-
Suppose there were a code; there are two possibilities. 1) This code exists and the competing firms abide by it voluntarily. In this case, we have simply ignored the problem. If we can presume voluntary compliance with the code on the part of the firms, why not presume voluntary compliance with the code on the part of everyone in society? And in that
-
Also, the founder of AnCap wasn't for "polycentric" law. So I don't see why there's an issue on this point at all. "Murray Rothbard [...] argues that private courts would have to obey a legal code 'established on the basis of the acknowledged libertarian principle, of nonaggression against the person or property of others;
-
As if that hasn't been what this thread was about from the very beginning. For the Nth time, this thread was and is about the debate between minarchism and anarcho-capitalism, which, to my mind, is the debate between polycentric and monocentric law: as I've attempted to explain several times. No minarchist I've ever met has ever argued that
-
What you describe above is anarcho-capitalism. The voluntary participation and the right of secession are not compatible with a monocentric legal system. Owners, clubs, and firms employ monocentric legal systems over their own domains. There are many of them, hence the system is polycentric by definition. Before discussing the proper criterion by which
-
I completely disagree, and I doubt I am the only one. The debate between minarchism and anarcho-capitalism is, as I said, one between people believe the state is legitimate, and people who do not. When someone says "the debate between minarchism and anarcho-capitalism", I have never in my life even heard of anyone who assumed this was a debate
-
The whole point of a thread title is give people an idea of the subject of the thread....because they cannot read the OP in the forum view. If I title a thread "the hottest chicks in the world doing amazing things", it doesn't make it a legit title just because in the OP I define "hot chicks" as "living creatures of an avian
-
Go ahead and define it for me.
-
I defined the terms "minarchy" and "anarcho-capitalism" in the OP. I defined them again more explicitly in my response to your first comment. If that is not sufficiently clear for everyone to understand, well then they will not understand. I will not change the title. The author always reserves the right to define his terms. If the
-
Jargon, I don't understand the confrontational (or contemptuous, or patronizing) attitude which is evident in certain responses to this thread. You imply that I am irrationally clinging to dogma, and yet it is you who dismisses my contention out of hand, before I have even begun to state my argument. Apparently, a position which is not in agreement
-
Duly noted. EDIT: I'll add this, because apprently it is not very clear. The position that I mean to argue (that polycentric law in unsustainable) can just as easily be (and often is) an argument made by a minarchist in the traditional sense of the word: a minimal statist. The question I am raising is very much at the crux of the debate between