So basically, you’re expecting the community to not fund competing legal systems and instead agree on how to run law and order?
Well, I hope you’re right.
I am arguing that 1) it is not simpler and 2) you don’t get to take all of a person’s property.
As for 1) it requires weapons and trained pirates, which require capital on a consistent basis to maintain, and the use of force, which is usually, if not always, messy. Then the thieves must deal with those that fight back (and it is likely that most will resist in some form or another). Then once the band of thieves is widely recognized, the resistance becomes stronger, as people not only prepare to defend themselves more forcefully, but many will likely actively go out looking to capture, kill, or drive off the thieves. And all of that means even more capital is needed to remain successful.
Which brings me to 2) people will begin to hide their property, making it more difficult (capital and labor intensive) to steal. They will begin converting some, and perhaps much, of their property into defensive capital like guns, bombs, booby traps, security cameras, etc. which makes the task of plundering even more capital and labor intensive. Then in many scuffles, some property will be destroyed, whether through gun shot damage, fire damage, etc. And then, some people will take the “if I can’t have my property, no one can!” attitude and deliberately destroy property so the thieves will have nothing to take from them.
Voluntary trade allows for not only the creation of new wealth, but the preservation of old wealth. Plunder does neither.
In early America, dispute resolution was provided by traveling circuits of judges and lawyers. Abraham Lincoln was involved in one such circuit. They’d go town to town, offering adjudication for a fee.
In a free society, something very similar would be done.
You mean in my suggestion of communities? In any honest disagreement, two parties whom want to resolve a dispute can always find a reputable third party to settle to dispute, and agree to bind themselves to the decision. It’s not really a problem and never has been in much of the world.
The real issue is how to deal with disputes where one part won’t come to the table, criminal disputes.
Unless people altruistically donate time and money to forming a militia or something, these individual precautions aren’t going to give them any military organization.
You can’t hide land, labor or (significant) capital. Those are the kinds of things that warlords exploit. You can’t hide boat off the coast of Somalia, and the cost to defend it is so high you might as well just pay the money the bandits demand.
I guess I should have figured that, instead of trying to frame a legitimate argument, you resort to a comment like that.
I still think my example applies to the point I am demonstrating. It is a hypothetical situation where there is no State threatening McDonalds, as is evidenced by the fact that in my example, no authority showed up to arrest the offending restaurateurs. Is it the names you disagree with in my hypothetical? Fine, let’s replace “McDonalds” with “Liberty’s” and replace “Burger King” with “AnCap Burger.”
And now we are back to you being unable to grasp the possibility of a free society dealing with a social problem like the one provided in my example.
I just think that warlordism would be rare if it wasn’t profitable. That’s all.
Its not profitable in an austrian sense, because no wealth is created. Extortion and robbery cause wealth to change hands, they dont create wealth.
Whatever you want to call it, it is fiscally sustainable and a viable business model in many parts of the world.
People contributing to their own defense could hardly be considered “altruism.” troll harder.
Unless the band of thieves isn’t as treacharous and overreaching as you seem to imply, I see no reason to doubt that most people would focus their energy of defending their property.
Did you just purposefully ignore the rest of my post so you would feel as though your argument had a glint of hope? No, one cannot hide land, but they can booby trap it, as I said. Labor cannot be stolen. And significant capital can be sold for weapons, cameras, etc. (as I said) or could be destroyed so there is nothing to steal in a “if I can’t keep it, no one can have it!” mentality (as I said).
You can steal labor; slavery is common in Somalia. Then they get these slaves to work the minefielded land at little cost. Destroying or liquidating capital is costly to the owner, and in cases like piracy it’s cheaper to just give over the money.
Lots of activities are sustainable in the absence of effective competition. Whats your point?
Well, these warlords might take steps to prevent that effective competition, whatever you mean by that.
do you know what makes it more profitable than it would otherwise be in some parts of the world? The fact that many citizens are not “legally” permitted to be armed, even for self-defense (a policy pushed for and implemented by statist regimes).
rolls eyes Slavery is not stolen labor.
And again, many people that believe deeply in their liberty would refuse to just pay the fee. I’m not saying all, nor am I saying it is wise. I’m saying some instances of such occurrences will happen. Just like people that, to their core, believe that they are free are much more likely to fight back rather than just paying the fee, even if that means converting a large portion of their capital to weapons and others forms of defensive/security capital. Again, it doesn’t have to be all, but many likely will. And this is in the hypothetical of a free society existing first, before thieves and pirates emerge to attempt plunder, meaning that in the beginning, people believe deeply in their liberty.
And a meteor made of solid gold might hit the earth and destroy our way of life by inflating the supply of gold and blocking the sun with dust. It seems like you might be grasping at extremely abstract straws here. Whats your point?
Well, the various ancap proposals generally involve something to prevent the emergence of aggressive legal systems. Suppressing these agencies is a restriction on consumer choice and competitive behavior.
Youre reaching for something that, IMO, isnt there. Be more specific. The agencies themselves are a barrier to the emergence of aggressive legal systems, they arent even the only one. It stands to reason that the market would provide more than one legal standard, these multiple standards wouldnt have to be aggressive.
Yes. Agencies are a barrier to legal competition because they hinder the emergence of aggressive legal systems. This restricts consumer choice.
How so? The agencies dont make aggression impossible. They provide consumers protection services. Assassination services will still be on the market.