Noooo… Just that he has defied the property rights of others and now action has been taken against him. Stefan Molyneux’s DRO system would be a great sysyem to live under
But who should take action against him, and who should determine the sentence? The first one to catch him?
And don’t we need objective and common procedures for investigation, custody, judgment etc? How can this be accomplished in an anarchy?
How can this be accomplished with a state [monopoly on the initiation of violence over a given territory]? How’s the state doing these days with law enforcement? Eh?
If you’re not an anarcho-capitalist, then you need to defend the state. We don’t need to defend Natural Law.
How about this argument:
The state is inevitable. All experience teaches us that anarchy is unstable, and in the end collapses to be replaced by a state.
The argument is turned on it’s head when you take the viewpoint that we already are in a state of anarchy. The difference is that the ‘state’ is nothing more than a corporation practicing coercion.
It would be no different in Anarchy with a rogue PDA. The difference is, due to that coercion, we are unable to change our defense provider.
What are your thoughts on that?
Would arbitration not exist in an anarchist society? I believe the market would prove that statement wrong but we can only speculate in our present condition.
In an anarchy, we don’t have known rules for what is permitted and not, standard procedures for investigation, judicual authority etc?
I think the concept is that property owners will gravitate to firms who respect and protect private property. Thus it becomes profitable to be an insurance provider who will protect private property.
But we need well known judicial procedures in a society. We don’t have that if everyone is allowed to punish anyone as he sees fit. Should anti-abortionists be allowed to execute girls who abort? Should muslims be allowed to kill those who offend their prophet?
I feel like this is a repeat of a thread we’ve had here like 1000 times. And is a reason why we need a FAQ page.
At any rate your arguments are inductive. Also readup on PDA’s. Tomorrow I’ll get you some links so you can re-read some other lengthy posts. I’m to tired to get into this and this money-crank is driving me nuts.
What’s PDAs?
In an anarchy, private protection companies will replace police forces, and they will of course protect different ideologies. Won’t this end in chaos?
States protect different ideologies. This sometimes ends in chaos.
But states can externalize the costs of war onto their population. PDAs can’t, so they have more incentive to solve things peacefully.
Private defense agencies.
that’s what the state does now
This. A PDA would not be able to sustain the funding of a a violent stance. Consumers would dis-associate themselves from these agencies and move to peaceful ones.
No. Iran doesn’t execute gay Americans for instance.
If no Iranians ever have executed gay Americans then Iranians do not see it “fit” to execute them.
the edit won’t work. but i wanted to add:
I don’t know why you said “No” that threw me off. I don’t know what you are trying to point out. somebody made a choice, Iranians in this instance.
How is an anarchy gonna work when anarchists don’t even agree on the concept of property rights?