triknighted:
I was more focused on that statement leading into the utilitarian topic. In other words, if you’re truly concerned with principle instead of utilitarianism, then it doesn’t matter where the wrong is, a wrong is a wrong. Now if it’s your claim that the AnCap system is better than statism, that’s fine . . . but that’s what I meant when I said you’re arguing against statism, not for AnCap.
I am against the state on principle. I am an anarchist on principle. It also happens that the greatest good for the greatest amount of people would occur in an ancap society, in my opinion of course.
triknighted:
I see a lot of problems with private law enforcement agencies or private judges, however you put it. It implies rules and law, yet there is nothing established, no jurisdictions, so what if nobody knows the law? Is there a law written down? Is there no law? If there’s no law, why are there law enforcers, and why are there judges to begin with other than to enforce a non-existent law? If two different private law enforcement companies come to the same scene and have two different approaches, stances, interpretations or such differences, how are they resolved?
Have you heard of customary law ? I will also direct you to What Law Is and A Praxeological Account of Law by forum member Clayton.
triknighted:
The AnCap model sounds nice, and I agree, businesses would function and on the whole, things would be really good for a while . . . until another nation decides to invade the territory/region/area (I know there’s private ownership of weaponry, which is good, and private companies can develop weapons, which is even better . . . but I need evidence that it can compete with the technology and organization of an entire military or two that might attack us) and until people start having competing companies interpret “the law” differently.
There are no absolutes in any type of society. But when was the last time someone invaded Canada or Australia?