Newbies

Re: Law in "practice" in an anarcho-capitalist society

meespr — Mon, 18 Jun 2012 06:35:44 GMT

I would think that this back and forth that you're thinking about would only happen once. In order to avoid this kind of thing from happening ad infinitum, the legal companies that ruled against the other would go before an objective third party appeals court for a binding final ruling on the matter.

Re: Law in "practice" in an anarcho-capitalist society

I. Ryan — Wed, 09 Dec 2009 23:44:03 GMT

I am not surprised that you, again, ignored a substantial portion of my response. Incidentally, you have yet to address my response to you in this thread.

Juan:

I. Ryan, Mises supported a state that according to his [...] utilitarian views could 'legally' enslave its subjects.

I never said that he did not support that during atleast one point in his life.

Juan:

[...] according to his amoralist [...] views

What does "amoralist" mean?

Juan:

I frankly don't see what's the point in pretending that author X didn't say what he actually said.

Where did I "pretend[] that [Mises] didn't say what he actually said"?

Juan:

Are you trying to pretend that Mises was some sort of pacifist saint? Well, he wasn't, at all.

No.

Juan:

If anything he was the typical statist who believes that absent the state civilization is not possible because people will kill each other.

Mises clearly viewed government as a collectivistic, territorial, monopolistic, bureaucratic institution which serves as the necessary prerequisite of the market economy. But he also clearly stated that, if to eradicate the collectivisticness were possible, it "would have to be done".

Re: Law in "practice" in an anarcho-capitalist society

Marko — Wed, 09 Dec 2009 22:36:50 GMT

Juan:

I suggest you also check the chapter Liberal Foreign Policy 11. Russia

No different than the typical neocon rant.

Possibly even worse. I doubt a neocon would try to aid his case by belittling one Tolstoy and one Dostoyevsky.

Re: Law in "practice" in an anarcho-capitalist society

Juan — Wed, 09 Dec 2009 22:15:13 GMT

Mises:
11. The Limits of Governmental Activity

As the liberal sees it, the task of the state consists solely and exclusively in guaranteeing the protection of life, health, liberty, and private property against violent attacks. Everything that goes beyond this is an evil.

Fine. Oh wait. Mises 'minimal' and socialist state also protects the health of its subjects ?? That's either a problem with the translation or...

I suggest you also check the chapter Liberal Foreign Policy 11. Russia

No different than the typical neocon rant.

Re: Law in "practice" in an anarcho-capitalist society

Juan — Wed, 09 Dec 2009 22:03:31 GMT

If you, as an individual who freely formed his own independent state, decides to "conscript" or "tax" yourself, does the words "conscription" or "taxation" still carry the same meaning?

I. Ryan, Mises supported a state that according to his amoralist/utilitarian views could 'legally' enslave its subjects. I frankly don't see what's the point in pretending that author X didn't say what he actually said.

Are you trying to pretend that Mises was some sort of pacifist saint ? Well, he wasn't, at all. If anything he was the typical statist who believes that absent the state civilization is not possible because people will kill each other.

Re: Law in "practice" in an anarcho-capitalist society

Graham Wright — Wed, 09 Dec 2009 21:46:28 GMT

nirgrahamUK:

trulib:
So Friedman's description of anarchy assumes de facto libertarian property rights in the field of producing legal codes only.

I'm not sure what you mean by that...

I mean that he assumes a free market is operating in the legal code industry - competition as opposed to monopoly. The terms 'free market', 'competition' and 'monopoly' contain within them the concept of de facto libertarian property rights. A market where force is used routinely to prevent competition (i.e. where there are no de facto libertarian property rights) doesn't function properly. Friedman's analysis is based on a fully functioning legal code industry.

Re: Law in "practice" in an anarcho-capitalist society

I. Ryan — Wed, 09 Dec 2009 16:36:37 GMT

wilderness:

i understand that part and agree. I was referring to Mises' advocation of conscription and taxes and your response to that.

Mises clearly supported certain, very limited instances of taxation and, at one point in his life, certain, very limited instances of conscription. But he also clearly, implicitly stated that, if to eradicate what makes them possible, what he considered as the very limited but "technically" necessary instances of collectivism, were possible, it "would have to be done".

Re: Law in "practice" in an anarcho-capitalist society

wilderness — Wed, 09 Dec 2009 15:44:14 GMT

i understand that part and agree. I was referring to Mises' advocation of conscription and taxes and your response to that.

Re: Law in "practice" in an anarcho-capitalist society

I. Ryan — Wed, 09 Dec 2009 15:40:56 GMT

wilderness:

I. Ryan. Doesn't that go a bit too far? softening the meaning of what Mises was saying (sophism). I don't mean that in a derogatory sense, but I suggest reflecting upon that.

Re: Law in "practice" in an anarcho-capitalist society

wilderness — Wed, 09 Dec 2009 15:28:29 GMT

I. Ryan. Doesn't that go a bit too far? softening the meaning of what Mises was saying (sophism). I don't mean that in a derogatory sense, but I suggest reflecting upon that.

Re: Law in "practice" in an anarcho-capitalist society

I. Ryan — Wed, 09 Dec 2009 15:21:42 GMT

Juan:

No he was not. He supported taxation and conscription. Oh and panarchy and anarchy and libertarianism are different things.

If you, as an individual who freely formed his own independent state, decides to "conscript" or "tax" yourself, does the words "conscription" or "taxation" still carry the same meaning?

Re: Law in "practice" in an anarcho-capitalist society

I. Ryan — Wed, 09 Dec 2009 15:18:48 GMT

Juan:

Did I suggest that you read what Mises said first hand instead of relying on Knott's version? You didn't even understand my comments did you? I addressed that part. What Mises says is that 'individuals' can choose between different states. Not that they can be really free.

No. Here:

Ludwig von Mises, "Liberalism":

The right of self-determination in regard to the question of membership in a state thus means: whenever the inhabitants of a particular territory, whether it be a single village, a whole district, or a series of adjacent districts, make it known, by a freely conducted plebiscite, that they no longer wish to remain united to the state to which they belong at the time, but wish either to form an independent state or to attach themselves to some other state, their wishes are to be respected and complied with.

Ludwig von Mises, "Liberalism":

If it were in any way possible to grant this right of self-determination to every individual person, it would have to be done. This is impracticable only because of compelling technical considerations [...]

If I assume that it were "possible to grant this right of self-determination to every individual person" and I replace, in the first passage, the boldfaced references to collections of individuals with an individual, that your point is misguided becomes obvious.

Ludwig von Mises, "Liberalism":

The right of self-determination in regard to the question of membership in a state thus means: whenever [an individual] make[s] it known, by a freely [communicated choice], that [he] no longer wish[es] to remain united to the state to which [he] belong[s] at the time, but wish either to form an independent state or to attach themselves to some other state, [his] wishes are to be respected and complied with.

If, at any time, an individual can choice to establish his own independent state or attach himself to some other state, how is that any different than the modern conception of so-called "anarchocapitalism"?

Re: Law in "practice" in an anarcho-capitalist society

wilderness — Wed, 09 Dec 2009 14:49:32 GMT

AJ:

Do you mean, the individual still is doing [the punishment] for justice? I'm not sure how that ties in. (Which individual?)

I went back to the original question. I see what you're asking, maybe. Here's an answer: The meaning of punishment (what kind) isn't inferred from property rights, but it is implied due to self-defense. I can point out it is wrong that A did x, due to a logical inference of x in connection to property rights. What happens after that (the punishment) is debatable. Though I've come across some that are better than others.

Re: Law in "practice" in an anarcho-capitalist society

Adam Knott — Wed, 09 Dec 2009 06:59:09 GMT

trulib:

I need to think some more about the territoriality issue. AJ's thread about this quickly descended into ANOTHER debate about objective/subjective ethics and natural law unfortunately.

Trulib:

It seems many posters just bypassed the question and delved right into old debates.

A great introduction to the subject is Max Border's two-part article, which I believe AJ also linked to:

http://athousandnations.com/2009/10/20/towards-youtopia-are-all-public-good-providers-earthbound/

Re: Law in "practice" in an anarcho-capitalist society

Juan — Wed, 09 Dec 2009 05:39:01 GMT

This is quite enlightening on Mises's views. He was apparently fully libertarian/anarchist/panarchist in his views,

No he was not. He supported taxation and conscription. Oh and panarchy and anarchy and libertarianism are different things.