With any good or service on the free market, the good or service will be successful when it satisfies the needs of the consumer. If courts were brought into the free market, they will respect property if and only if the consumers of the court respect property. However, the very fact that they are in a court (in the majority of the times) means that one of the parties disrespects private property anyway.
People will act rationally and in their own self-interest. Often times, it will be in their interest to force an exchange; to increase their utility at the expense of another. Anarcho-Capitalism assumes that everybody, including the criminals, want justice. However, they do not. They simply act in their own best interest.
The point of the argument is that since it is not always in people's best interest to enforce justice, then justice will not be enforced. Property rights will not be protected, and the whole basis for market anarchy, the protection of property, will not exist,
miksirhc:The point of the argument is that since it is not always in people's best interest to enforce justice, then justice will not be enforced. Property rights will not be protected, and the whole basis for market anarchy, the protection of property, will not exist,
Right, now that I know what you're saying, I will try to explain to you why you're wrong.
You have to remember that in an anarcho-capitalist system, private property would be protected through Private Defence Agencies (PDAs). Until someone is actually convicted of a crime, and especially before they commit it, they will want maximum justice. So even potential criminals, until they actually commit the act, will want justice. Since the amount of people not committing crimes always overweigh the amount of people committing crimes, it is very unlikely that a legitimate PDA will be able to survive by tending only to criminals. Not only will it have too few customers, but the other PDAs will likely turn on it (not necessarily war, simply not having any agreements with them).
In such a scenario, as a PDA's reputation is the most important part of its income, it will do everything to preserve it. So you can certainly imagine that in the case of a court order convicting a PDA's customer, the contract of protection between them is breached, and the PDA is no longer responsible for the criminal's protection. If the criminal doesn't consent to whatever judgement was made, then it will be forced upon him, now that he has no protection. Obviously, no new protection will be offered either, since I don't see PDAs offering protection for convicted criminals (reputation).
Due to the whole concept of preliminary court arrangements between a PDA and their clients on one level, and then the PDAs between each other and courts on the next level, contractual obligations will require the criminals to have made a contract regarding the voidance of the PDA's responsibilities if they commit a crime, prior to any crime actually being committed, or else they wouldn't get the protection in the first place.
The system may not initially work in such a way, but when enough PDAs go bankrupt due to a failed reputation, entrepreneurs will get the hang of how to make the system work, as they always do.
miksirhc: The point of the argument is that since it is not always in people's best interest to enforce justice, then justice will not be enforced. Property rights will not be protected, and the whole basis for market anarchy, the protection of property, will not exist,
Dawkins raises the point in The Selfish Gene that cooperation in the Prisoners' Dilemma is "almost" evolutionarily stable. That meaningless notion is formalized in a later paper as the following "weak form" of evolutionary stability: any population with a majority of cooperators will drive defectors to extinction, where the needed majority converges to 50%. In order for a population of non-cooperators to drive cooperators to extinction, they must have a majority that converges to 100%. Hence a very small group of cooperators can survive an a population of non-cooperators; and the slimmest majority of cooperators can actually expel non-cooperators from society.
Hiding inside this observation is a fairly convincing proof that justice can prevail under anarchy. Yes, criminals can make out better by preying on decent citizens, than they would as cooperative members of society. But they still make out better as good citizens, than they do (on average) in conflicts with either other criminals or good citizens standing up for themselves. Your incentive to crime is countered by my willingness to defend myself from you with deadly force.
Crime would still occur under anarchy, of course, but there's no strong basis to believe that it would be any worse than under government. There IS a sound argument that government makes things worse, though: the negative consequences of crime are greatly reduced for individuals backed by government force. Intelligent criminals will realize that they can commit bigger crimes in greater safety if they become lawyers, cops or politicians.
--Len.
miksirhc:With any good or service on the free market, the good or service will be successful when it satisfies the needs of the consumer. If courts were brought into the free market, they will respect property if and only if the consumers of the court respect property. However, the very fact that they are in a court (in the majority of the times) means that one of the parties disrespects private property anyway. People will act rationally and in their own self-interest. Often times, it will be in their interest to force an exchange; to increase their utility at the expense of another. Anarcho-Capitalism assumes that everybody, including the criminals, want justice. However, they do not. They simply act in their own best interest.
You are making an error over the number of participants in this. There are not two, the defendent and accuser, but three participants, the defendent, accuser, and court. The court absolutely wants justice in every case, because that is what allows it to continue business as a court protecting innocents. As such a court pursuing its own rational self-interest will hunt down criminals who don't respect its rulings.
The fallacies of intellectual communism, a compilation - On the nature of power
I think that the analogy that providing services on the free market will be just like any other good is false. In a free market, property rights are protected by a third party, the government: this means that the only way for businesses to succeed is to yield to the desire of the consumers.
Let us, for a moment, admit that the consumers, want justice. Under a contractually free society, it would then follow that they could get justice, right? But the problem is that what gives the courts the power to enforce their rulings is not wealth, but weaponry and force. The problem is that whoever has the power to commit agression is no longer subject to the will of the consumer: he is able to oppress. Whoever has force needs no consent.
miksirhc:With any good or service on the free market, the good or service will be successful when it satisfies the needs of the consumer.
There are no needs, there are only wants. A service is successfull on the market when it is produced for less than consummers are willing to pay. Thus, even though many people may want to prevent their neighbors to use drug, they may not be ready to pay the actual price of enforcement. David Friedman explains this quite clearly, it is regrettable that Rothbard mistook this common sense description of anarcho-capitalist for a normative preference.
But the problem is that what gives the courts the power to enforce their rulings is not wealth, but weaponry and force. The problem is that whoever has the power to commit agression is no longer subject to the will of the consumer: he is able to oppress. Whoever has force needs no consent.
Your point is well taken: in principle, a strong protector in an apathetic society has opportunity and motivation to start using coercion--at which point, he has become government.
It's important to remember, though, that defense isn't "power to enforce rulings." I have the right to defend myself against aggression; I do NOT have the right to "enforce" my "rulings." If I hire someone and delegate authority to him as my agent, he has no more power than I started with. He can defend me; he can't "enforce" my (or his own) "rulings." He can't aggress, because I can't aggress and he's my agent. He can only repel aggression--and yes, he can do so forcibly.
Government claims to be doing exactly that: acting as my agent in my defense. That's the gist of the "social contract" that supposedly binds me. But it's not true. Government isn't my agent; it's my master. It claims the power not only to defend me, but to COMPEL me. It claims the right to "enforce" its "rulings." That power is precisely what makes it an oppressor.
As I tell people--usually to their incredulity--private security is rather similar to our present society, IF police officers were bound be EXACTLY the same laws as the rest of us. If, for example, cops were punished just like everyone else whenever they initiate force against another. If tasings and pepper-sprayings were punished as assault. If shooting a fleeing "suspect" were punished as murder. If searches without consent (with OR without a warrant) were punished as breaking and entering. And so on.
The critical ingredient to make anarcho-capitalism work is for people to decide, once and for all, that NOBODY has the right to aggress, INCLUDING POLICE. If people realized that, of course, we'd still be more or less the republic that Thomas Jefferson envisioned.
miksirhc: The point of the argument is that since it is not always in people's best interest to enforce justice, then justice will not be enforced.
February 17 - 1600 - Giordano Bruno is burnt alive by the catholic church. Aquinas : "much more reason is there for heretics, as soon as they are convicted of heresy, to be not only excommunicated but even put to death."
miksirhc:I think that the analogy that providing services on the free market will be just like any other good is false. In a free market, property rights are protected by a third party, the government: this means that the only way for businesses to succeed is to yield to the desire of the consumers. Let us, for a moment, admit that the consumers, want justice. Under a contractually free society, it would then follow that they could get justice, right? But the problem is that what gives the courts the power to enforce their rulings is not wealth, but weaponry and force. The problem is that whoever has the power to commit agression is no longer subject to the will of the consumer: he is able to oppress. Whoever has force needs no consent.
This overlooks a few things:
1) what you describe above sounds like governmen but perhaps on a smaller scale (is it necessarily worse?);
2) an anarcho-capitalist society will have a generally libertarian culture;
3) competition among service providers of security and justice;
4) you're assuming the courts themselves would enforce their own rulings rather than certify the legitimacy of private individuals and/or independent security firms enforcing their rulings, if necessary;
5) a populace that will probably be much better and more generally armed and trained in self-defense than the present one.
Yours in liberty,Geoffrey Allan Plauché, Ph.D.Adjunct Instructor, Buena Vista UniversityWebmaster, LibertarianStandard.comFounder / Executive Editor, Prometheusreview.com
"If justice is not in people's best interest, then something else must be."
Justice is in the people's best interest, yes, but may not be in a person's best interest: is it in the robber's best interest to be put in jail? It would be idiotic to deny that action is possible, which, while unjust, does not increase the utility of the acting individual.
Usually, they are prevented from acting in a way disutilitous to another by a government or ruling body. But in the case of several ruling bodies, this is no different at all. The problem is when the ruling bodies no longer enforce justice, but use their power in their own self-interest. This will happen in a 'free market' for defense as well. Defense contractors will not be held in check by consumer sovereignty, because there is nobody to hold them in check!
What I am arguing is that PDA's, or whatever, will not be held in check by consumer sovereignty, since consumer sovereignty only exists in a free market in which the PDAs themselves would have to provide. If the PDAs were to choose to use their power to oppress the people, it would be fairly easy to do so. They can't be held in check by something that they themselves have to supply.
"Or perhaps justice will not be enforced by 'people' but by some sort of alien ? or by angels ?....or maybe...by the state ?"
Yes, by the state. But a minarchist state whose only responsibility and duty is to protect the free market; to protect property rights. At least somehow the ruling body can be held in check here by the notion of democracy; which, since justice is in the interest of every individual, should have no problem providing justice.
Right, and then comes the profit-motivated firm that seizes the opportunity to remove outlaw firms. Ultimately, these firms must rely on their clientele for increased profitability and the ability to actually remain competitive. The courts may use force (or whatever else) to enforce their rulings on guilty parties, but I fail to see how they'd enjoy anywhere near government's success in establishing any sort of rulership. I'd rather take my chances with these firms than institute some utopian minarchist catastrophe waiting to happen.
1) what you describe above sounds like governmen but perhaps on a smaller scale (is it necessarily worse?)
Yes, I support a minarchistic state in which the only function is to protect the market. Surely this view is welcome on Mises' own website?
How will a libertarian culture prevent PDAs from oppressing their subjects? They will still act rationally and in their own best interest: as soon as it becomes beneficial for them to oppress their people, justice will disappear.
Again, consumer sovereignty/competition only exists in a free market; the free market which the PDAs or courts or insurance companies would provide. So if they cease to protect property rights, they will no longer be bound by the wishes of consumers or by competition. We would live in chaos and without the very rights that libertarians hold so dearly.
I'm not assuming this; i am only saying that in order for their to be justice, some group must enforce property rights by force; these groups are not held in check by consumers.
This makes no difference. If there will be battles, as PDAs would necessarily result in, that would result in a devastating loss of life and property, no matter how well-trained the general populus is.
miksirhc: Yes, by the state. But a minarchist state whose only responsibility and duty is to protect the free market; to protect property rights. At least somehow the ruling body can be held in check here by the notion of democracy; which, since justice is in the interest of every individual, should have no problem providing justice.
"Right, and then comes the profit-motivated firm that seizes the opportunity to remove outlaw firms."
I think that it is extremely naive to assume that defense firms will be able to make more money through the free market than through violent coercion. Why should a PDA, with the spectre of force, settle for small monthly payments from customers? Why not take all of their property? It would be more profitable. And if it isn't with other competition (which I highly doubt), then why not collude? This would result in simply another form of an oppressive state; surely a minarchist democracy is preferable to this fate.
"Ultimately, these firms must rely on their clientele for increased profitability and the ability to actually remain competitive. "
"I'd rather take my chances with these firms than institute some utopian minarchist catastrophe waiting to happen. "
First of all, I honestly can't believe all the hostility I am getting on Mises' own forum! (not necessarily you, Inquisitor). But we have had a democracy for about 230 years now, and although it didn't work out perfectly, I still wouldn't call it a disaster. If there is an ideological Libertarian movement, there is no reason why a minarchist democracy couldn't function for a very, very, long time. As long as people believe in property rights, in freedom, the democracy will survive. Anarchy would be a disaster. There would be no enforcement of contracts or property rights whatsoever.
If the PDAs were to choose to use their power to oppress the people, it would be fairly easy to do so.
"If the majority of people 'demand' justice, then the market will provide justice."
Again, this presupposes that there is a market. But there is no market if the PDAs choose (as it would be in their own best interest to plunder) not to provide one! Justice is a necessary prerequisite of a free market. So something has to provide justice so the market works. The market can't just provide itself.
"And the most efficient way for justice to be provided is trough competition."
But there is no competition without justice! The stronger will be able to oppress the weaker, the PDAs willnot settle for less profit than they could have by plundering the countryside, and there would be horrible bloodshed everywhere! There would be no rights!
"if you believe that the market can only exist IF individual rights are firstly created by a minimal state, then of course, your argument makes sense. Except that it's based on wrong premises."
What premises? The weakness of your argument is shown in the fact that you call mine 'wrong' without taking the time to refute it. This type of Marxist tactic should not be welcome on Mises' own forums.
I: "If the majority of people 'demand' justice, then the market will provide justice."
You:Again, this presupposes that there is a market.
"As for "the notion of democracy" being the key to check arbitrary power, I confess I don't get it. What's more, if you look around you may notice that the minimal state was tried...and failed rather miserably. "
Democracy allows the people indirect control of the government. Of course, democracy is majoritarian and depends on the ideological perspective of the citizens. If we, however, as Libertarians, are able to convince the people that property rights is the only way to go, then there is no reason why a minarchist demorcracy wouldn't last.
The minimal state has not failed 'miserably', we still enjoy a relatively large amount of freedoms (although nowhere close to ideal). In the instances where it has failed, it was due to unknowledgability of citizens, notdue to the system itself.
". If the majority of the people are honest and respect individual rights then there's no way that providers of justice could oppress them. "
Why not? If the minority is better armed? This assumption is not grounded in any logic whatsoever.
" If the majority of the people are honest and respect individual rights"...that is a very large assumption. And what happens if they do not: if they change to a position that, for example, all red-heads deserve to be shot? Than the PDAs will shoot all the redheads? How is this a protection of property rights?
"You seem to think that individual rights can only exist if the state creates them. "
I think that the market can only exist if something creates it. The market cannot create itself. That is just plain silly.
Actually a market is simply a cumulative result of human interaction. It is not something that is deliberately designed or created by some entity. The proposition that states create markets is nonsensical. Markets arises in spite of states. Even when states try to curtail markets they arise anyways or move elsewhere. Human interaction is human interaction. It is absurd to argue that the human interaction of production and trade would not take place in the absence of a central authority, as if a central authority is the only reason and motivator for people engaging in economic activity. Nevermind natural incentives, right? Surely the state is the reason why people make stuff and sell stuff and buy stuff. Without it, everyone would just try to live as self-sufficient hermits, right?
Bleh. Surely you know better. Any minarchist worth their salt who has studied economics even to a minimal extent should know that markets are a natural result of human behavior.
I think it's extremely naive to think they'll profit from fighting and oppressing their clients, when the advantages that accrue to states from such behaviour are only realizable due to their ability to shift their costs to taxpayers and inculcate them from a young age. Competitive firms will have no problem in realizing worthwhile profits. In the long run, I fail to see how a firm has more to gain by becoming a tyrant than by providing its clients with security. By the way, collusion? I thought minarchists knew better than to cite this statist nonsense?
Why would it be 'fairly easy to do'? What makes you assume this? We're not talking about government here.
Anarchy would be a disaster. There would be no enforcement of contracts or property rights whatsoever.
Monopoly on law and order has proven to be nothing short of a disaster. Contracts and property rights are only partially enforced now. When the US marches on to full blown socialism, this will become all the more evident. The 'hostility' is what one would expect on an Austrian forum, when you're bringing up arguments that have already been substantially addressed by various Austrian (and non-Austrian) market anarchists. Minarchism plus an unlimited right-to-secession (a Misesean idea) is not much different to anarchism, anyway...
It is always in the long term best interest of everyone to want/demand justice. Everyone wants justice, because being allowed to freely live is what is just.
It is in everyone's best interest to remain alive. Anyone who does not want to remain alive commits suicide; all other people wish to remain alive, so they seek justice against any threat to their well being.
Inquisitor:I think it's extremely naive to think they'll profit from fighting and oppressing their clients, when the advantages that accrue to states from such behaviour are only realizable due to their ability to shift their costs to taxpayers and inculcate them from a young age.
The misunderstanding here is that PDAs will be able to oppress only their clients: they would be able to forcefully expropriate anybody's property in a method catallactically similar to taxation. The government advantages are limited because, as much as the government has expanded nowadays, they still protect most contracts. They are also held in check by voters, who would not reelect representatives who would expropriate their property in an obvious way.
There will inevitably come a point where it will become more profitable for the PDAs to simply expropriate all the wealth from their customers. Why will they settle for small monthly fees for protection when they could take everything? Even if another PDA were to intervene to prevent this, what assurance is their that they will not maximize their profit, but instead provide services in the name of 'justice'?
Inquisitor:By the way, collusion? I thought minarchists knew better than to cite this statist nonsense?
The gist of the Austrian argument against antitrust and the like is that collusion does occur and can be stable, but, as long as there are no boundaries to entry, it is not an economically significant matter. With PD, however, there are strict barriers to entry: the oppressing PDA would simply shoot those who attempted to enter the industry. Also, the monopolization and diversion from Justice which could concievably occur in an anarcho-capitalistic society would be extremely significant catallactically: it would destroy the market.
miksirhc:I think that the market can only exist if something creates it. The market cannot create itself. That is just plain silly.
This is silly. To achieve this expropriation the firm must first actually get the other PDAs out of the way. This is not cheap. It must also deal with an armed, independent populace.
Who said anything about 'small' fees? Firms can differentiate and diversify their products or services in a multitude of ways. Anyway, even small fees may assure high profits. What is to assure that a minarchist monopoly over law and order will do 'justice' and not instead decide to expand and expropriate the population?
You're forgetting that at this point the calculation problem comes into play... there are no 'strict' barriers to entry, though. Using force to keep other firms out costs time and money, which the colluding firms will swiftly run out of - the argument pretty much assumes all or the vast majority of firms collude, and ignores the possibility of defection from within (a typical way of how cartels dissolve.) At this stage it would be a government, if I were to grant you your argument. The fact that such an activity would destroy the market is all the more an argument against its likelihood based on pure self-interest. Frankly these arguments convince me about as much as arguments for public provision of healthcare. That is to say, not at all.
I didn't read the others' contributions, so do forgive me if you've actually found the like of my brief response. Which is as follows: I think an existential issue is being raised here. Rothbard in MES has in fact dealt with it, saying that libertarianism does not say that people always know what their best interest is. Rather, it says all men should at least be free to do what's in their best interest.
In an Anarcho-Capitalist state, who's laws will the PDAs be enforcing?
miksirhc:2) an anarcho-capitalist society will have a generally libertarian culture; How will a libertarian culture prevent PDAs from oppressing their subjects? They will still act rationally and in their own best interest: as soon as it becomes beneficial for them to oppress their people, justice will disappear.
No, you are completely ignoring a libertarian culture in favor of some neoclassical economic or Hobbesian view of calculated self-interest.
miksirhc:3) competition among service providers of security and justice; Again, consumer sovereignty/competition only exists in a free market; the free market which the PDAs or courts or insurance companies would provide. So if they cease to protect property rights, they will no longer be bound by the wishes of consumers or by competition. We would live in chaos and without the very rights that libertarians hold so dearly.
And if they're competing with each other to provide it, then they will keep each other in check (and not simply by resorting to war).
These are two good pieces to read:
Roderick Long, "Libertarian Anarchism: Responses to Ten Objections"
Roderick Long, "Anarchism as Constitutionalism" - a series of blog posts
miksirhc: 4) you're assuming the courts themselves would enforce their own rulings rather than certify the legitimacy of private individuals and/or independent security firms enforcing their rulings, if necessary; I'm not assuming this; i am only saying that in order for their to be justice, some group must enforce property rights by force; these groups are not held in check by consumers.
By the consumers and by each other.
miksirhc:5) a populace that will probably be much better and more generally armed and trained in self-defense than the present one. This makes no difference. If there will be battles, as PDAs would necessarily result in, that would result in a devastating loss of life and property, no matter how well-trained the general populus is.
It would be a stronger deterrent in a libertarian anarchic society than in a statist one.
miksirhc:First of all, I honestly can't believe all the hostility I am getting on Mises' own forum! (not necessarily you, Inquisitor).
It might helpt to be a little less hostile to the views you are criticizing. Tone down the rhetoric and the apodictic certainty. I mean, you've read what by Rothbard, just For A New Liberty? What about The Ethics of Liberty? Hoppe's edited volume The Myth of National Defense? Edward Stringham's Anarchy and the Law? There is a pretty large literature on anarcho-capitalism. I've gotten the impression you've only raed For A New Liberty.
miksirhc:But we have had a democracy for about 230 years now, and although it didn't work out perfectly, I still wouldn't call it a disaster. If there is an ideological Libertarian movement, there is no reason why a minarchist democracy couldn't function for a very, very, long time. As long as people believe in property rights, in freedom, the democracy will survive. Anarchy would be a disaster. There would be no enforcement of contracts or property rights whatsoever.
Ah, but see... You're not familiar with all of the powerful arguments to the effect that it is the very nature of the state itself that led to its growth into Leviathan and the concommitant erosion of property rights. It's inevitable, built into the very anatomy of the state. As we see it, a minarchy is but a temporary stage in the state's growth. It's impossible to freeze it at that point.
Also, I notice that you make recourse to a libertarian culture being necessary to support your minarchic democracy. The same is true of anarcho-capitalism, only in anarcho-capitalism there is the absence of the structural incentives inherent in the state toward growth into Leviathan, structural incentives which tend to erode the libertarian cultural foundation keeping the state minimal, structural incentives that are inherent to a monopoly provider of justice and security (and anything else the people want).
Patrico Suave:In an Anarcho-Capitalist state, who's laws will the PDAs be enforcing?
The non-aggression principle is the only law in an anarcho-capitalist "state." The concept of "enforcement" isn't really meaningful; that's why they're called "defense" agencies rather than "enforcement" agencies. They have no power except to defend against attack. In addition, of course, they can provide any other services they want, so long as they themselves don't initiate aggression against anyone.
Len Budney: Patrico Suave:In an Anarcho-Capitalist state, who's laws will the PDAs be enforcing? The non-aggression principle is the only law in an anarcho-capitalist "state." The concept of "enforcement" isn't really meaningful; that's why they're called "defense" agencies rather than "enforcement" agencies. They have no power except to defend against attack. In addition, of course, they can provide any other services they want, so long as they themselves don't initiate aggression against anyone.--Len.
This is mistaken.
The non-aggression principle is not a law; it is a standard for evaluating the justness of laws and the legal system. The legal system and its laws in an anarcho-capitalist society will have to be far more complicated than simply: don't agress. But they will be far less complicated than the mountain of legislative law that results in statist legal systems.
Who is limiting the power of defense agency to defense and preventing them from attack? You seem to be equating attack with aggression (initiated), but the word need not be so limited. If security providers are only passive, how will the legal rulings of courts be enforced? Are the security agency's clients just on their own here? Let's say that Bob steals Frank's widescreen tv. A local court rules that Bob is guilty and has to return the tv to Frank or, if this is impossible for some reason, pay him its monetary equivalent, plus court costs, etc. How is this ruling to be enforced if Bob is reluctant or refuses? Well, either Frank will have to enforce it himself (sanctioned by the court), or the security agency he contracts with will have to enforce it (sanctioned by the court), or the court will have to enforce it, if it is the kind of court that offers enforcement services for its own rulings (I'd rather keep these services separated though). Alternatively, one thing that is being overlooked in these discussions is the possibility of other means of providing security: to name two, insurance-security firms (as opposed to pure PDAs), neighborhood security associations (clubs, or what have you).
This is mistaken. The non-aggression principle is not a law; it is a standard for evaluating the justness of laws and the legal system. The legal system and its laws in an anarcho-capitalist society will have to be far more complicated than simply: don't agress.
Yes and no. Lots of specific standards and customs will emerge to codify what is and isn't aggression, and what may and may not be done about it. That's necessary because otherwise we're forced to waste time and effort reasoning from first principles every time. For example, it's convenient to have a specific prohibition of rape, and another specific prohibition of murder. But all the "laws" that one might cite in an anarcho-capitalist society are simply commentary on the one law: thou shalt not aggress.
It's extremely helpful to keep that in mind, because it answers Patrico's question. Ultimately, every "legal" dispute boils down to two parties accusing each other of aggression. If no aggression is alleged, then no legal dispute exists. Morally, no "legal process" is required, either: since everyone has the right of self-defense, the aggressed-against has the inalienable right to repel the aggressor, using lethal force if necessary. Nobody needs to go to court to secure that right, and the right certainly isn't vested in any "higher legal authority."
The entire purpose of a legal proceding is to convince interested bystanders that party A really is the aggressor, and party B really was acting in self defense or may claim damages. Party B already had those rights, and doesn't need any legal proceding to secure them. What he does need is to avoid misunderstandings: otherwise, bystanders might mistakenly conclude that B is really aggressing against A, and might therefore defend A using lethal force against B. B prevents this by first convincing the bystanders that A was the aggressor. He then exercises his already-inherent right of self-defense without fear that confused bystanders will resist or kill him.
That's all summed up by saying, "Non-aggression is the only law." The victim already knows he's in the right, and already has every right to defend himself against aggression. There's no "whose laws?" about it. PDAs authority proceeds from that right. A "judicial" system evolves only because PDAs would rather negotiate than fight. The only purpose of "legal" proceedings is to convince the right people--namely, the aggressor's PDA, friends, relatives and neighbors--that the aggressor is in the wrong, so they will refrain from defending or avenging him.
Alternatively, one thing that is being overlooked in these discussions is the possibility of other means of providing security: to name two, insurance-security firms (as opposed to pure PDAs), neighborhood security associations (clubs, or what have you).
Exactly! I think that's implicit in what I'm saying. If a PDA kills and robs me under color of "law," they need to worry not only about rival PDAs, but also about outraged Kiwanis, my vengeful cousins, my litigious heirs and my greedy life-insurer. They don't need to justify defending me, any more than I need to justify defending myself, but they DO need to convince those parties not to avenge me. They do that by proving my killer's guilt to their satisfaction. In many societies, by the way, weregild (i.e., blood money) was accepted instead of proof of guilt. Bedouin routinely paid blood money to heirs of bandits slain in self-defense, because it was much cheaper than a feud. It serves the same utilitarian purpose as libertarian law, but violates the non-aggression principle. If you aggress against me, then defending myself incurs no obligation whatsoever to your heirs.
Let's say that Bob steals Frank's widescreen tv. A local court rules that Bob is guilty and has to return the tv to Frank or, if this is impossible for some reason, pay him its monetary equivalent, plus court costs, etc. How is this ruling to be enforced if Bob is reluctant or refuses? Well, either Frank will have to enforce it himself (sanctioned by the court), or the security agency he contracts with will have to enforce it (sanctioned by the court), or the court will have to enforce it...
No: court sanction is irrelevant. Frank already has the right to "steal back" his TV. No court needs to sanction it. The court is only a forum for proving to interested parties that the TV set was stolen, so they won't interfere when Frank takes it back. If Frank bypasses that forum, he runs the risk that Bob will videotape him recovering his property, accuse Frank of theft, and then "recover" it from its righful owner. If Bob does that, and Frank tries to resist, Bob's friends will believe Frank a thief and use deadly force against him in Bob's defense.
The "legal system" is nothing but a forum for educating others so they won't defend the aggressor against his victim.