In a strict interpretation of libertarianism, If there is a conflict between two people, you should not interve, as it doesn’t concern you. You shouldn’t use your sense of justice to resolve the dispute. Perhaps some people will think the rich was right, other people will think the poor was right. Why do you have the right to intervene in this matter?
If you do think you have a right, because according to you, aggression was used, then what is wrong about a supreme court which will also enforce its own sense of justice, or with American intervention in Iraq where Americans enforced their own justice on behalf of a good portion of Iraqis who suffered from Sadam’s aggression?
Are you suggesting that it’s not possible to act on behalf of someone else?
Is it not ethical to work as a bodyguard, because you may have to use violence to defend your employer when he’s being attacked, and you otherwise wouldn’t be?
If you’re walking along the street with your girlfriend, and some random lunatic attacks her, must you just stand there and wait for the situation to resolve itself without coming to her aid, even though she’s shouting for you to help her, because it would be unjust to interpose your sense of justice in this dispute which is clearly between her and the rabid psychopath?
That’s insane. You are misinterpreting libertarian ethics if you believe that.
The entire lie inherent to government is that it is acting on behalf of the people when it does anything. That’s why it can’t intervene in disputes. It can’t do anything ethically. I don’t even know how to compare government military action to personal disputes… Maybe if you saw two people having a heated argument or maybe even a fistfight in the street, you walk up to them and blow one of their brains out with a .45, point it at the second guy and declare, “Now you’re free. Do what I say.”
So if it is okay for a third party to use aggression to resolve conflicts, then why a supreme court would be wrong? Naturally some will disagree with the supreme court rulings, but some people will surely also disagree with any other third party. What makes a supreme court worse than any other kind of intervention? At least the supreme court is the vote of the majority, unlike a regular court that can be very well be a vote of a minority, and that minority can theoretically be anything from Nazis to serial rapists.
I don’t understand what you mean here. “The majority”?
What’s stopping any court from being wrong? Why should any particular court have universal jurisdiction? No court has that under the present system. Who is going to decide who the judges are in this supreme court?
How does a supreme court establish jurisdiction over parties that don’t want anything to do with it? What makes it supreme in their eyes?
Look I understand the problems with the supreme court. You mentioned them. But I also see problems with particulary strong groups of people (especially economically) that will enforce their values on others. I’m afraid of what happened in Russia (I am an immigrant from Russia), which in a state of semi-anarchy the mafia took over most of the country. Apparently there were not enough “good” people to stop the bad guys. The current situation in Russia is that the rich use aggression against others quite freely. I am afraid of that.
The mafia has bribed the monopolised security and legal apparatus over to its side. Because these services were monopolised, innocent third parties now have no recourse to defend themselves. The police are too scared/crooked to help you out against the mob, but they will still crack down on you if you try to buy an AK rifle with which to defend yourself. The mafia exists because the state exists. Open borders, free trade and an end to sanctioned violence in the workplace gets rid of 99% of what the mafia actually is.
What happened in Russia in 90’s is not even near libertarianism, and I’m sure that you know it too. Mafia uses state’s monopoly of violence, and in libertarianism there is no monopoly.
It’s economicaly unprofitable for rich people to try to opress others and very profitable to cooperate, and this cuts incentives for even hoping opression. “Un-rich” people can arm themselves very cheaply. If rich try to buy all police and armies, prices will rise, more people will start to offer those services etc. and circle continues until rich people are bankrupt. And rich people have the same problem as a state trying to invade stateless territory - they don’t know how much people there is in stateless area and they don’t know how much people have arms in there. It’s impossible.
Democracy is mob rule, nothing more. If some people are not wise enough to decide for everyone, then more people who are not wise enough will not solve the problem.
There is no consent in the bargaining process described by David Friedman. It is the fear of aggression that drives this process. If anarcho-capitalism looks like Friedman’s version I wouldn’t want to be a part of it, that’s for sure.
Regarding Russia. Police had nothing to do with it. The mobsters just attacked factories all over the countries, killed the management and captured them. Apparently the peaceful population didn’t have enough firepower to stop that. Police usually fought the mafia rather than the regular folk. Large portions of police did cooperate with the mafia, or at least didn’t interfere, but even bigger portions did try to stop them. So if anything, the police was a problem for the mafia. So blaming the government in this case, when it was clearly not the government’s fault is unnecessarily dogmatic.
Obviously there is consent when people agree to use a process. The reasons for that consent (motive) cannot ever be determined conclusively.
If you refuse to use reason and logic, and if you continue to make logically fallacious arguments and ignore economics, then I cannot imagine what use you would be to an ancap society. It’s better to return to Plato’s cave.
LS, if you care to know, I don’t see any value in replies like these. Surely, it wouldn’t have taken nearly as many characters to explain how/why something is a “non-sequitur” (logically inconsistent). I believe my posts include enough exposition about how a certain conclusion is being reached.
IMO, responses like “pick a book”, “we dealt with your misunderstanding”, or implying mental feebleness on my part (as in not even being able to understand your argument) are what doesn’t meet the standard for debate. Seems, value is subjective, after all.
I answered but you seemed to ignore me or missed it. Unless I am misunderstanding you here is my response.(FYI LS also answered you but I think you missed it).
A) There is no such thing as a universal or objective system of justice. The concept of justice is subjective.
B) If you agree with point A then you necessarily must agree that a state’s attempt at making a universal justice system will necessarily undermine the subjective differences held by it’s members. The only way a justice system can best serve individuals is by organically being serviced on the market. Catering to the cultural norms and consumer preferences from location to location and from subscriber to subscriber.
So your contradiction has been answered on 3 occasions now.
Tex, thanks for the link. I enjoyed reading the article. Anything in particular you’d like emphasize from it in relation to my posts in this thread?
I have repeatedly stated that coherence in subjective perferences (values/customs/norms) is key for establishing a free market. I don’t find it particularly surprising that a group of humans out in the wild would be strongly incentivized toward converging their subjective values/customs/norms. I’ve gone hiking/camping in the wilderness with other humans before and I can confirm that no one stole anyone’s food or water even though the closest court or law enforcer was perhaps days of walking away from us.
I can’t control that, so I don’t particularly care. I have zero control over your sense of value.
I said your statement does not follow (non sequitur). You have not proven that it does follow.
You’re not mentally feeble. You’re BSing your way through discussions. I believe you’re really intelligent, which is why I am kinda annoyed that you continue to post stuff that is way below what I expect(ed) and think you’re capable of.
That was never in question.
It is a non sequitur. There is no logical answer to be found to an illogical query.
It’s likely that I don’t understand your criticism of why you think a market here is inadequate. Or perhaps thats not even your position, so go easy on me.
I think he makes it perfectly clear that in his view of an-cap, a threat of violence is what makes the bargaining process meaningful. A threat of violence is definitely a non consentual thing, and since agencies that have few rich customers would be as powerful as agencies with many poor customers, it is clear that the rich will get better justice for themselves. In fact Friedman admits that the poor will have the shorter end of the stick in these compromises. Now I definitely prefer an an-cap society with a supreme court rather than an-cap society where the rich routinely use aggression against the poor.
I am failing to understand why you keep whittling away at the same point which is: wealth has an advantage.
It has been acknowledged everyone is in agreement wealth has an advantage. So what do you want to do about this advantage? Advocate violence to threaten wealth?
I will not advocate that. I will advocate competition. A healthy demand for competition is the only way wealth is constantly under any real threat without resorting to violence.
I desire to inspire people to look in the mirror and be a part of the solution. Demand competition. Demand violence not be used to stifle competition.
What kind of a world do you want to live in… one with more violence or more competition?
Because violence is expensive. It is economically inefficient. The threat of having to resort to violence is a deterrent to engaging in violence.
I do not understand why you would take issue with this. The reason you don’t attack people, is that they might kick your ass. Seems pretty sensible to me.
The former is a mistake, the latter everyone has agreed with you 1000 times already Eugene.
You can’t have an ancap society with a supreme court. It wouldn’t be an ancap society. Maybe you want the USSR back. Maybe things were better then. But I suggest there is a better way Russians haven’t tried yet. Liberty. Maybe they could ditch the monopoly state AND the oligarch criminals.
Your solution has already been tried. It doesn’t work. Monopoly politicial institutions get corrupted and then the poor and unpopular people have no where to turn. Again, look at what democracy and monopoly courts did to the Jews in Germany. Think if this is the better world you want to create.
