.  It would be chaos.  It's not worth the risk.

2.  Justices who understand the Constitution and adhere to it will not rule in favor of the government just to rule in favor of the government.  They don't get paid to rule in favor of the government, they get paid to impartially interpret the facts.  

There are no consequences for disobeying a court ruling if it can't enforce its ruling!

 

Jacob Bloom:

Ok, If there is no final arbiter then the laws are ultimately unenforceable and everyone will know that, not just the really smart ones.

1) Whose laws?
2) Why would laws be unenforcable?

 

Jacob Bloom:

By perfectly civilized beings I mean...like...that humans would be able to be like angels.  Just purely benevolent creatures who act totally rationally and with the luxury of infinite time.  This is not our situation.

Which Austrian economists described humans as "angels", as benevolent, and as having "the luxury of infinite time"?

Jacob Bloom:

Lol, if you could force me to read this stuff, you'd probably be more likely to convince me and get what you want, but this goes against your creed.  Which is ironic.  As you can imagine, someone else might not be so scrupulous.

Yes, it was supposed to be ironic. It was a pun towards you. Lol.

Jacob Bloom:

2.  A private law system has not existed in a developed country because it's such a ridiculous idea, no one even wants to try it.  I mean think about what happens if you're wrong.  Free markets can be tried with much less risk.  So we've tried them, they mostly work.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lex_mercatoria Is it okay if I link to Wikipedia?

 

The other thing about "corrupt courts will get pushed out of business" is that...those courts will still be ruling in favor of someone!  So they won't go out of business, criminals will just go to those specific courts to get their charges dismissed.

Hell, I'd open a court and just let people know I'd rule in favor of whatever is illegal.  And then all the criminals will come to me and I'll have tons of business.  This is a good idea actually.  Ok, start your anarchist society, I will be opening the "Court for Criminals"

Jacob Bloom:

The other thing about "corrupt courts will get pushed out of business" is that...those courts will still be ruling in favor of someone!  So they won't go out of business, criminals will just go to those specific courts to get their charges dismissed.

Hell, I'd open a court and just let people know I'd rule in favor of whatever is illegal.  And then all the criminals will come to me and I'll have tons of business.  This is a good idea actually.  Ok, start your anarchist society, I will be opening the "Court for Criminals"

Even if this were true or ever happened, how is the state better? Also, would a court that sided with the non-criminals also have a lot a business?

Jacob Bloom:

Do you know what Blackwater is?

Yes: a fully-owned subsidiary corporation of the United States Federal Government.

 

Daniel:

Jacob Bloom:

Ok, If there is no final arbiter then the laws are ultimately unenforceable and everyone will know that, not just the really smart ones.

1) Whose laws?
2) Why would laws be unenforcable?

 

Jacob Bloom:

By perfectly civilized beings I mean...like...that humans would be able to be like angels.  Just purely benevolent creatures who act totally rationally and with the luxury of infinite time.  This is not our situation.

Which Austrian economists described humans as "angels", as benevolent, and as having "the luxury of infinite time"?

Jacob Bloom:

Lol, if you could force me to read this stuff, you'd probably be more likely to convince me and get what you want, but this goes against your creed.  Which is ironic.  As you can imagine, someone else might not be so scrupulous.

Yes, it was supposed to be ironic. It was a pun towards you. Lol.

Jacob Bloom:

2.  A private law system has not existed in a developed country because it's such a ridiculous idea, no one even wants to try it.  I mean think about what happens if you're wrong.  Free markets can be tried with much less risk.  So we've tried them, they mostly work.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lex_mercatoria Is it okay if I link to Wikipedia?

 

1.  a.) Will you not have national laws?  So basically...you'll have little local laws?  Ok, so I break your laws, I go somewhere else, nothing happens to me, right?

b.) Because if I don't like what Court A says, I can just go to Court B.  If they rule in favor of me, I'll just say I'm abiding by Court B's ruling.  With no final arbiter, there's no way you can make me adhere to Court A's ruling.

2.  I dunno, but that's the way you seem to think of people in markets and in courts.  Like they are angels with infinite amounts of time to make the optimal decision for themselves.  This is not how it works.

3.  So are there differences between the time when Lex Mercatoria worked and now?  Has the complexity of the market changed?  What about how many people playing in it?  What happened when someone refused to adhere to a Lex Mercatoria ruling?

Jacob Bloom:

The other thing about "corrupt courts will get pushed out of business" is that...those courts will still be ruling in favor of someone!  So they won't go out of business, criminals will just go to those specific courts to get their charges dismissed.

Do you ever think about the nonsense you spew?

Knight_of_BAAWA:

Jacob Bloom:

The other thing about "corrupt courts will get pushed out of business" is that...those courts will still be ruling in favor of someone!  So they won't go out of business, criminals will just go to those specific courts to get their charges dismissed.

Do you ever think about the nonsense you spew?

Why would people stop going to a court that continuously rules in their favor?

Knight_of_BAAWA:

Jacob Bloom:

Do you know what Blackwater is?

Yes: a fully-owned subsidiary corporation of the United States Federal Government.

 

No, Blackwater is a private security contractor.  They get most of their contracts from the US government but they are still privately owned and operated.

Jacob Bloom:

Daniel:

Jacob Bloom:

Ok, If there is no final arbiter then the laws are ultimately unenforceable and everyone will know that, not just the really smart ones.

1) Whose laws?
2) Why would laws be unenforcable?

 

Jacob Bloom:

By perfectly civilized beings I mean...like...that humans would be able to be like angels.  Just purely benevolent creatures who act totally rationally and with the luxury of infinite time.  This is not our situation.

Which Austrian economists described humans as "angels", as benevolent, and as having "the luxury of infinite time"?

Jacob Bloom:

Lol, if you could force me to read this stuff, you'd probably be more likely to convince me and get what you want, but this goes against your creed.  Which is ironic.  As you can imagine, someone else might not be so scrupulous.

Yes, it was supposed to be ironic. It was a pun towards you. Lol.

Jacob Bloom:

2.  A private law system has not existed in a developed country because it's such a ridiculous idea, no one even wants to try it.  I mean think about what happens if you're wrong.  Free markets can be tried with much less risk.  So we've tried them, they mostly work.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lex_mercatoria Is it okay if I link to Wikipedia?

 

1.  a.) Will you not have national laws?  So basically...you'll have little local laws?  Ok, so I break your laws, I go somewhere else, nothing happens to me, right?

b.) Because if I don't like what Court A says, I can just go to Court B.  If they rule in favor of me, I'll just say I'm abiding by Court B's ruling.  With no final arbiter, there's no way you can make me adhere to Court A's ruling.

2.  I dunno, but that's the way you seem to think of people in markets and in courts.  Like they are angels with infinite amounts of time to make the optimal decision for themselves.  This is not how it works.

3.  So are there differences between the time when Lex Mercatoria worked and now?  Has the complexity of the market changed?  What about how many people playing in it?  What happened when someone refused to adhere to a Lex Mercatoria ruling?

National laws imply a nation. What nation would there be? Also, the arbiter doesn't enforce anything, the enforcers do. Concerning number 2, I can haz proof? Concerning number 3, I only linked to the website to disprove your claim.

Jacob Bloom:

Knight_of_BAAWA:

Jacob Bloom:

Do you know what Blackwater is?

Yes: a fully-owned subsidiary corporation of the United States Federal Government.

 

No, Blackwater is a private security contractor.  They get most of their contracts from the US government but they are still privately owned and operated.

What is the difference between a person who works for the government as a soldier and a company that works for the government as an army?

Daniel:

Jacob Bloom:

The other thing about "corrupt courts will get pushed out of business" is that...those courts will still be ruling in favor of someone!  So they won't go out of business, criminals will just go to those specific courts to get their charges dismissed.

Hell, I'd open a court and just let people know I'd rule in favor of whatever is illegal.  And then all the criminals will come to me and I'll have tons of business.  This is a good idea actually.  Ok, start your anarchist society, I will be opening the "Court for Criminals"

Even if this were true or ever happened, how is the state better? Also, would a court that sided with the non-criminals also have a lot a business?

The state is better because the US Supreme Court's ruling is final.  There is nowhere else you can go after the US Supreme Court.  The issue is finalized, if you don't adhere to its rulings, you will face serious consequences. Everyone knows that, so the SC's rulings get honored.

Yes, the non criminal court would have business, my court would too.  Then we'd have a war over whose rulings were to be enforced.  It would all come down to who could afford the better PDA.  I'd imagine that all the non criminals would be broke because the criminals would have taken everything from them, so I think we'd get the better army.  In the mean time, criminals would still be free to roam around committing crimes and you'd have chaos.

 

Daniel:

Jacob Bloom:

Daniel:

Jacob Bloom:

Ok, If there is no final arbiter then the laws are ultimately unenforceable and everyone will know that, not just the really smart ones.

1) Whose laws?
2) Why would laws be unenforcable?

 

Jacob Bloom:

By perfectly civilized beings I mean...like...that humans would be able to be like angels.  Just purely benevolent creatures who act totally rationally and with the luxury of infinite time.  This is not our situation.

Which Austrian economists described humans as "angels", as benevolent, and as having "the luxury of infinite time"?

Jacob Bloom:

Lol, if you could force me to read this stuff, you'd probably be more likely to convince me and get what you want, but this goes against your creed.  Which is ironic.  As you can imagine, someone else might not be so scrupulous.

Yes, it was supposed to be ironic. It was a pun towards you. Lol.

Jacob Bloom:

2.  A private law system has not existed in a developed country because it's such a ridiculous idea, no one even wants to try it.  I mean think about what happens if you're wrong.  Free markets can be tried with much less risk.  So we've tried them, they mostly work.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lex_mercatoria Is it okay if I link to Wikipedia?

 

1.  a.) Will you not have national laws?  So basically...you'll have little local laws?  Ok, so I break your laws, I go somewhere else, nothing happens to me, right?

b.) Because if I don't like what Court A says, I can just go to Court B.  If they rule in favor of me, I'll just say I'm abiding by Court B's ruling.  With no final arbiter, there's no way you can make me adhere to Court A's ruling.

2.  I dunno, but that's the way you seem to think of people in markets and in courts.  Like they are angels with infinite amounts of time to make the optimal decision for themselves.  This is not how it works.

3.  So are there differences between the time when Lex Mercatoria worked and now?  Has the complexity of the market changed?  What about how many people playing in it?  What happened when someone refused to adhere to a Lex Mercatoria ruling?

National laws imply a nation. What nation would there be? Also, the arbiter doesn't enforce anything, the enforcers do. Concerning number 2, I can haz proof? Concerning number 3, I only linked to the website to disprove your claim.

Jacob Bloom:

Knight_of_BAAWA:

Jacob Bloom:

Do you know what Blackwater is?

Yes: a fully-owned subsidiary corporation of the United States Federal Government.

 

No, Blackwater is a private security contractor.  They get most of their contracts from the US government but they are still privately owned and operated.

What is the difference between a person who works for the government as a soldier and a company that works for the government as an army?

1.  You brought up Lex Mercatoria like that's your model for a private legal system.  Apparently, it didn't last for very long and it existed during a time when trade was very different from the way it is now.  So it's non applicable. 

2.  The company can choose who it fights and when and under what conditions.  Because it's private.

Jacob Bloom:

Why would people stop going to a court that continuously rules in their favor?

Why would people listen to the rulings of a corrupt court?

 

We always descend into this same stupid argument again and again.  Nothing changes because of it, I say we move on, I don't really feel like it's important to convince you because I'm convinced we will never have a serious push in this country for a private law system.  That being said, I answered about what AE has taught me.  I'm done with this thread, this is futile for everyone involved.  You will not convince me and I obviously will not convince you.  Let's move on.

Jacob Bloom:

No, Blackwater is a private security contractor.

BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!

While it may appear so on the outside, that's just a shell. It's simply a federal corporation.

 

Knight_of_BAAWA:

Jacob Bloom:

Why would people stop going to a court that continuously rules in their favor?

Why would people listen to the rulings of a corrupt court?

The party that receives a favorable ruling is going to turn down a favorable ruling?

 

Knight_of_BAAWA:

Jacob Bloom:

No, Blackwater is a private security contractor.

BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!

While it may appear so on the outside, that's just a shell. It's simply a federal corporation.

Lol, ok, this is where I exit, now we're on to conspiracy theories.  Blackwater is a private contractor.  It's basically a PDA.  That's who you're going to be dealing with.  Blackwater would take over the US if the military didn't exist.  What reason would they have not to?

 

Jacob Bloom:

Plus, imagine the cost of a internal private war between two PDA fighting for control of a territory.  It would be chaos.  It's not worth the risk.

Indeed, which is why PDAs would be very inclined to settle things peacefully and not use violence.

Fighting over "territory?" Perhaps you meant competing to see who can serve the people best.  They don't supposedly rule every land in a given area like a government claims they do, they only help protect your property.

Jacob Bloom:

2.  Justices who understand the Constitution and adhere to it will not rule in favor of the government just to rule in favor of the government.  They don't get paid to rule in favor of the government, they get paid to impartially interpret the facts.

This is what would happen in a private court system, those judges who rule honorably and according to the laws of that PDA will become promoted... Those who make horrible rulings will be fired or demoted, unlike the monopoly of courts/judges we have now.  Just look at where government is now, and all of these "corrupt constitution hating judges."  Perhaps the higher ones are much better? Nope, the Supreme Court is full of them.

Small government will never stay small, and believing the monopoly judges will adhere to "The Constitution" (the way you interpret it) is a joke.

Jacob Bloom:

There are no consequences for disobeying a court ruling if it can't enforce its ruling!

Let me repeat again, there are consequences for not following a PDAs ruling.

Jacob Bloom:

Hell, I'd open a court and just let people know I'd rule in favor of whatever is illegal.  And then all the criminals will come to me and I'll have tons of business.  This is a good idea actually.  Ok, start your anarchist society, I will be opening the "Court for Criminals"

No need... It already exists, it is called the government.

Jacob Bloom:

1.  a.) Will you not have national laws?  So basically...you'll have little local laws?  Ok, so I break your laws, I go somewhere else, nothing happens to me, right?

There will be none of this "national laws," but what will happen is anything besides protecting property rights would be impossible/uneconomical.  I gave examples in my earlier post.

Also, with you moving away... just as with insurance companies now, they give eachother information on their customers.  You would move to another area, you will still need a PDA there, they will look up information on you before allowing you to sign up and see that you are an extremely unruly person... They will either charge you higher rates, or not protect you at all.

Jacob Bloom:

b.) Because if I don't like what Court A says, I can just go to Court B.  If they rule in favor of me, I'll just say I'm abiding by Court B's ruling.  With no final arbiter, there's no way you can make me adhere to Court A's ruling.

I think I explained this pretty well, you will go to a non-biased third party court, and most likely your PDA will not cover appeals beyond a certain point.  This would be at your own expense to continue to fight the courts which give honorable rulings.

 

Jacob Bloom:

Lol, ok, this is where I exit, now we're on to conspiracy theories.  Blackwater is a private contractor.  It's basically a PDA.  That's who you're going to be dealing with.  Blackwater would take over the US if the military didn't exist.  What reason would they have not to?

No it is not "basically like a PDA."  I think my comment below would really help out here:

I think someone mentioned it about a week ago... and I agree... Just take some time to go read some of the literature instead of posting hundreds of posts a day... it really helps!!!  For A New Liberty was the book that pushed me from Minarchism, and actually helped me get a grasp on how police/courts/roads/protection environment would work without a government monopoly.

Jacob Bloom:

Can we test Euclidean Geometry to see if it works?  I think so.  Can we test anarchy to see if it works for a large society?  No, not really.  At least not safely.

As I explain below, a transitional approach can be advocated.

Jacob Bloom:

Well, if AE is a mathematical study of human behavior, it's failing the actual test.

I do not understand the above quoted portion. AE is "failing" what "test"?

Jacob Bloom:

Human behavior is not entirely rational, nor is it always "pro-social."  Anti-social behavior is common between out-groups.  Anarchy is basically going to make every person an in group unto themselves and make everyone else an out group.

Anarchocapitalism assumes that human behavior is rational insofaras rationality is defined as human behavior. I am serious. As I already mentioned, I think that Mises's usage of the word "rational" was a mistake because it encouraged the counterargument that "human behavior is not entirely rational". However, such a counterargument is merely a symptom of a misunderstanding of his usage. If you read "Human Action" by Mises or "MESPW" by Rothbard, then you will understand the usage.

You use the word "rational" to describe behavior that applies correct means in order to accomplish the intended ends and you use the word "irrational" to describe behavior that applies incorrect means in order to accomplish the intended ends. If I were to adopt your usage of word "rational", then, yes, not all human behavior is rational.

Also, anarchocapitalism does not assume that human behavior is "pro-social". I do not even know how to respond to such a ridiculous strawman.

Jacob Bloom:

A private law system has not existed in a developed country because it's such a ridiculous idea, no one even wants to try it.

That is merely an appeal to the majority.

Jacob Bloom:

I mean think about what happens if you're wrong.

As I explain below, a transitional approach can be advocated.

Jacob Bloom:

Free markets can be tried with much less risk.  So we've tried them, they mostly work.

No one has mentioned possible transitional strategies in this thread. To claim that the transition to minarchism should proceed the transition to anarchocapitalism is very reasonable. Many proponents of anarchocapitalism favor a transitional approach rather than a revolutionary approach.

Jacob Bloom:

Well, humans are more than willing to act in "anti-social" ways against one another if they feel the action is worth it.  The only way to create a deincentive this is to make sure people understand that such actions will be punished rigorously and without exception.  Private courts cannot promise this because there is no final arbiter.

I do not understand that criticism. Perhaps someone else can provide an answer.

Jacob Bloom:

Daniel:

Jacob Bloom:

The other thing about "corrupt courts will get pushed out of business" is that...those courts will still be ruling in favor of someone!  So they won't go out of business, criminals will just go to those specific courts to get their charges dismissed.

Hell, I'd open a court and just let people know I'd rule in favor of whatever is illegal.  And then all the criminals will come to me and I'll have tons of business.  This is a good idea actually.  Ok, start your anarchist society, I will be opening the "Court for Criminals"

Even if this were true or ever happened, how is the state better? Also, would a court that sided with the non-criminals also have a lot a business?

The state is better because the US Supreme Court's ruling is final.  There is nowhere else you can go after the US Supreme Court.  The issue is finalized, if you don't adhere to its rulings, you will face serious consequences. Everyone knows that, so the SC's rulings get honored.

Yes, the non criminal court would have business, my court would too.  Then we'd have a war over whose rulings were to be enforced.  It would all come down to who could afford the better PDA.  I'd imagine that all the non criminals would be broke because the criminals would have taken everything from them, so I think we'd get the better army.  In the mean time, criminals would still be free to roam around committing crimes and you'd have chaos.

How is the US Supreme Court's ruling final? What if I decide to not abide by it and flee to a non-extradition country?

Jacob Bloom:

Daniel:

Jacob Bloom:

Daniel:

Jacob Bloom:

Ok, If there is no final arbiter then the laws are ultimately unenforceable and everyone will know that, not just the really smart ones.

1) Whose laws?
2) Why would laws be unenforcable?

 

Jacob Bloom:

By perfectly civilized beings I mean...like...that humans would be able to be like angels.  Just purely benevolent creatures who act totally rationally and with the luxury of infinite time.  This is not our situation.

Which Austrian economists described humans as "angels", as benevolent, and as having "the luxury of infinite time"?

Jacob Bloom:

Lol, if you could force me to read this stuff, you'd probably be more likely to convince me and get what you want, but this goes against your creed.  Which is ironic.  As you can imagine, someone else might not be so scrupulous.

Yes, it was supposed to be ironic. It was a pun towards you. Lol.

Jacob Bloom:

2.  A private law system has not existed in a developed country because it's such a ridiculous idea, no one even wants to try it.  I mean think about what happens if you're wrong.  Free markets can be tried with much less risk.  So we've tried them, they mostly work.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lex_mercatoria Is it okay if I link to Wikipedia?

 

1.  a.) Will you not have national laws?  So basically...you'll have little local laws?  Ok, so I break your laws, I go somewhere else, nothing happens to me, right?

b.) Because if I don't like what Court A says, I can just go to Court B.  If they rule in favor of me, I'll just say I'm abiding by Court B's ruling.  With no final arbiter, there's no way you can make me adhere to Court A's ruling.

2.  I dunno, but that's the way you seem to think of people in markets and in courts.  Like they are angels with infinite amounts of time to make the optimal decision for themselves.  This is not how it works.

3.  So are there differences between the time when Lex Mercatoria worked and now?  Has the complexity of the market changed?  What about how many people playing in it?  What happened when someone refused to adhere to a Lex Mercatoria ruling?

National laws imply a nation. What nation would there be? Also, the arbiter doesn't enforce anything, the enforcers do. Concerning number 2, I can haz proof? Concerning number 3, I only linked to the website to disprove your claim.

Jacob Bloom:

Knight_of_BAAWA:

Jacob Bloom:

Do you know what Blackwater is?

Yes: a fully-owned subsidiary corporation of the United States Federal Government.

 

No, Blackwater is a private security contractor.  They get most of their contracts from the US government but they are still privately owned and operated.

What is the difference between a person who works for the government as a soldier and a company that works for the government as an army?

1.  You brought up Lex Mercatoria like that's your model for a private legal system.  Apparently, it didn't last for very long and it existed during a time when trade was very different from the way it is now.  So it's non applicable. 

2.  The company can choose who it fights and when and under what conditions.  Because it's private.

1) It is not necessarily my model for a private legal system. I already told you why I brought it up.

2) No it doesn't It is under orders of the US government.

Jacob, you have been consistently disproven by many of us. We could care less if you decide to stop arguing with us. You're like target practice. Thanks for the help.

Jacob Bloom:

What reason would they have not to?

It would have to fight everybody?

And Blackwater is not a private arbitration agency. Blackwater does not make laws. Blackwater merely enforces the laws of public arbitration agencies that hire them.

Stranger:

Jacob Bloom:

What reason would they have not to?

It would have to fight everybody?

How hard is fighting "everybody" when you have superior manpower and technology?

I. Ryan:

And Blackwater is not a private arbitration agency. Blackwater does not make laws. Blackwater merely enforces the laws of public arbitration agencies.

I never said it was a private arbitration agency.  I said it was a private enforcer.  Blackwater is exactly what is meant by a PDA.  Now ask yourselves: "are these the people we want watching over us?"

Jacob Bloom:

The party that receives a favorable ruling is going to turn down a favorable ruling?

Why do you never think about the other side? Why are you stuck in "might makes right"?

 

Jacob Bloom:

Lol, ok, this is where I exit, now we're on to conspiracy theories.  Blackwater is a private contractor.

No, it isn't. It's a federal subsidiary. Blackwater couldn't even take over Canada with pitchforks and a drunken goat.

 

Jacob Bloom:

Yes, the non criminal court would have business, my court would too.  Then we'd have a war over whose rulings were to be enforced.  It would all come down to who could afford the better PDA.  I'd imagine that all the non criminals would be broke because the criminals would have taken everything from them, so I think we'd get the better army.  In the mean time, criminals would still be free to roam around committing crimes and you'd have chaos.

I could open a court and rule in my clients favor 100% of the time. Would I have a lot of Clients? No.

Why? Because nobody in society except for my clients would view my courts rulings as legitimate. Then if I were dumb enough to wage full scale war against the rest of society, my clients would be the ones who payed the cost. Could they possibly afford this? No.