Maybe we’re talking past each other. A free society is a society in which the use of aggressive force is outlawed. A society which tolerates aggression is not a free society - whether aggression is monopolized by the state or not is not really the point is it ?
Free societies will be run by no one.
That’s what makes them “free” societies. Get it?
Who will enforce this law?
Only armed societies are free.
The majority of people. It’s called self-government.
Not really. Government is the real threat to liberty, not ‘foreigners’.
Ah, democracy. But it still begs the question: how will the majority impose their will? Furious argument on internet forums?
And how are you going to prevent coercive government from taking root? Again, furious debate?
I didn’t mention democracy. A free society can exist only if the majority believes that force and fraud are wrong. And if that’s the case, no ‘enforcing’ is needed. I would call that self-government. On the other hand, if the only way to have private property is by ‘enforcing’ it, then private property is not going to work.
And how will you ? By shooting people who happen to claim that taxes are a good idea ?
That depends - do they act on their belief that taxes are good? If so, then yes, self-defence against them is perfectly justified.
-Jon
I didn’t mean it’s wrong to shoot people who want to tax you. I don’t think it is. I’m saying it’s not practical.
Well, agreed the cooperation protects the shareholders. Which in turn means, as the cooperation is in all manners regarded as a person, that it can be sued against. In a free society, one can not sue against a group or any other artificial construct like a coorporation. You pointed that out by showing that the lazy guy would be sued for his actions. Now, where is the reason for a cooperation and the proposed veil for the shareholders? If they do not act wrongfully, they can not be sued anyway, if they act, they are personally responsible. My point is, that in a free society veils are not only not necessary but totally useless and therefor the concept of an artificial person won’t lead anywhere anyway. Sure, you could set up such a construct, but it would be as useful as printing your own money would be (see Rothbards nice explanation on this).
Regarding the privileges, I referred to the state, because this was the group in context. I agree, that a privilege can be granted by any group that is willing to use force to keep the rest of the population from doing what the priviliged are allowed.
Yet, a privilege is not a contract, but something that allows a third party to do things no one else not having the privilege is allowed to do. And it is enforced violently. I can not think about anything in a free society that would allow privileges as a group can not grant any rights that is not owned by any member of that group individually. Hence, if a group does not have any rights that every other individual has too, what kind of privilege could a group have to offer without commiting a crime? A privilige is not so much based on what it allows the holder to do, rather it is based on what to prevent all others from doing. Big difference.
The word privilege means literally “private law” and ousts itself through its very idea from freedom.
The state merely recognized what private contracts on the market were already starting to do. Shareholders can be sued if it is found they directly managed or took part in the affairs of the business. Contracts allow delegation of liability to other parties if that delegation of liability includes the responsibilty of directing the affairs delegated. Otherwise that contract is fraudulant. Hence shareholders can delegate liability to who runs the business so long as they do not run it themselves.
As for suing, anybody can sue anyone already. It is just that in cases where the liability AND the managment position are both voluntarily delegated in written contract, the case will have a hard time standing since the shareholders are literally not responsible for the actions the corporation took.
As for other cases dealing with employee-employer relations when the employee screws up on the job and the employer is held responsible this is fine since as the employer’s agent (meaning directly managed) he has the duty to properly have oversight in some way over his agents. In limited liability this relationship is explicitly denied in a contract with the shareholders having no control over the business affairs or the C.E.O who runs it all and takes the responsibility directly in a contract for all to see.
If anything about this contract is not being executed like if shareholders do not remain passive and are informing the C.E.O about what to do or invest in, the corporate veil can be pierced and the C.E.O and the shareholder can be sued with success.
Yes it does - liberty and coercion are dichotomous. Stop blatantly blurring the distinction between anarchism and authoritarianism in an attempt to justify the latter.
No shit…
Actually what you’re describing would constitute the universalization of rulership, wheras anarchism is about abolishing rulership. A society in which everyone can initiate force is the exact opposite of the implication of the non-aggression principle. The implication of the non-aggression principle would be that noone can legitimately do so. Also your use of these terms seems to blur any distinction between defense and initiation, as you simply refer to “force” as such, which is totally ambiguous.
The NAP is an abstract principle. The good news is that anarchy presents the best chance (in fact, the only chance) of the principle being followed. Again, anarchy will not break out when philosophy majors declare it. It will break out when everybody has as much force at their disposal as the government. This will not be a world free of coercion–there is and never will be any such place on earth. It will however be a world where coercion is minimized.
So anarchists wouldn’t even rule themselves?
Who would enforce this NAP? Unless everyone can, it doesn’t stand any chance of being honored.