So the masses of land currently known as the USA are now occupied by a society in anarchy. There can be many questions begged here, but let me set up a hypothetical. A lot of the setup looks the same since it hasn’t been long since the state was abolished. It’s flourishing here. Everyone is much wealthier. The roads are a site to see. The PDAs get along like does McDonald’s and Burger King.
There are a couple of skyscrapers in a city (they aren’t near residential homes and blocking sunlight or anything) that look much like the old WTC. A group of for-some-reason pissed people in the less war-torn Middle East think it’d be cute to fly a couple planes into the towers like what (supposedly, if you’d like) happened some years before. Somehow they execute their plan and the towers come crashing down and do damages that estimate in the kilos of gold (or whatever realistic amount).
What does the owner of the towers do now? How does he take the remaining members of the group in Afghanistan (or wherever) to court?
Basically, and I know it’s all speculation, but how does a member of an anarchist society take a citizen of a state to court?
First, explain to us how a US citizen today takes a citizen of another State to court, and assuming such an option even exists today, why can the free individual in your hypothetical voluntary society not take the same course of action.
For example, if France allows a US citizen to take a French citizen to court in France, why won’t France allow a free individual to do the same also?
I will assume that the world hates the USA so bad by the time this happens that they can not forgive the citizens and keep their hatred although the real culprit, the US Government has ceased to exist. This is a significant assumption as I do not see terrorists attacking towers in Switzerland, Costa Rica, Brazil, etc. My opinion is that these people have not been attacked because the terrorists have not been aggressed by them.
Lets start with security. The security of the facility will be up to the owners. They will have to provide security for their facitlity and insure the risk if anything happens. Unlike the towers owned by the NYC Port Authority or some other quasi-government organization, the entirety of security and insurance would havfe to be paid for by the tennants of the building. If a group of terrorists manage to get by the security and pull off another 9/11 in an anarchic society then the combination of owner and insurance company/s will be the ones stuck with the bills.
So insurance companies would have charge big premiums to cover the risks. The owner may respond by reducing the rents in the agreement with the tennants that they would not sue in the event of such a loss or perhaps insure themselves.
After the incident, I suspect that the owners would be liabile for the total and would make claims with the insurers. Any claims above the amount insured would include their personal assets. The owners and the claimants would have to come to some agreement on the value of their claims. Payers on damage claims would pursue the people responsible through whatever insurance/protection networks are available. That would mean that associates and people funding the terrorists would face claims from the victims. Also they would face getting kicked out of the system. So they would be interested in not having the play the claims. Look at Pan Am 103, it took a while, but ultimately Kadafi paid claimaints money. The same would be true here. Organizations can not exist without money, terrorists are not an exception.
Also,. the owners and insurers could sue the companies that provided the airplanes and failed to secure them. The current Dept Homeland Security has not such liability and part of the giant payouts were to the airlines as the govenrment was trying to keep the airlines from blaming them.
Also,. the owners and insurers could sue the companies that provided the airplanes and failed to secure them.
Without some other reason, I don’t agree with this. IF the ~20 hijackers were directed to kill by a larger organization, that “Al Qaeda” could be pursued. If I forget to lock up my motorcycle and you steal it then go on a shooting rampage with it, I don’t see how you hold me accountable for that.