and I definitely don’t remember an “elder brother” discussed in the book either.
maybe if people quoted some of his book it would help provide intellectual footing. or maybe he brought up some of these issues in other writings of his, i don’t know, but this thread is about his book so it would help to know what in the book everybody is pointing out.
It wasn’t needed. Elder brother, tribal sheiks and so on up the hierarchy to king are perfectly normal and understood as given.
that’s fine. but you threw in Hoppe and then finalized your post with a conclusion that those individuals without a family are 100% dependent on the state. but what of the mountain man who intentionally gets away from the state and usually family? or what about single people? are they all dependent on the state as well? i didn’t quite follow what you’re trying to point out. and injecting it was hoppe discussing “elder brother” and his role isn’t to be found in the book. not to say it’s wrong, but the book didn’t necessarily cover such issues in detail, fair?
The mountain man has nothing and thus nothing to protect. He is not civilized.
“has nothing”? clothes, food, shelter, needed to protect himself from other people at times or animals. not sure what you mean by “not civilized”. again not sure what you are saying. and what about single people? again what does this have to do with them being without families thus somehow dependent on the state?
Who would a single person turn to for help if this person had a conflict with a neighbor?
What kind of conflict?
a friend or him or her own self. maybe such a person has a pet dog too. i mean the possibilities.
Any kind. Doesn’t matter.
And this neighbor will be able to easily oppose overwhelming force against him and take whatever he wants.
Sure it matters. If it is a conflict like who has a better football team then it could potentially be any of his social contacts. If it is a rights violations then it would be a private court system.
A conflict is a dispute over property rights. Who has the best football team is just an argument.
What private court system exists other than the state?
this whole discussion has been contingent from the start on your part.
the neighbor you have in mind isn’t as big and doesn’t have the weapons that the sole individual has or his gang of friends can bring. neighbor loses.
forgetting that hypotheticals are about possibilities turn into sandbox fun and games. I brought a plastic shovel so I can build a sand mountain higher than the stick your using, etc, etc… contingent fun and games.
good night. fun while it lasted[:)]
The state is an institution with a monopolist claim on legal services in a given geographical location so no private system can exist where there is a state. I thought we were discussing a anarchist environment concerning conflict.
Well that’s the point of this thread, how can the state become a monopolist on justice? It does this by destroying natural elites, starting with the biggest and working its way down to the smallest.
If I have a family, and my neighbor is giving me trouble, I don’t have to sue him in a state court. I can just ask my family to help settle the dispute, and I will likely have a much better, more efficient service of justice. If I don’t have a family because I was raised by a single mother in a public housing project, then I can’t call on anyone for help other than the state.
Not really an objective judge in a matter between you and a stranger
No, you do. Its called an arbitrator. Private legal systems.
The family is such a system.
Well perhaps it could be but I don’t think the family is an objective source to settle disputes. There are individuals who could sell their services as a adjudicator so it is not as if it is family or state.
Why would you hire such an individual as opposed to any other one?
A sense of legitimacy, formality, a desire for justice regardless of your personal interests. There can be a multitude of reasons.