I’m glad you agree. As to your apparent objection : “I can’t change human nature” - I don’t know what it means. It can mean anything…or nothing.
I don’t know what you mean. If taken literally it doesn’t make much sense either. All people will be equally poor ? Or equally rich ? Or ?
Why ? A person can make some money. Then one day commit a crime (for whatever reason) and not want to get caught (understandably, no ?). So, trying to get somebody else blamed may be an option. The question is, can paying a higher fee accomplish that ?
Now, I do believe that in a competitive system concerned with finding truth he’s not likely to succeed. If, on the other hand, the system works by pleasing its customers (and the ‘tribe’ perhaps…) then it sounds plausible that by paying enough he will avoid justice.
Okay, my mistake. What I meant is “the majority is interested in justice and freedom”…which seems to me like the obvious and necessary condition for a free society to exist.
Not sure what you mean…? Well, you can replace “rich” with “willing/able to pay for a ‘special’ ruling” - I think that my reply to Charles Anthony clarifies what I mean ?
It is a nice answer indeed, but it would apply only to someone like the hypothetical electrician who doesn’t want to have an insurance. It is his own stupidity that leads to failure.
In the case of a mentally ill person, he is not doing any harm to himself, because he wasn’t able to make any choice.
However, even in the case of the stupid electrician, there is an interest of the justice system in finding the truth. Maybe the electrician doesn’t offer a defense because he doesn’t believe in the system, the same way any of us wouldn’t trust the current statist system if accused of treason to the republic. Maybe he is a full fledged commie who hates private courts. Maybe we can consider him a mentally ill person. Because the real criminal, a customer of him who is a scammer, can get away with the process and go on, the private system would be interested in doing a fair trial. The closest to fair that is possible with an uncooperative accused.
That answer had to do with your original questioning. What to do with somebody that doesn’t want to defend themselves? Are you sincerely suggesting that you just force them to apply defense? That scenario goes against the free-will of the individual. So you say a mentally ill individual can’t make such a decision. Ok. I understand. Your desire to help such an individual is undoubtedly shared by others. A State changes not the desires of people. The State only stands in the way of the desires of people. So your desire to help the mentality ill will not be aggressed against.
Same goes for this “private system would be interested in doing a fair trial” that you mention. There’s your answer. You just said it, and I think it is a good answer indeed.
It does not surprise me that you do not know what it means. I will spell it out for you: Human nature is a set (A and not A) where A is equal to the initiation of aggression. I can not change any of that. Now, I am sure you can describe Human nature as a different set but this is the Mises.org forum. We are discussing libertarianism here.
You are the one who brought “rich” into the discussion with your hypothetical scenario. I can use your definition as you have provided it.
You can attempt to make somebody such an offer, if you want. There is no physical law of the universe that will stop you. In anarchy, I highly doubt it would work. In our current state of affairs, sure, that is essentially the way our statist legal systems work. Crooked cops, judges, prosecuters and lawyers hold a violent monopoly over the legal system. So, they and their jobs are insulated from market forces.
Essentially, what you are asking is “Can you pay people to hide any crimes you commit and still be consistent with the non-aggression principle?” Of course not.
I really do not see that as a problem because eventually those people will be weeded out in a couple of generations. They will be eaten by their own kind just like the mafia bumps eachother off. They will also be shunned by others. Like I said before, the perverted uncle who blames the homeless guy will quickly become obvious. I will quote myself:
You seem to be suggesting otherwise. So, maybe you should explain how it would come about. I do not think such extravagant market power would exist in anarchy just like I do not think astronauts would land on the moon without the subsidies of the state. That is just me. However, your objection hinges on the belief that you can fool people once, twice, three times, etc. etc. Maybe that is possible. Personally, I think that is a poor objection because such a population would be so stupid that they would be doomed for extinction. Maybe you can offer a reason why any person should believe that such hypothetically stupid people would be able to survive more than a generation or two without a state. You also seem to be suggesting that people would willfully continue to do business with evil “rich” corrupt people. I doubt it. However, you might be right. If you are right, your objection is not with anarchy. Your objection is with human nature.
I just do not see any need to take your hypothetical scenario seriously in an anarchist world. However, I will certainly give you this much: The actions of your hypothetically corrupt people would likely be observable in a transition towards anarchy.
You are making a mistake. You are treating law and justice as if they depend on objective truths. They are nothing of the sort. A legal system is simply the resolution of disputes.
Your concept of “justice” is more than what it literally means. That is ok but stop calling it justice. You should call it Juan’s Law And Justice Plus because it also contains requirements of truth or fairness or peace or love or whatever else all based on some undefined or magically objective scale.
Well, it may be obvious to you but I suggest that you back it up. I do not care what interests the majority. Furthermore, your “majority” is just a way for you to accept markets without having to admit that you are accepting markets. Eventually, the market will weed out your hypothetical evil “rich” man and his co-conspirators.
I understand that, and that’s why I liked it so much. It completely reoriented my thinking in this subject.
The rights of the mentally ill is a tricky subject to me, that would lead to another and overwhelming thread.
My guess, in my not yet researched view, is that the mentally ill have no right to freedom, as they are completely unable to evaluate the means and the goals needed to sustain their lives. They are in the situation of a toddler.
Of course there is the problem of determining who is really mentally ill to the point of being dependent or dead. I don’t even have a formation in psychology (not even by books) so I can’t really guess if there is a line and where it is.
Frankly, I haven’t got a clue what you’re talking about.
What??
What ? You said “I really do not believe anybody will be “rich” in a truly anarchist world.” - That hardly makes sense.
Why ? An amoral market does not by any means exclude corruption. If some people demand corruption and can pay for it the market will supply it. That’s value-free economics.
I’m afraid you got that totally wrong. I’m saying that in your world of moral subjectivism anything can be bought including the ‘legal’ violation of the NAP. Also, notice that given your moral subjectivism/relativism the NAP is meaningless anyway.
LOL. And again : LOL!!. Well, IIRC you confidently assert the non-existence of natural rights… ? I should have known better than believing that you have a rational position to defend…
It’s self evident that a free society can only exist if the majority of people stick to the OBJECTIVE principle of OBJECTIVE non-aggression.
We might even be discussing omelette recipes here, but Human Nature is defined as a set of behaviors easily identified. It is the “common sense” school of psychology.
The individual would violate the Non Aggression Axiom, but we are Libertarians, we are not in the quest to make of each one of us a proletarian ubermensch of some sort, with perfect ethics.
Evil people do exist and they will always exist. Thinking otherwise would be foolish.
Justice is objective, based on objective principles. As far as I have meditated it, you can make a complete legal system based only in three individual rights (life, freedom and private property) and the non aggression axiom, all of which derive from the simple existence of the individual. Everything else is derived from it. Give a judge these principles and the training to use them and he will be a great judge.
If you don’t understand, it is not your fault, really. According to the Kohlberg research only 5% of the population reaches the stage of abstract morality.
What I find most disturbing of your view is that you don’t recognize individual tragedies. The evil guy commits a crime here and there and escapes, somehow, all the 6 thousands million people in the world will know he is a crook and will stop doing business with him. Or eventually, somehow, he will find a crook worse than him that will kill him, ending the problem… and then some other crook will kill the second crook… and… a third crook … ad infinitum.
Even if people did find out on time that the guy is evil, you can’t just forget that an injustice (or several) was committed.
I don’t mean to insult you, but you sound like a teenager who believes in an utopia. I am a libertarian because I believe humans are flawed, you can’t dream of ideal (or flawed) human beings guiding others as well you can’t dream of an entire population of ideal human beings treating each other nicely all the time.
Elitist? Why? Anyone can reach the last stage, but they have to go through several moral dilemmas that require of them to achieve a superior level of reasoning. If you got through life without facing difficult dilemmas, you won’t develop your moral understanding.
And I don’t see how that makes a free society impossible. Most adults live according to conformity, obedience or gregarious tendencies. Don’t make the mistake we Libertarians already made in history, of trying to appeal the common man. The revolution is going to start with intellectuals, and they will spread the word.
I realize there is some sort of similarity with the elitism of the new left, but the main difference is that we believe in voluntary agreements, and not in paternalistic coercion.
Backflips of what? That problem was already presented and solved. I was worried about unjust justice situations.
In the current world it could be an entrepreneur facing a worker’s takeover, a woman accused of adultery in a muslim country, any person who acted on self-defense, etc.
I presented an intentionally hard problem to test the strength of the Libertarian legal theory.
“If you don’t understand, it is not your fault, really. According to the Kohlberg research only 5% of the population reaches the stage of abstract morality.”
Byzantine, I think the point is, if gussosa is really into helping the insane homeless guy, then he can. If the insane homeless guy (ihg) doesn’t want his help, then he can’t coerce the ihg into getting help.
As to this part, I have no clue what gussosa is reaching for.
I’m only noting that if the ‘common’ man doesn’t value freedom then there is going to be no freedom. Don’t make the mistake of believing that order is created top down.
The internet allows us to bypass growing our own intellectuals and starting a multi-generational shift in the institutions of the state.
We’re able to transmit our ideas, proofs directly to individuals, in every country, in every language, regardless of their means or exposure to higher learning.
The game has, and is, changing. Our success is contingent on both driving and riding change.
I don’t know what kind of dictionary you use. Mine is an encyclopedic Salvat and last time I checked gnostics were a christian school that believes in the potential divinity of human beings. Some of them have some very cool ideas like that God is composed of six entities: the father (Yahve), the mother (Sophia), Jesus, Mary Magdalene, the Holy Spirit and a female counterpart of it too.
I am sure you mean something else but I can’t guess what.
The common man doesn’t need abstract ethics to value freedom. If teachers and priests say that freedom is important, the guy will believe it. If he ever gets to a situation where freedom doesn’t seem to solve the issue, then he will try to reason and find an alternative.
Why do you think most people so strongly believe in minimum wages and stuff like that? Someone they trust told them to.