Will there be a constitution in a stateless society? Will it be private?
No. Yes.
This.
No constitution? Then lawgivers can make contradicting laws.
use your own logic, in other words, don’t self-contradict. it’s about responsibility and using ones own freely given mind and will.
What if two different lawgivers pass different laws in the same country?
Countries would no longer exist
What if two different lawgivers pass different laws? For example, say lawgiver A says intellectual property must be respected, and lawgiver B says it should not be respected.
Then people who are subscribing to A follow that law and the people who subscribe to B dont
So you can follow whichever laws you want? That’s ridiculous. I say no to anarchism.
by country, do you mean they are close geographically? I’ll assume that in answering the question. From what I understand, but I haven’t read enough material to wake my mind up as any logical errors in such an approach, for one, to make an assertion of what will be is contingent. That means it’s up to the facts under consideration in some future event, at least in this context. It’s about possibilities. So I can’t make an exact reasonable assertion. It’s impossible. I can say though that learning economics and how the market works, or even being active in business human actions are made voluntarily. And a logical structure already exists now - the market. It instills and affirms logical actions between people with the understanding that errors will occur that’s simply being human. Currently and with the removal of government a very active civil society is already happening. People are doing as they desire and what is terrible is that yes some people will commit injustices and then they use the monopoly of the government to coerce consent, thus violate civil society into doing dirty deeds.
Now it is quite possible that different laws may arise. There is the sharp current distinct in law between positivist and negativist (natural law). What will happen if these laws come under conflict by varying PDA’s? Could it be violence? Could it end peacefully? Under market conditions in which no monopoly government is present for the ugliness of human nature to fall back upon and coerce entire huge populations to be whipped metaphorically or literally into action, the results will be less disastrous. If a PDA tries to rise up and corrupt civil society and push a massive agenda to coerce people into their violent scheme - sure that’s possible, but with a market present that individuals can shift to another PDA or form of justice it would make it difficult for such corrupt PDA’s to gain strength (compared to today’s governments). Keep in mind this isn’t about a utopia. It’s not to build a society that will be perfect. Conflict will happen. Justice will have to be served. But as I (and others) are trying to bring justice to the events of today, in a civil society in which their are no governments and PDA’s with various laws circulating in the free market - there will be people that will be trying to serve justice too. That much is for sure cause justice and truth are based upon logical universals of human nature. It’s why A=A was true over a thousand years ago and why it is true today and why it will still be true in a thousand years to come. And logic isn’t solely about the law of identity. There’s much more to learn and educate ourselves, individually, to help ourselves, again individually, solve problems and do what is good. And what is good is relative to each individual agent, but good is still good and that’s something to pursue and strive for.
from how you post here it’s safe to say that’s not an educated assertion by you. oh well.[:P]
by the way I’m bias and I don’t think anybody is educated enough to make such illogical assertions about contingent events, including me, so we are together in this. i think a little more homework in a self-educating process is what either one of us can pursue.[:)]
In case you haven’t noticed, “lawgivers” in your local area can make whatever laws they want. Here are just a few from http://www.dumblaws.com for Illinois:
- You may be arrested for vagrancy if you do not have at least one dollar bill on your person.
- You must contact the police before entering the city in an automobile.
- The English language is not to be spoken.
Civil legislation brings uncertainty. You can count on anything remotely close to libertarian law not making laws like this.
A paper constitution? Perhaps. A set of checks and balances? Necessarily.
What constitution? Both the Red Team and Blue Team have absolutely zero regard for the current Constitution and especially the Bill of Rights. By far the best example of this is the power to declare war. Only congress can do this but you see presidents going on military escapades all over the world.
My opinion is that a stateless society will have people band together and form contracts to provide services between themselves. Large groups of people will form contractor associations that perform large numbers of insurance and other services. The contracts will have significantly more force than the weak constitutions because the people contracting will have the option to deny payment or contract with other parties. This is unlike the constitution where people never contract for specific services with the government and can not leave or deny payment.
[stricken]. Your assumption is that both lawmakers would have the same jurisdiction, which would be impossible, or at least contradictory.
Inevitably there would be a constitution, as at some point a fight between the remnants of the established states and the upstart “nations” would have to be settled with a peace in order to establish a truly private society. The terms of this peace treaty would be the constitution of this new order.
I say no to your needless condescension. Unless you actually like driving people away without convincing them of anything.
Who Daniel is talking to is not so easily driven away.
Nor should he be.
If libertarians can’t handle alimentarius reposting the idiotic things statists say to him, then how do libertarians expect to ever challenge the state, which adds violence to its stupidity?