Anarchy: Two reputable courts producing different decisions

[MJGreen]

@Eugene

In my example the poor person did not choose to leave his house for compensation. It was not a voluntary transaction at all. It was the superior firepower of the rich that forced him to do it.

I didn’t see this example, and I have little interest in discussing a broadly defined scenario in which you may assume as many conditions as you please to get the conclusion you want*. Especially since pretty much every anarcho-capitalist treatise addresses the issue of aggressive tycoons. An oil magnate may want to claim the power of eminent domain and seize his neighbor’s territory, but he - and the parties which aid him - risks the ire of the rest of society. Courts that sanction his action risk severe damage to their reputation. These considerations should not be underestimated. Maybe the oil magnate will feel the costs are worth it, and maybe he’ll succeed. The oil magnate Saddam Hussein thought he could get away with claiming the inferior Kuwait as his own, and he might have succeeded, too.

This is a problem with hypothetical scenarios: there is a tendency to ignore the actors’ long run considerations. It is all too easy to think of the scenario as a one-off game and not an indefinitely repeated game, in which your oil magnate has to consider the long-run consequences of his actions. More importantly, you pretty much entirely ignore the dynamism of society. If rich men claiming eminent domain is a pervasive problem, the masses (including the rich) have an incentive to develop mechanisms to inhibit such action in the future. Institutions and practices change to address the problem, just as they change should a new piece of technology make theft easier to accomplish. Perhaps the oil magnate succeeds today, but he may find that it is more costly to do it again next year. In five or ten years, he may see it impracticable to run roughshod over property rights, as the rest of society has caught up to his methods.

*The scenario is also incoherent: you said companies A and B are of equal standing, so why does company B suddenly have superior firepower?

@Eugene

Unfortunately it is likely that people in anarcho-capitalism will change their internal sense of justice

Well I see that as completely backward, and I’m not sure what either of us could do to convince the other.

@z1235

In my long time on this forum, I have yet to see anyone address this blatanly obvious logical contradiction

There is no contradiction. You are simply letting your sloppy language confuse you.

[resist272727]

@filc

@resist272727

I believe what Eugene is mostly concerned about is not that the wealthy have it “better off”, but that they can use their wealth to corrupt the justice system to act in a very unjust way

The problem is the “wealth” depend on the satisfaction of the “less wealthy”. Unable to satisfy consumers means people will abandon that particular court. If a court does not appease the mases they will be unable to compete. Services of this type do not get powerful by servicing a few rich men, instead they get powerful by servicing middle to low income masses.

So if the (obviously poor) slave sued a rich slaveowner in the early 19th century South for holding him against his will (violating his property), what is the incentive for the court to rule fairly? And if they can choose a different court, what if they do not come to an agreement on which court they wish to judge the case?

This is just one example of course, but what exactly would give the economically uninfluential poor any consumer sovereignty over how courts act? Capitalism isn’t necessarily about appeasing the masses, but it is about maximizing profit and consumer sovereignty gives the rich more power in any market in which they spend more, therefore the possibility to (theoretically) alter the justice system. Although I don’t know if it would actually work this way.

[liberty_student]

@resist272727

This is just one example of course, but what exactly would give the economically uninfluential poor any consumer sovereignty over how courts act?

They could represent themselves. Or they could sell a kidney.

@resist272727

Capitalism isn’t necessarily about appeasing the masses, but it is about maximizing profit and consumer sovereignty gives the rich more power in any market in which they spend more, therefore the possibility to (theoretically) alter the justice system. Although I don’t know if it would actually work this way.

What “the” justice system? We’re talking about a polycentric legal order. There is no “the” justice system.

[filc]

@resist272727

So if the (obviously poor) slave sued a rich slaveowner in the early 19th century South for holding him against his will (violating his property), what is the incentive for the court to rule fairly? And if they can choose a different court, what if they do not come to an agreement on which court they wish to judge the case?

This is just one example of course, but what exactly would give the economically uninfluential poor any consumer sovereignty over how courts act? Capitalism isn’t necessarily about appeasing the masses, but it is about maximizing profit and consumer sovereignty gives the rich more power in any market in which they spend more, therefore the possibility to (theoretically) alter the justice system.

Oh I am confused is there an objective definition of fair now?

Also does your example mimic the hypothetical example I am refering to? A case where arbitration and courts are sold on a retainer contract or subscription basis? Did the court in the early 19th century risk loosing it’s subscription base due to a faulty ruling? Were the consumers genuinely sovereign? Could the slave appeal to another 3rd party court?

Also lets keep in mind the other issue of cultural norms that you may currently disagree to.(Which I do as well but my disagreeing with cultural norms is not a defense for a state. For example if people are going to be racist in the free market that type fo aditude will only flourish in a state). The state does not correct bad cultural norms, people vote those bad cultural norms into power and only establish a stronghold.

[filc]

@resist272727

Capitalism isn’t necessarily about appeasing the masses

Do you know what consumer sovereignty is? I see you mention it but I don’t feel any real refernece to it whatsoever. How else are the rich made if not by appealing to the masses?

[JackCuyler]

Competing for what? The poor guy’s “business”?

Personally, if I was running a private court/enforcement outfit I would bend over backwards to attract as much rich clientelle as possible. As a matter of fact, I would make it my task to advertise my intent overtly through the decisions of my judges and the actions of my goons

And you would very swiftly be put out of business, or at the very least be made irrelevent, by the Walmart of justice firms. Firms that cater to the poor can do substantially better then those who cater to the rich. You’ve heard of Walmart, right? The largest company in the world? Catering to the poor isn’t so unprofitable after allit seems. I’m not saying that catering to the rich is unpofitable. Macy’s does ok. I’m just saying Walmart could buy and sell Macy’s 140 times over.

[Live_Free_Or_Die]

Perhaps everyone’s already doing exactly that, producing the (OPHA) outcome you see out the window right now.

Siding with Z on that point.

One obvious detail getting little attention in this thread is individual actors can react to the scenario in the OP in their voluntary contracts. But that also begs the question… how come more individual actors are not reacting now in voluntary contracts under a coerced monopoly justice system?

I agree some people should check their premesis but I don’t think Z is the one who needs to do the checking.

[Live_Free_Or_Die]

Seriously dude, pick up a book or something. At least understand the arguments and positions before you start criticizing them. You’re a bright guy, but you’re definitely not meeting the standard of debate around here when you post this stuff.

I may or may not be the brightest bulb in the thread but is that a text book example of an ad hominem?

[MJGreen]

One obvious detail getting little attention in this thread is individual actors can react to the scenario in the OP in their voluntary contracts. But that also begs the question… how come more individual actors are not reacting now in voluntary contracts under a coerced monopoly justice system?

Not making what contracts? Wills?

[filc]

Understand the arguments and positions before you start criticizing them.

@Live_Free_Or_Die

I may or may not be the brightest bulb in the thread but is that a text book example of an ad hominem?

It’s a request and one that should be seriously considerd. The Ad-hominem card is abused and used in situations where I don’t think it’s appropriate. Requesting your opponent to be familiar with the topic I don’t think is a bad thing. Odd that you felt comeplled to bring this up.

Technically it’s only an ad-hominem if your slander is used to justify a position. For example.

This following is not an Ad-Hominem. It’s just plane slander and is not addressing the topic at hand.

I disagree with you and I think your Ugly.

This however is an ad-hominem.

I disagree with you because your ugly.

[Live_Free_Or_Die]

Yes wills as you pointed out. If I wanted to get creative I could also include llc operating agreements, or trusts that can survive death without arbitration.

[Eugene]

An oil magnate may want to claim the power of eminent domain and seize his neighbor’s territory, but he - and the parties which aid him - risks the ire of the rest of society.

And how this ire will manifest itself, by boycots and such? What if that will not be enough and aggression will have to be used? Will you be okay with that? If so, then what’s the difference between that and a decree from a supreme court? In both cases it will be aggression or threat of aggression.

[Live_Free_Or_Die]

If we want to talk about non-sequiturs

---

If a market is a process of voluntary exchange,

And a market is comprised of individual actors with subjective values,

And valuation is always directed at a good or service,

And violence is a service,

Then It does not follow that a market is a process of voluntary exchange because violence is not always voluntary.

It does follow that a market is a process of exchange.

---

Elaborating further:

If a market is a process of exchange using choice,

And a market is comprised of individuals with subjective values,

And valuation is always directed at a good or service,

And violence is a service,

Then it does follow that a market is a process of exchange using choice because violence is a choice.

---

My present preferred definiiton of free market would be a market that is free of interventions against choice. Which presently exists.

My preferred process would be the NAP in that exchanges occuring where aggression has been initiated against a party have little or no demand to be construed valid. Which presently does not exist compliments of high demand in the market for groups of people to initiate aggression against others.

On a lighter note, if these two statements were presumed equal and represent the sum of a subjective goal, I am already over half way there :).

[MJGreen]

@Eugene

What if that will not be enough and aggression will have to be used? Will you be okay with that?

Yes, I’d be okay with that. That shouldn’t be controversial, given that the oil magnate is clearly violating property rights.

@Eugene

If so, then what’s the difference between that and a decree from a supreme court? In both cases it will be aggression or threat of aggression.

What do you mean? What is gained by the decree from a supreme court? Why is a decree from the supreme court any better than a decree from an “appellate” court, or a provisional supreme court? (that is, if two courts come to different conclusions, the dispute can be taken to a third court which acts as the final word)

[Eugene]

Yes, I’d be okay with that. That shouldn’t be controversial, given that the oil magnate is clearly violating property rights.

But the oil magnate didn’t use aggression against the rest of society, only against that particular house owner. Wouldn’t using a force against the oil magnate be similar to the intervention of the United States in foreign affairs?

[liberty_student]

@Live_Free_Or_Die

I may or may not be the brightest bulb in the thread but is that a text book example of an ad hominem?

I don’t believe so.

[liberty_student]

@Live_Free_Or_Die

If we want to talk about non-sequiturs

It’s non sequitur overload around here some days.

[The_Freeman]

But the oil magnate didn’t use aggression against the rest of society, only against that particular house owner. Wouldn’t using a force against the oil magnate be similar to the intervention of the United States in foreign affairs?

God, no. When the US intervenes in foreign affairs, it uses stolen wealth to do it, it blows up millions of innocent people in the process, and it lies about why it wanted to intervene in the first place.

[Eugene]

Nevertheless, you are using force on someone who didn’t use aggression against you.

[The_Freeman]

You’re just acting on behalf of the person whose lawful interest has been infringed. Does it make any difference if they’re paying you do to it?

The US government can’t possibly do this overseas, because they’re claiming to act on behalf of a non-existant person, e.g. “the Iraqi people”. “The Iraqi people” is not a person capable of having a singular set of interests, nor could it give its consent one way or the other as to US military involvement on its behalf. The US government doesn’t exist legitimately to begin with - there’s no such thing as “the American people”, as a person, either.