*Contravene the defense agencies orders before they are executed.
Do you have an actual point with this? I’m not a mind-reader, as you well know, yet you apparently (and implicitly) insist on others being able to read between the lines with your opaque responses. (Inb4 “u mad bro?”)
You’re laboring under an illusion - the illusion of certainty.
Do you think the vast majority of people instinctively believe in essentially the non-aggression principle - at least the vast majority of the time? Why or why not?
So you’re not sure, either, that ancap-ism wouldn’t devolve into some Somalia piece of crap? Just hoping it won’t?
To some degree; I don’t know why, I suspect there are various reasons.
The future is never certain. You seem to think otherwise.
To what degree, in your opinion? That sounds like a negative answer to my question though.
I never said the future was certain.
To some moderate degree, I guess.
Ancap-ism necessarily involves legal competition being restricted to agencies enforcing natural law. Is this correct?
Its not an assumption, its a definition. Extortion doesnt create wealth, it destroys wealth and moves wealth around. Catallacty creates wealth. Profitable enterprises create wealth. Extortion moves it around and destroys it.
it is less common in areas without a functioning central government, as the prime exploiter is nowhere to be found.
I don’t think you had to. What you have said leads me to conclude that you do think that at least some aspects of the future can be certain. For example, you seem to believe that certain words written down on certain pieces of paper will always be believed in and followed. You also seem to believe that certain ideas and/or institutions can actually guarantee certain things.
In other words, you don’t think the vast majority of people believe in what amounts to the non-aggression principle (at least the vast majority of the time). Okay, so why is that?
Given your earlier definition of “natural law” as “the non-aggression principle”, we can translate the above to the following: “Ancap-ism necessarily involves legal competition being restricted to agencies enforcing the non-aggression principle. Is this correct?” Let me ask you this: are you putting that forth as a conclusion, or as a premise? If the former, what are you concluding it from?
No idea. My brain hurts.
Neither; it’s a statement. I’ll take your answer as “no”, although I don’t see how such a system could survive while allowing non-natural law agencies to participate.
Well, I guess you could call it an intermediate conclusion based on how allowing non-NAP-following agencies to make law would result in the law deviating from the NAP.
I call BS on you saying you have no idea. As for your brain hurting, I couldn’t care less. Don’t expect any sympathy from me, troll.
In other words, you’re not even trying to argue from a logical basis? Then you concede everything.
I haven’t answered your question because I don’t completely understand what you’re asking with it. Sorry if that means I’m not playing by your rules. Again, I couldn’t care less.
It seems clear to me that your criticism of anarcho-capitalism is that there’s no way to guarantee the only the non-aggression principle will ever be enforced within it. Your point proves too much, however. There’s never any guarantee of anything about the future. So in that respect, anarcho-capitalism is in the same boat as every other existing/proposed social system.
The problem is that I think people need more than that before they try some radical untried system that depends on firms obeying some forms of anticompetitive behavior but not others.
You think people need more than what?
The justification ancaps give.
Ancap-ism has to prevent non-natural law following agencies from making law. If they allow consumers to chose them, then they will formulate “bad” laws.
And just what do you think that is?
How do you think law can be made, exactly? What definition are you using for “law”?
And just what do you think that is?
The text below that.
How do you think law can be made, exactly? What definition are you using for “law”?
Judge-made law.
Right, because that’s the only justification ever given by anarcho-capitalists…
So what definition are you using for “law”? And how do you see judges making this “law”? I’m not going to move forward until you answer these questions.
Law[2] is a system of rules and guidelines which are enforced through social institutions to govern behavior.
Judge made law is decided by judges in libertopia.
This would be relevant if we were trying to force anarcho-capitalism on a society against their will. However, being voluntaryist, we suggest no such thing. Thus, I reject your detraction as immaterial. We whom reject forcing others to accept any law passed by some random group of legislators are not going to use the same mechanism. Those who enter an ancap society will do so by their own will and knowing already the character of it.
You don’t have to prevent it, actually, you simply need to give individuals the power to choose which law-enforcement agencies they’re going to patronize. Abusive or aggressive law agencies will find themselves quickly without customers and out of business. And should they aggress, they’ll find themselves brought up on charges as well.
The only legitimate law, imo, is that involving justice, meaning that prosecuting invasions of rights. Your definition is the statist definition that assumes everything from negative to positive law should be legitimate topics which law can or should regulate. I reject the idea of law that isn’t about justice as itself an invasion of rights.
The idea of “governing behavior,” where behavior may as well mean “human action” is a prescription for totalitarianism, since all human action is “behavior.”