““You never explained why warlordism has historically been a viable business model””"
a survey of the historical record would reveal that your terminology is beyond imprecise, and productivity is negatively correlated with the amount of extortion present in a society. Troll harder.
You’re assuming that states with warlord problems tend or tended to ban guns- Columbia, Somalia, Afghanistan, and so forth. In all cases, this was not true.
Productivity correlations don’t answer the question. You have to explain why warlordism can persist if it supposedly can’t fund itself.
Two ways that could be handled–and this would be up to the originator of the community.
Either you go with a consensus model, where if some private law gets proposed that says that everyone in the community must adopt the law or those whom do adopt it will exclude those whom do not, then what happens is dependent on how many accept that law. It cannot be forced on people, but if the majority accept it then the minority must leave. And if this eventuality was written into the charter from the beginning then the leavers cannot complain. They will simply clone the jurisdiction’s law-base, minus the one new law they couldn’t agree on, and setup shop next door with hardly an interruption of their lives.
If the law fails to be approved by a majrity of citizens, then the minority, meaning those who did accept the law, must either leave or abandon the law themselves in order to stay.
The second way you could setup a charter is that all changes that aren’t agreed on unanimously won’t be adopted. The net result is that if anyone person decides they need a change and can’t convince everyone they need it too, then they must start a new jurisdiction to obtain that change.
And since the barrier to entry of jurisdictions is low, that’s perfectly possible and hardly an imposition on them.
Starting a jurisdiction, fyi, means writing a charter and registering it online as the bounds of your property and whomever agrees with it, if any.
With the consent of the governed, obviously. And, among those governments, the societies where the government more effectively represents the populace, those people who choose to live under the government are more productive. Its a mostly voluntary arrangement. Now contrast this with governments that have to impose their will on the population, and see how much less they produce, and how much more they expend simply to (fail at) maintaining status quo.
That still does not make plunder a form of wealth production. It’s a form of parasitism.
You ignore the premise of starting with a free society whose individuals understand, accept, and believe deeply in their liberty (as would be necessary to form a voluntary society) and thus, their absolute rejection of parasitism and coercion.
You. Have. No. Valid. Arguments.
That sounds a lot like… majority rule!
Well, the free market is a democracy of sorts. (Don’t worry, I haven’t forgotten about your earlier replies.)
I see your premises, Phi, and raise you the fact they only hold in a specific society that may or may not exist in the real world. But okay, if those premises are correct, then the rest of your argument holds.
Afghanistan doesnt have warlord problems, they have central government problems. I havent been to colombia but I imagine its the same down there.
Aren’t warlords just smaller states?
I’m not saying warlordism is a good idea, just that it’s the likely outcome of profit-maximizing independent legal agencies who prey upon the weak. You have to prove that the productivity from the free market is enough to convince Barack Obama that he would make more money if he dissolved the government.
Yes, and that’s likely what happens when you privatize the state services and military.
And yet it’s not. There remains in my scenario a way to escape any law and simply not accept them. In majority rule laws can be forced on you explicitly. In my scenario laws cannot be forced on you. That’s a pretty big difference. And since the way that consensus would be dealt with is explicitly written into the charter up-front, and anyone joining a community explicitly accepts the charter before joining, they will have accepted the need to leave if everyone but them agrees to a rule for living there that requires everyone to agree to it or leave.
Voluntaryism is thereby retained. Big difference.
Just how weak do you think “the weak” would necessarily be?
… Why is that, exactly?
You can leave the US and renounce your citizenship at any time. Does this make a society voluntarist?
I think there are more than two ways of handling that little problem. For example, two competing legal standards could exist, and if the parties to a dispute couldnt agree on an arbitrator, this would create demand for more skilled people to enter the arbitration field. Multiple cultures could share the same area, as they do now, and settle disputes among themselves in one court and with outsiders in other courts. I think polycentric law would respect freedom of association and create a strong network of individuals.
Because if you don’t, then he’ll keep on being a tyrant.
What do you think is the actual vs. intended purpose of a military?
And in these cases, and other like them, as was stated before, the people were never educated in the philosophy of liberty nor the laws of economics. This, too, is a prerequisite for a voluntary society.
I mean, mercantilism is no where near as stict as it once was (although it is still rampant in the modern world in many forms), and all because the understand ing the laws of economics was unknown and undiscovered until only a few centuries ago.
You still fail.