*Contravene the defense agencies orders before they are executed.
Ban-Evader:Not a very good one. Somalia essentially has multiple defense agencies which give lip service to tribal law.
Do you have an actual point with this? I'm not a mind-reader, as you well know, yet you apparently (and implicitly) insist on others being able to read between the lines with your opaque responses. (Inb4 "u mad bro?")
Ban-Evader:Only if the judges have partial ownership of the defense companies. Otherwise, they have no ability to contravene the defense agencies' actions before they happen.
You're laboring under an illusion - the illusion of certainty.
Ban-Evader:The non-aggression principle.
Do you think the vast majority of people instinctively believe in essentially the non-aggression principle - at least the vast majority of the time? Why or why not?
The keyboard is mightier than the gun.
Non parit potestas ipsius auctoritatem.
Voluntaryism Forum
So you're not sure, either, that ancap-ism wouldn't devolve into some Somalia piece of crap? Just hoping it won't?
To some degree; I don't know why, I suspect there are various reasons.
Ban-Evader:So you're not sure, either, that ancap-ism wouldn't devolve into some Somalia piece of crap? Just hoping it won't?
The future is never certain. You seem to think otherwise.
Ban-Evader:To some degree; I don't know why, I suspect there are various reasons.
To what degree, in your opinion? That sounds like a negative answer to my question though.
I never said the future was certain.
To some moderate degree, I guess.
Ancap-ism necessarily involves legal competition being restricted to agencies enforcing natural law. Is this correct?
impala76: Extortion is a completely different situation and does not produce wealth. The victims will be less productive, the criminal gangs gain less monetarily, but this gain could hardly be considered profit, as it is not derived from a firm's productive process and catallactic actions. That's an assumption. If extortion dones't produce wealth, why isn't it less common in areas without a functioning central government?
Extortion is a completely different situation and does not produce wealth. The victims will be less productive, the criminal gangs gain less monetarily, but this gain could hardly be considered profit, as it is not derived from a firm's productive process and catallactic actions.
That's an assumption. If extortion dones't produce wealth, why isn't it less common in areas without a functioning central government?
If extortion dones't produce wealth, why isn't it less common in areas without a functioning central government?
Ban-Evader:I never said the future was certain.
I don't think you had to. What you have said leads me to conclude that you do think that at least some aspects of the future can be certain. For example, you seem to believe that certain words written down on certain pieces of paper will always be believed in and followed. You also seem to believe that certain ideas and/or institutions can actually guarantee certain things.
Ban-Evader:To some moderate degree, I guess.
In other words, you don't think the vast majority of people believe in what amounts to the non-aggression principle (at least the vast majority of the time). Okay, so why is that?
Ban-Evader:Ancap-ism necessarily involves legal competition being restricted to agencies enforcing natural law. Is this correct?
Given your earlier definition of "natural law" as "the non-aggression principle", we can translate the above to the following: "Ancap-ism necessarily involves legal competition being restricted to agencies enforcing the non-aggression principle. Is this correct?" Let me ask you this: are you putting that forth as a conclusion, or as a premise? If the former, what are you concluding it from?
No idea. My brain hurts.
Let me ask you this: are you putting that forth as a conclusion, or as a premise? If the former, what are you concluding it from?
Neither; it's a statement. I'll take your answer as "no", although I don't see how such a system could survive while allowing non-natural law agencies to participate.
Well, I guess you could call it an intermediate conclusion based on how allowing non-NAP-following agencies to make law would result in the law deviating from the NAP.
Ban-Evader:No idea. My brain hurts.
I call BS on you saying you have no idea. As for your brain hurting, I couldn't care less. Don't expect any sympathy from me, troll.
Ban-Evader:Neither; it's a statement.
In other words, you're not even trying to argue from a logical basis? Then you concede everything.
Ban-Evader:I'll take your answer as "no", although I don't see how such a system could survive while allowing non-natural law agencies to participate.
I haven't answered your question because I don't completely understand what you're asking with it. Sorry if that means I'm not playing by your rules. Again, I couldn't care less.
It seems clear to me that your criticism of anarcho-capitalism is that there's no way to guarantee the only the non-aggression principle will ever be enforced within it. Your point proves too much, however. There's never any guarantee of anything about the future. So in that respect, anarcho-capitalism is in the same boat as every other existing/proposed social system.
So in that respect, anarcho-capitalism is in the same boat as every other existing/proposed social system.
The problem is that I think people need more than that before they try some radical untried system that depends on firms obeying some forms of anticompetitive behavior but not others.
You think people need more than what?
The justification ancaps give.
Ancap-ism has to prevent non-natural law following agencies from making law. If they allow consumers to chose them, then they will formulate "bad" laws.
Ban-Evader:The justification ancaps give.
And just what do you think that is?
Ban-Evader:Ancap-ism has to prevent non-natural law following agencies from making law. If they allow consumers to chose them, then they will formulate "bad" laws.
How do you think law can be made, exactly? What definition are you using for "law"?
>And just what do you think that is?
The text below that.
>How do you think law can be made, exactly? What definition are you using for "law"?
Judge-made law.
http://www.reocities.com/CapitolHill/1931/secF6.html
Given these obvious points, it should come as no surprise that Rothbard solves this problem by explicitly excluding the general population from deciding which laws they will be subject to. As he put it, "it would not be a very difficult task for Libertarian lawyers and jurists to arrive at a rational and objective code of libertarian legal principles and procedures . . . This code would then be followed and applied to specific cases by privately-competitive and free-market courts and judges, all of whom would be pledged to abide by the code." ["The Spooner-Tucker Doctrine: An Economist's View", pp. 5-15, Journal of Libertarian Studies, Vol. 20, No. 1, p. 7] By jurist Rothbard means a professional or an expert who studies, develops, applies or otherwise deals with the law, i.e. a lawyer or a judge. That is, law-making by privately-competitive judges and lawyers. And not only would the law be designed by experts, so would its interpretation: "If legislation is replaced by such judge-made law fixity and certainty . . . will replace the capriciously changing edicts of statutory legislation. The body of judge-made law changes very slowly . . . decisions properly apply only to the particular case, judge-made law -- in contrast to legislation -- permits a vast body of voluntary, freely-adapted rules, bargains, and arbitrations to proliferate as needed in society. The twin of the free market economy, then, is . . . a proliferation of voluntary rules interpreted and applied by experts in the law." ["On Freedom and the Law", Op. Cit. p. 38]
Given these obvious points, it should come as no surprise that Rothbard solves this problem by explicitly excluding the general population from deciding which laws they will be subject to. As he put it, "it would not be a very difficult task for Libertarian lawyers and jurists to arrive at a rational and objective code of libertarian legal principles and procedures . . . This code would then be followed and applied to specific cases by privately-competitive and free-market courts and judges, all of whom would be pledged to abide by the code." ["The Spooner-Tucker Doctrine: An Economist's View", pp. 5-15, Journal of Libertarian Studies, Vol. 20, No. 1, p. 7] By jurist Rothbard means a professional or an expert who studies, develops, applies or otherwise deals with the law, i.e. a lawyer or a judge. That is, law-making by privately-competitive judges and lawyers. And not only would the law be designed by experts, so would its interpretation:
"If legislation is replaced by such judge-made law fixity and certainty . . . will replace the capriciously changing edicts of statutory legislation. The body of judge-made law changes very slowly . . . decisions properly apply only to the particular case, judge-made law -- in contrast to legislation -- permits a vast body of voluntary, freely-adapted rules, bargains, and arbitrations to proliferate as needed in society. The twin of the free market economy, then, is . . . a proliferation of voluntary rules interpreted and applied by experts in the law." ["On Freedom and the Law", Op. Cit. p. 38]
Ban-Evader:The text below that.
Right, because that's the only justification ever given by anarcho-capitalists...
Ban-Evader:Judge-made law.
So what definition are you using for "law"? And how do you see judges making this "law"? I'm not going to move forward until you answer these questions.
Law[2] is a system of rules and guidelines which are enforced through social institutions to govern behavior.
Judge made law is decided by judges in libertopia.
impala76: So in that respect, anarcho-capitalism is in the same boat as every other existing/proposed social system. The problem is that I think people need more than that before they try some radical untried system that depends on firms obeying some forms of anticompetitive behavior but not others.
This would be relevant if we were trying to force anarcho-capitalism on a society against their will. However, being voluntaryist, we suggest no such thing. Thus, I reject your detraction as immaterial. We whom reject forcing others to accept any law passed by some random group of legislators are not going to use the same mechanism. Those who enter an ancap society will do so by their own will and knowing already the character of it.
impala76:Ancap-ism has to prevent non-natural law following agencies from making law. If they allow consumers to chose them, then they will formulate "bad" laws.
You don't have to prevent it, actually, you simply need to give individuals the power to choose which law-enforcement agencies they're going to patronize. Abusive or aggressive law agencies will find themselves quickly without customers and out of business. And should they aggress, they'll find themselves brought up on charges as well.
impala76: Law[2] is a system of rules and guidelines which are enforced through social institutions to govern behavior. Judge made law is decided by judges in libertopia.
The only legitimate law, imo, is that involving justice, meaning that prosecuting invasions of rights. Your definition is the statist definition that assumes everything from negative to positive law should be legitimate topics which law can or should regulate. I reject the idea of law that isn't about justice as itself an invasion of rights.
The idea of "governing behavior," where behavior may as well mean "human action" is a prescription for totalitarianism, since all human action is "behavior."
Abusive or aggressive law agencies will find themselves quickly without customers and out of business. And should they aggress, they'll find themselves brought up on charges as well.
Thing is, you're assuming that the "good" agencies will be able to eliminate competition from the "bad" agencies by "bringing up charges". This is a limitation on legal competition.
No, mustang19, I think he is asserting that the laws of economics and the model for human action will hold (and they will). That is, the competition will eliminate itself, after performing poorly and against the rights of others (as a defense agency in an ancap society would be contracted for). That is, that will break their own contract, and thus, lose potential for future customers. And by bringing charges, IMO of an ancap society, the accused agency has two choices: go to court willingly to try to clear their name and not lose potential future business (but will likely lose) or refuse to go to court and lose potential future business by demonstrating dishonesty and uncivility along with essentially confirming their breach of contract(s). You're still using "law" in the statist sense, where companies bring up (frivolous) charges to attempt to get the government to use force to stop further commercial activity. No one would attempt to forcibly stop commercial activity in an ancap society.
The only one worth following is the one who leads... not the one who pulls; for it is not the direction that condemns the puller, it is the rope that he holds.
And by bringing charges, IMO of an ancap society, the accused agency has two choices: go to court willingly to try to clear their name and not lose potential future business (but will likely lose) or refuse to go to court and lose potential future business by demonstrating dishonesty and uncivility along with essentially confirming their breach of contract(s).
You're implying that, once these agencies lost business from clients, they would go bankrupt (run out of money). But they don't need clients for money; they can pillage like warlords do.
Here's another problem. The aggressing firm can chose which court it is tried at, because under ancap-ism, the defendant choses the court. The firm can chose a court which promises to render them innocent and allows them to continue pillaging. How are the other agencies going to get rid of that court?
And the general agreement among ancaps (and most other libertarians) is that those would-be victims have a right to defend themselves and their property, with deadly force if necessary. If some group becomes so antagonistic to people's rights and violates contracts so frequently, people will greet them at the door with a shotgun. If it got bad enough, the community might just have themselves an old-fashioned romp and expel the band of thieves or capture and hang them. The band of thieves (as you have said they will devolve into) will stay in that community or interact wih any other in a negative manner at their own risk.
The band of thieves (as you have said they will devolve into) will stay in that community or interact wih any other in a negative manner at their own risk.
Okay. The problem is that this only works as long as the community is able to muster enough military force to win. If the rogue agency is better organized or equipped, that might not work.
Assuming that some members of the community restrict courts which practice an aggressive law system, rather than a natural law system, this is also a restriction on consumer choice and competition.
I didn't know the defendant chooses the court. Did you just make that up, mustang19?
Anyway, in all of your ridiculousness today, I have asserted that, IMO, if their is a dispute between two or more parties, it can only go to court if all parties agree to the court/judge/mediator. And courts that ruled in favor of a party that seemed guilty to all other observers will, agin through the voting o the consumer in the free market, will lose future potential business, and be even less likely to be mutually aggress upon by two or more disputing parties.
I didn't know the defendant chooses the court. Did you just make that up, mustang19? That was my understanding. Who else choses the court? The wronged party? What if the wronged party choses a court which promises to convict 100% of cases brought to it? How is that court eliminated? If all parties must agree to the choice of court, what happens if they can't agree on a choice of court? Does the case never reach trial? | Post Points: 20
That was my understanding. Who else choses the court? The wronged party? What if the wronged party choses a court which promises to convict 100% of cases brought to it? How is that court eliminated?
If all parties must agree to the choice of court, what happens if they can't agree on a choice of court? Does the case never reach trial?
True, and you wish to have a central government (like the US) with tons of extortion money (like the US) and the largest and most advanced military in the world (like the US) to rule over you? You think your rights or your property or your life is more easily defendable against that than a (quite unlikely) band of thieves with considerably less resources, firepower, manpower, and experience? Just stop already, and think before you set the pins up that liberty keeps knocking down.
I won't even respond to your second statement, as it has been addressed dozens of times today by myself and others. You are misrepresenting the way economics in a free society works, or refuse to read and digest anything anyone posts. You just repeat yourself to no end, pretending your queries haven't been addressed over and over again.
We're not talking about a random band of thieves, but one (or possibly multiple) defense legal agencies with similar equipment (and much more efficient at their work as free market enterprises). The US Army is an ineffectual and harmless statist bureacracy.
That query was not brought up yet in this thread. If both parties cannot agree on a judge, what happens to the case?
Yes. This is also why consumer confidence is huge in the free market. If you feel like someone is shady, you may choose not to do business with them, realizing there is no guaranteed certainty provided to you. Again, the consumer is the biggest benefactor of the free society. Business is the servant; consumers are the masters. But you don want that, right? You prefer a system that more closely resembles what we have today, right?
I'm not sure. I'm trying to figure out how aggression is going to be prosecuted. It appears people have no legal recourse when the defense agencies start plundering and fighting each other.
I can see you see your arguments hold no water as you begin to rely on ever more ridiculous statements.
The US Army is an ineffectual and harmless statist bureacracy.
I am guessing a few countries and their people in the Middle East would resent you saying such a thing.
Are you implying that the US Army is an example of government efficiency? It can't even run Iraq.
You are unsure of how there will be authority in an anarchist society? So you are trapped in a contradiction you put yourself in?
What are you going to do if the US Armed Forces and NATO begin attacking the citizens of the US under the authority of the federal government? Surely you see you won't have any legal recourse there either, although up until that (hypothetical) moment, you are under the illusion that you have that certainty. You are more likely to be less prepared in that hypothetical than the hypothetical of a free society with no authority of one man (or group of men) over any other man (or group of men). You're still blinded by the illusion of the safety and protection and guarantees from your master, huh?
impala76: And by bringing charges, IMO of an ancap society, the accused agency has two choices: go to court willingly to try to clear their name and not lose potential future business (but will likely lose) or refuse to go to court and lose potential future business by demonstrating dishonesty and uncivility along with essentially confirming their breach of contract(s). You're implying that, once these agencies lost business from clients, they would go bankrupt (run out of money). But they don't need clients for money; they can pillage like warlords do.
True, but there's always a lot more people whom would like to be left alone and purchase security than there are people willing to become bank robbers.
Looking at the security-state of the world, you have pirates in Somalia preying upon ship in the water, and they're able to finance mere skiffs with rifles and some medium-scale weaponry. The weaponry provided against them by freedom and peace-loving people of the world sent out entire navies, destroyers, and high-scale tech to take on the pirates and discourage future piracy.
So, in an ancap society, if a band of outlaws forms and begins preying, the would immediately raise the demand in that region for security services, thereby raising the price, thereby immediately surging supply, and thus any area plagued by bandits would immediately find a hundred reputable firms advertising in that region for security services to take down the bandits and protect people.
Also, you're assuming that an ancap society would have complete freedom of travel and association as with modern societies. In actual fact, an ancap society would have virtually no property in common, no community property, and its travel routes too would be privately owned. Once a bandit group is identified, the can simply be denied entry. If they try to force their way in, again security can be called to deal with them.
The great thing is, in an ancap society you'd have much more security specialization than in our current society. Not only would you have cheap malls cops, professional police, and SWAT, you'd have many grades between, as people required, and it would be provided for much more cheaply than at present.
It's not hard to imagine an anti-banditry force specifically designed to take out low-grade banditry.
So, while you're right that any powerful group could simply become bandits and demand money out of a populace, there's quite a few assumptions built into that and quite a few mitigating factors. the challenge is to know what weight to place on these factors.
In essence, it's like you're talking to someone who wants to invent the world's first bank, and he's saying that they'll keep all their money in a vault! And you're saying, 'well what's gonna stop the bank owners from just stealing all your money and walking away'? or 'if you keep money in a vault, bankrobbers will appear and take it all and no one will trust banks anymore.'
These things do happen, but they're rather rare, and there are forces in society countering them.
Most people will remain law abiding even in a situation in which there is no oversight. Because a great majority will uphold law and order, and security services will be available, factors in society exist which will stop and prevent banditry.
And the amount of money a community can bring to bear to stop banditry is likely far, far larger than the amount of capital bandits can bring to bear on banditry. Thus, the bandits will always be outgunned. For every single bandit group that forms, there'll probably be hired several security services specifically and at least one by the community at large to bring them to justice.
Also, you're assuming there's no legal structure in place. In the mincap society I'm piecing together, individual communities would form micro-jurisdictions facilitating voluntary community action. Thus, if a bandit group hit within one community, the community could go into lockdown and prevent non-community members from entering which collectively and voluntarily hiring a security group to take care of the problem generally. In fact, most communities would already have a contract with police-providing firms and would simply sick them on the bandits. If these firms could not do the job or couldn't expand fast enough to deal, the community could hire adjunct or specialist firms for the time being. Or citizens of that jurisdiction could walk away to another jurisdiction whose security practices are more mature.
So, for a whole host of considerations, I simply refer you to the movie "Seven Samurai," and remind you that the citizens of that town were exceedingly poor :P
No, re-read what you said that I quoted. The army has an effect (although not necessarily the one that is publicly stated as a goal) and causes harm.
So while they cannot "run Iraq," they can destroy villages, impede trade, kill and injure millions, etc.
There won't be, as far as I can tell. Unless the private defense agencies decide they should be the authority.
What are you going to do if the US Armed Forces and NATO begin attacking the citizens of the US under the authority of the federal government?
Saying "the US government is bad" is not the same as saying "private defense agencies are good".
I get that.
However, say that the bandits find a legal agency (or micro-jurisdiction) to justify their actions. There would then be a conflict between jurisdictions.
If that were true, political stability would not be problem in many areas of the world without a central government. In the example you gave (Somalia), the balance is not very favorable to law and order.
Excellent post, Anenome! (;
And I point out further, again, that what I was describing what and ANCAP society, as mustang19 continues to talk of too, though incorrectly. I do support the truth that a MINCAP society could have agreed upon laws, or legal recourse for breach of contract. And the point is, people would be free to join/form a MINCAP society or an ANCAP society... Hell, keep your STATIST society if you wish, just don't force me or others into it.