If all government is inefficient then it might as well be abolished correct? However, if we have private courts, wont the courts be influenced by the one who pays the most money? I know that this is probably the same with state courts, but how would a private system of courts be bettter than a government system of courts?
“Since people are concerned that ‘X’ will not be provided, ‘X’ will naturally be provided by those who are concerned by its absence.""The sweetest of minds can harbor the harshest of men.”
http://voluntaryistreader.wordpress.org
How Could A Voluntary Society Function?
More here:
http://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLDDB98C9E761B8400
Well, yeah, I mean...for courts and stuff, I mean...you need a government for that.
Just kidding.
"The Possibility of Private Law"
"Law and Appeals in a Free Society"
Chaos Theory
I understand this now. Public perception does play a big role in this. If a private court was bribed and people knew about it, that court would go out of buisness, sso then the free market is a fair system which regulates itself, and also if a buisness hurt the environment, the people would notice and the buisness would get in trouble. And also one can always use multiple private companies for the arbitration to make sure that the ruling is accurate (like in the repitition of a scientific experiment). Also it does make sense that the 2 parties that are disputed would go to a court that they both agree on for maximum fairness (in which if the government was the monopoly, you'd have no other choice but the government).
Also, how would private armies work?
If country a with private armies got attacked by country b with state armies, how would the private armies muster the resources and money to be able to defend against the state army which had the massive funding from taxes and government power monopoly (also how would this same principle apply to building a highway system of roads and railroads etc.)
kelvin_silva:Also, how would private armies work?
The Myth of National Defense
The Private Production of Defense
The Market for Security | Robert P. Murphy
Check this thread out:
http://mises.org/Community/forums/t/28934.aspx
The only issue I haven't addressed is the monetization of the debt.
My view.
Clayton -
I'd like to reiterate support for Chaos Theory.
Clayton, do you have a permit to carry that brick? Seems like a weapon to me.
So then if government is totally pointless, then how did it get here in the first place? When man first came into the world, there was no government. And if government is so inefficient how could it possibly be conjured in the first place?
if government is so inefficient how could it possibly be conjured in the first place?
One of the nice things you learn thinking about politics and economics is to apply logic consistently.
Your proposition: If system A is so inefficient, how could it possibly be conjured in the first place?
The implications: If system A exists, then it must be efficient.
The application of the same logic consistently: If the Soviet variety of Communism was so inefficient, how could it have existed in the first place?
And yet it existed.
Hence, your argument is invalid.
Possible reasons for why inefficient systems exist:
1) People don't realize they're inefficient
2) They're in someone's interest
It might very well be a combination of both.
Chaos Theory is a very good book. I read it all in one sitting and it was just a phenomenal work. I would also recommend For a New Liberty by Murray Rothbard.
I think government is a product of the market in some ways, but then acquires the power, mostly through culture and ideology, to maintain its market position through force without people getting upset, at least not all the time.
Wheylous:One of the nice things you learn thinking about politics and economics is to apply logic consistently.
"The Mises Academy offers these related courses:"
-How to Think: An Introduction to Logic
I don't think the worst thing about government is that it's "inefficient". In any case, the question of efficency is always relative ... efficient to what end? In my view, the government is actually quite efficient once you realize that its telos is to live at the expense of others. It does that extremely well.
The worst thing about government is that it is a double-standard. One law for agents of the State and another law for everybody else. And you raise an excellent point in this regard - since humans naturally abhor double-standards and are loathe to willingly accept them, how did we all end up in this situation?
Here is Hoppe's answer. I am not satisfied with Hoppe's answer. My view on the matter is still evolving but my present view is that we have to separate the State into two attributes. The first attribute is a kind of "natural government" such as pertains in tribal, clan or other very close-knit communities, such as the Amish. In this kind of government, too, there exist double-standards but they are a lot more like the double-standards in the parent-child relationship in that it is not difficult to see how the arrangement benefits all parties involved, despite the existence of double-standards.
The second attribute is the imperial or the State qua State whose sole purpose of existence is self-aggrandization. I think this aspect of government is always indicative of a systemic imbalance in the natural order. In regard to this component, the relationship between the State and its subjects is unilateral and wholly parasitic. There is no mutuality whatsoever. The modern State attempts to wrap itself in the cloak of the tribal/clan government by presenting itself as a wise uncle who "nudges" us in the right direction for our own good. The case in fact is diametrically opposite.
How this attribute comes to be and persists is difficult to explain but I think that part of the solution lies in putting the problem in its true perspective. In my theory, I posit (but can't yet support) the following:
Summary: The imperial State (double-standard, parasite/producer society) exists because when the social order undergoes rapid change, the old social norms and laws which had previously developed during the last period of relative social stability and had ground the progression of parasitism more and more to a halt are no longer useful to this end. People are open to exploitation in new ways that they do not even yet understand. The early exploiters win the race to exploit these new weaknesses in the social order and then begin "reinvesting" the proceeds of exploitation to preserve the existing weaknesses and even to create new weaknesses to exploit (e.g. propaganda). Over time, however, new social norms and laws develop which negate or at least mitigate the new forms of exploitation until some kind of stasis/equilibrium is eventually reached (barring the emergence of new, rapid social changes).
Wasn't that double-standard there from the very beginning in family and tribal life? @OP This isn't quite private courts, more like government courts in the unusual situation of having to compete for clients, but I think it will address your misgivings nicely: http://faculty.msb.edu/hasnasj/GTWebSite/TIL.PDF
Why anarchy fails
Sorry Clayton, you did address my question.
So my next question is, then, can't we state things more efficiently by saying that the state is just too large - that it's grown beyond a human scale (close-knit tribal relations with elders). This is really an argument via evolutionary psychology: like our eating habits, statism is a modern-world problem (albeit way less modern than large-scale dietary issues), being a direct result of the fact that population sizes have grown faster than our brains could handle them. The common economic fallacies are a major manifestation of that maladaptation. Is this too simplistic?
@AJ: I think that's a pretty good way to put it but what's missing (missing in EP, too) is an understanding of the adaptive role of law in readjusting the social landscape to cope with the misalignment between the hardwiring in our brains and reality as it is. Rape is one (perhaps overused) example - the human brain and physiology is clearly wired for the fact of relatively commonplace rape in the Ancestral Environment. By comparison to that environment, rape almost never occurs today.
What gives? Well, the threat of direct or legal retribution. And I think this reasoning extends to every imaginable maladaptedness of our psychology. I think we can think of the social order as a kind of virtual landscape that is constantly morphing to "re-balance" the costs and benefits of various courses of action so that those courses of action which have become maladaptive through some rapid change in our environment are suppressed by the social order itself.
AJ:So my next question is, then, can't we state things more efficiently by saying that the state is just too large - that it's grown beyond a human scale (close-knit tribal relations with elders).
If you ask me, violating self-ownership is never moral, even by one's familial/tribal elders.
The keyboard is mightier than the gun.
Non parit potestas ipsius auctoritatem.
Voluntaryism Forum
Rape is one (perhaps overused) example - the human brain and physiology is clearly wired for the fact of relatively commonplace rape in the Ancestral Environment.
How do you know it was commonplace?
He was there. Saw it with his own eyes.
I concur with Caley - I don't see how rape was commonplace in the Ancestral Environment. My own research has led me to the conclusion that humans are inherently promiscuous. Furthermore, the adoption of marriage was a reaction to presumably rampant STD infections that started after the advent of agriculture.
kelvin_silva:So then if government is totally pointless, then how did it get here in the first place? When man first came into the world, there was no government. And if government is so inefficient how could it possibly be conjured in the first place?
I've come to the conclusion that the state arose from the authoritarian family. Even today, many (if not most) parents act as though they own their children (if they don't explicitly think they do).
As Clayton said, the state is efficient for some people - namely those running it. It's usually not efficient in terms of the public rationales for its existence. Nevertheless, those who run the state apparently think that it's userful (if not necessary) to lie about its reason for being, as that has made it easier for them to continue playing the exploitation game.
"Man has an overwhelming genetic propensity to choose the best means for his most important ends. His most important ends overwhelmingly involve material security, comfort, and prosperity. The best means for that is maximal capitalism. Once men are convinced of that by economic science, they will choose it."
"The state happened to be invented before economic science could reveal the superiority of capitalism. Therefore, people in some societies thought erroneously that supporting a state apparatus was the most effective means to their ends. Thus the first states formed. And given the fact that at the time non-state societies had not YET developed economic calculation and the division of labor sufficiently to become supremely wealthy (keep in mind that anarchism is not synonymous with anarcho-capitalism, and a society can be slow to develop private property rights even without a state), state societies were able to produce the means of war to a superior degree, so the latter were able to over-run the former." - Daniel James Sanchez
I'd recommend reading Bruce Benson's book "The Enterpise of Law". I'm just finishing it is awesome
kelvin_silva:However, if we have private courts, wont the courts be influenced by the one who pays the most money?
A private judge is selling a service of impartial arbitration, if he is seen to be impartial by taking bribes he will lose customers.
kelvin_silva:How would a private system of courts be bettter than a government system of courts?
We can expect the same benefits of competition in law that we can in baking. Compeition provides incentives to lower prices by cutting costs and increasing quality throught innovation.
In Chaos Theory, Robert Murphy writes the following (on page 25):
Another point to consider is the enhanced role of adoption in a free society. Much as it shocks modern sensibilities, there would be a fully functioning "baby market," in which parental privileges were sold to the highest bidder.
After these two sentences, Murphy inserts a footnote that reads the following:
I am purposefully skirting the question of whether parents would legally “own” their children. So long as a child voluntarily remained with his parents, “living under their roof,” they could of course set any rules they wished. The only problem arises when a child runs away, and does not wish to return. I personally am sympathetic to the notion that so long as a child can support him or herself, parents can’t force the child to return home.
So do you think Murphy is implying that parents can force their children back if they do not have the means of supporting themselves? Discuss.
I guess it would be ok for the parent to force the child back into their home, since a child cant make rational decisions for his or herself since that child has not matured yet, and thus needs to depend on the parents to guide the child into adulthood.
"So do you think Murphy is implying that parents can force their children back if they do not have the means of supporting themselves? Discuss."
If they do have the means to support themselves, they will be able to communicate as such - indicate they are running away, the reasons why and not going to return etc. Obviously they don't HAVE to, since that might risk giving up the element of surprise to the abusive parents (because if your child is running away it's pretty much guarenteed you've failed your role as an individual whose is to facilitate their growth into a mature adult) - but they have to at least be able to communicate.
But when are we to say that this parental trustee jurisdiction over children shall come to an end? Surely any particular age (21,18, or whatever) can only be completely arbitrary. The clue to the solution of this thorny question lies in the parental property rights in their home. For the child has his full rights of self-ownership when he demonstrates that he has them in nature — in short, when he leaves or "runs away" from home. Regardless of his age, we must grant to every child the absolute right to run away and to find new foster parents who will voluntarily adopt him, or to try to exist on his own. Parents may try to persuade the runaway child to return, but it is totally impermissible enslavement and an aggression upon his right of self-ownership for them to use force to compel him to return. The absolute right to run away is the child's ultimate expression of his right of self-ownership, regardless of age.
From Tom Woods:
Check out Judge.me, a new Internet-based dispute resolution website, being touted as an equitable and affordable alternative to government courts. The creator sent me a note alerting me to it, and I’m very interested. He also did an AMA (“Ask Me Anything”) at Reddit. Here’s how it works.
In fact, Tom actually hosted the founder on the Peter Schiff Show today. You can download the episode at the link (might have to wait till later today..the show just ended.)
@JJ: Wow, that's amazing. The "ex aequo et bono" principle they base their arbitration on is very much in line with what I line out in my Praxeological Account of Law. Two thumbs way up!!
www.judge.me
disregard this, didn't realize the link was already posted :-X
Ok.. you caught me... it was a sarcastic post..
They wouldn't.
I just wanted to say that anyone considering using an arbitration service should really read the contract carefully because appealing a finding can be very difficult and there's like a three month window for moving to have a finding vacated.
Some suggested reading:
Federal Arbitration Act and look for an arbitration act in your state as well for applicable rules.
Christensen v Smith
Evans v Centerstone
Cable Connection Inc v DirectTV Inc.
There are ofcourse many others I just thought these would be useful and, to my knowledge, they're current.
People should also look for a binding arbitration clause in any contract they sign as such instruments are often used to preclude the possibility of a court trial in the event of a dispute.
The Tom Woods interview with Judge.me founder Peter-Jan Celis:
kelvin_silva: If all government is inefficient then it might as well be abolished correct? However, if we have private courts, wont the courts be influenced by the one who pays the most money? I know that this is probably the same with state courts, but how would a private system of courts be bettter than a government system of courts?
It won't and it can't. Private courts would be no better than government courts. This is because of corruption in a position of power. These people on here assume law will naturally come about, but there will always be people, albeit a small minority, that will inevitably seek to steal and murder and, whenever possible, create chaos. Laws need to be objectively defined and realistic, and naturally enforced. Courts are pathetic. Let the citizens be their own defenders.
thetabularasa:It won't and it can't. Private courts would be no better than government courts. This is because of corruption in a position of power. These people on here assume law will naturally come about, but there will always be people, albeit a small minority, that will inevitably seek to steal and murder and, whenever possible, create chaos. Laws need to be objectively defined and realistic, and naturally enforced. Courts are pathetic. Let the citizens be their own defenders.
The last four sentences make absolutely no sense in light of everything you said before them.
Laws need to be objectively defined ... Courts are pathetic. Let the citizens be their own defenders.
Nice catch, JJ :D