I’ll repeat what I said earlier. I AM NOT TALKING ABOUT EMPLOYER-EMPLOYEE relationship or any contractual relationship. I am talking about an uninsured person who just happened to accidently break a super expensive piece of equipment lying somewhere, maybe even in somewhat protected place. I don’t see how you can just declare bankrupcy, its akin to not paying damages, and that would be unjust.
Like I said, in such a case the damager of the equipment should be sued in court and the court should determine how much of it was the damager’s fault.
Contributory negligence would come into play here–what idiot leaves $10m worth of equipment where it can be (let’s say) tripped on? Insurance would certainly take that into account. The situation is too vague to make any determination from your description. There shouldn’t be anything worth $10m that can be damaged by tripping over it in a public place. That’s why people are defaulting to the employee scenario where something like that could be envisioned.
Let’s say a judge decides our fictional person intended to destroy X and rules the full amount against him. At this point we’re talking wage garnishment and wealth garnishment. We’re not talking actual slavery.
Is your question more like, is it legitimate to declare bankruptcy in such a case? I think there may be a case for that. Bankruptcy laws are descended in principle from the ancient Jewish year of Jubilee where all property would revert to the tribes and be distributed.
I’m asking you a clarification question. If your answer is “no, I wouldn’t be asking about slavery if the equipment only required 2 hours to pay off”, then your whole question is just about the value limit. I’m wondering why the equipment has to cost $10 million. It sounds to me like your question isn’t a question of principle, but rather a question of “what’s the right number.” As in, how much of the damage that someone causes should he be required to repay.
And I’m wondering if you actually think there’s a way to determine that which wouldn’t be completely arbitrary.
Well, through the very act of owning expensive equipment it’s partially the owners fault if someone breaks it. Indeed, it would be negligent to own a piece of expensive machinery and not to insure it. It would be like putting up a trap for some unsuspecting citizen to drive into. He can’t be held fully responsible, since the owner put it there himself. That’s why it would be just to allow for bankruptcy.
But you can trust that legal precedent will gradually figure this out in a libertarian society. There’s no need for us to design every detail of the system up front. Maybe there’s some aspect we haven’t even thought of yet, the market can always figure this out better than we can.
Eugene, remember that destroying a piece of equipment is pretty tough. You might cause $10,000 in damage, but unless you come in with airplanes and bomb the thing, you won’t have to pay the full $10 million.
Well, I suppose one could accidentally push a button on a cruise ship which causes it to tip over and sink… But then you have JJ’s question. You seem to be making a willful distinction between levels of property that deserve to be restituted.
What is this conflation of markets with a libertarian legal system? The two cannot be mixed. There’s no such thing as a market for law where legal principles are bought and sold. Legal principles must be reasoned through rationally. So no, we can’t trust that they will be gradually figured out, we must think about it rationally first and so would a libertarian society.
I agree with Anenome. The market is a type of democracy, and we know what kind of laws can be created in democracy.
But anarchists (at least here) advocate FREE market, not just market. Because in that sense the state is complete result of a market, like one of my internet friends pointed out.
Note that to achieve your minarchy or our anarchy we would need a thorough reeducation about nonagression anyway, so people will actually be acting in the market in NAP-conscious ways.
Laws in a libertarian, or rather anarchist, society would not be designed rationally but come to be through legal precedent. Read that David Friedman stuff about conflict resolution agencies. Basically, everything would be private, including the judge, and if you sue someone that decision will become precedent for the next time someone has a similar disagreement. The laws would be shaped informally by what the judges decide. It would be a market in the sense that the laws are made in a evolutionary process, depending on who wins the cases. Nobody designs it.
And Eugene, the market is not a type of democracy. A democracy is a system where one group of people can force another group of people to do what they want. In a market everyone can do what they want themselves.
The point is that if you destroy the state today, people will resolve their conflicts in the way they used to, according to non libertarian principles. People will not suddenly become libertarians just because the state is gone.
I don’t think you noticed my previous post.
Legal precedent of what, exactly. An anarchist society can’t have anything defined truly as law, for it has no enforcement mechanism. Any court using coercion without consent of the governed to arrest people is just aggressing against them. Nor could it ethically pronounce judgement, much less enforce those judgments. It would have no legal power to sieze property, accounts, or to jail.
Only in theory. There’s nothing to prevent another court from deciding anything they want in an anarchist society.
Common law developed within an ordered, jurisdictioned society. To think it can simply work in an anarchist one is a reach. An anarchist society is more than likely to have sham courts. How do you deal with that.
Suppose it’s a sham court, who do you appeal to? Common law arose in a legal context. Anarchist law and courts by definition have no legal context.
Without a legal system to resolve disputes, they’ll be resolved by force.
Want to see what an anarchist justice system looks like? One need look no further than the Hatfields and McCoys.
A legal system without a monopoly on coercion within society is incapable of enforcing justice and will be ignored and ineffective.
Any court using coercion without consent of the governed to arrest people is just aggressing against them
What the heck is consent of the governed?
There’s nothing to prevent another court from deciding anything they want in an anarchist society.
What prevents people from setting up their own sham courts right now and making odd rulings? What prevents the government itself from doing this?
So what you are saying is that there can be no market for legal norms because it could not work for practical reasons? Nobody can be trusted, and therefore people would screw you over rather than letting any stable legal precedent establish itself.
Well, doesn’t the same apply to a free market in goods and services? Why does the price system, which apparently manages to be accurate enough to allocate resources for billions of people, not collapse due to all the charlatans who wish to screw you over?
It means that for example a private court could not enforce any ruling without the consent of the subjects, otherwise it would initiate force, which means it’s not free market. To have a free market legal system, people have to consent beforehand that the rulings will be enforced, that way it’s not initiation of force any more but enforcement of a voluntary contract.