Because various groups are not allowed to express the norms that suit them best. Proof being members of this forum.
[EDIT] THis is the equivilent of arguing that options of any good/service are not diminished when the state becomes the sole monopolist. I’m not sure, given your history here, how you can conclude this.
Why do you think you are entitled to expressing the norms that suit you best (your subjective sense of justice)? Perhaps the market is already providing justice commensurate to everyone’s ability to afford it. As someone already noted in this thread: “Justice is not a right…Justice services are not free.”
Looks like you demand a free market so you can buy yourself some justice but it is the very lack of justice that makes the market not free. Quite a predicament, you must admit.
Z.
The question isn’t whether or not I have the right to express my norms. The question is whether or not I don’t. The question isn’t whether or not I have the right to purchase an apple, the question is whether or not I don’t.
In this case I don’t have the option to reject the services that the state renders to me. So it’s incomprehensible to say that the market is currently servicing me justice when in fact I’ve never been given the option to to decide for myself what types of services I desire. This mechanism that the state mandates participation from me is identicle to that concept of slavery, serfdom, so on and so forth. It is the very opposite concept of the types of markets that are expressed here on these forums.
I feel as if you are going back on a bent definition of what you think the market is.
Not really. It’s not hard to understand why compulsion effects the market negatively. That is after all the very basis for every other critical analysis we give to government.
Odd that you seem to marvel on this.
Can you provide evidence of this? Not allowed? Not allowed by who?
Can you refute the logical statement I made previously stating it does not follow the market is a process of voluntary exchange?
It would be illegal for me to withdraw my participation in state protection, and it would be illegal for me to create a competing protection agency. As stated in the message you quoted “Proof being members of this forum”.
I’m afraid I don’t understand.
Is what recently occured in Egypt illegal? For purposes of this line of thought I do not understand what you mean by illegal? Do you mean illegal in that there is a risk violence would be used against you and the term illegal is your subjective way of measuring a risk of violence?
Is there something stopping hypothetically 2000 people on this very forum from moving to a county with less than 500 people and eliminating property taxes or public roads in that county?
Correct.
Let me amend this by stating that I am forced to adher to a set of laws I never agreed to. I am forced to adopt a set of ethics/morals that are not in line with mine.
Yes. The United states government.
On the other hand if we got 20,000 people to move to a specific county we could likely cause some change. My method of tackling statism involves one of educating my neighbor. So this comment would be in line with that. The only reason why the state exists is due to ideological support.
Your “logical statement” contains very sloppy premises. There are a whole bunch of issues in statements like, “Violence is a service,” and the words “voluntary” and “exchange” could use some precise definitions. If you really think you have something here, you’ll need to work through the argument step-by-step, probably with the aid of a hypothetical scenario.
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,
And the United States government is a violence service provider.
Then It does not follow that a market is a process of voluntary exchange because services from the United States government is not always voluntary.
It does follow that a market is a process of exchange.
Government is a majority system so presently if 2000 people on this forum moved to a county with a population of 500 it is an overwhelming majority.
Eliminating property taxes, public roads, etc. creates a distinct local economic advantage. Of course there is a risk of violence for people in so called free county exporting goods or services. But what would the risk of violence be for people exchanging unregulated goods locally?
This
contradicts this
Also I am not interested in hiriing violence. I am interested in hiring property protection and arbitration services. The fallacy here is the continued conflation of aggression with coercion.
Correct and if you accepted Grayson’s definition of markets then the State could not be classified as a “service” offered in the free market. It is never offered. A slave master services his slave with shelter but it cannot be said that the relationship between the two is mutual. That is not the type of market we are referring to when we say “Free Market”. I believe Grayson already covered this pages ago.
I am confused. Did you reject the definition of Capitalism that Grayson presented? If so I don’t think we will be able to proceed. We’d be talking past one another with different terms.
It does not follow that we would have less interestate commerce in the absence of public roads. In fact interstate commerce exploded on it’s own prior to public roads.
I don’t understand the question. Are we talking about aggression or just force in general?
sigh
Supreme Court & Anarcho-Capitalism are antithetical to eachother. They contradict. The two cannot occupy the same space at the same time. Whatever your wording, these two concepts are not compatible. If you haven’t yet figured out why this is, then you need to carefully read the responses in this thread–let alone evalute your entire comprehension of what Anarcho-Capitalism is.
To be concise, any advantages afforded to the wealthy in an Anarcho-Capitalist society are only compounded and exacerbated in a society with a monopoloy on justice and law. An-Cap courts may not be perfect, but they are conceptually less flawed than the monopolized systems than exist today.
You exaggerate the effect of corruption of modern courts. Corruption is relatively minor, and it can decrease dramatically if only the supreme court will remain. It is a lot easy to track 12 juges than a 1000. It is also easier to give them very high salaries to counter any possible corruption on their part
However in Friedman’s view the rich will be sysematically better off through their advantage in the bargaining process. The rich today are actually worse off with all the welfare system and the progressive taxation.
There is nothing wrong with people being rich and I completely understand that they become rich by creating something that is highly demanded and by beating out the competition. What I am saying is that there are certain cases in which it is not as important to meet the demands of the many as opposed to the demands of the few. Banks do not equally weigh the needs of the rich and the poor, nor should they because it is not their business to do so and it would have adverse effects because the poor are not as reliable to meet their payments. But the justice system should not give any advantage to the rich because contractual obligations are a key part of capitalism. I see no reason why private courts would NOT give advantages to those who could offer them the most money. Yes, there is competition, but why wouldn’t the courts that are fair to poor people be run out of business when the poor make up a very small portion (when considered that they are incapable of paying as much) of demand for their services? Could journalism or some sort of charity solve this problem, or is there something I am missing that would make sure private courts were not corrupt?
Fairness in this case quite certainly means fulfillment of contracts and proper justification of private property violation. Also, elimination of incentive for private courts to rule otherwise.
I suppose you are right that a public court would not likely be any more fair to a disadvantaged citizen. Mostly what I want to emphasize is that it seems unlikely that the poor would be on equal footing in making sure their contracts were carried out fairly. There is nothing egalitarian or anti-capitalist about wanting contracts to be obliged regardless of who is better able to pay more.
For sure but…
As I stated before there is no such thing as an equal footing. Not in a statist society nor in an anti-statist society.
People are going to be treated at different degrees, regardless of their wealth really
It’s like talking to a wall.
Conversations have been repeated for a number of folk. Things are going in circles.
I’m not talking about buying judges at all. Laws are formed by politicians. Politicians are subject to a vast array of influences. The most significant of these influences being that of business lobbies, and PACs. The law itself is subverted by the wealthy for the benfit of the wealthy. This is inclusive to all law, whether it be tax law, regulation, or even civil/criminal.
One of the most important aspects of An-Cap philosophy is removing The State, which is the mechanism for wealthy & powerful interests to hinder others. Classic corruption of judges may or may not be low. Regardless of that status, the law itself is what has been perverted both through design and complexity as to specifically protect the status quo. The system is more grevious than those adjudicating it. An-Cap courts allow a flawed system to be weeded out and shunned for the mockery that they are.