That’s not an answer to my question. How would you choose which individual to appeal to?
This thread is not complete without these.
There were no negatives. It was just a totally awesome book.
His PDA? His friends? Why is the only connection that helps here supposed to be genetic code or having sex?
If true, this is again not what you need to prove. You need to say that it’s the only possible such system. However, it is not such a system, or rather, if it is, it’s a lousy one. How on earth would you expect my family to decide fairly between me and a neighbor?
That’s your neighbor’s problem. If he also has a family, then both your families will have to sort this out by appealing to someone whose authority they respect, typically a tribal chief.
Well this is a bizarre question. How would I choose which individual to choose in a private service market? Myself personally, I would look for experience and fairness. That is just my subjective economic preference though. Other individuals could choose a person based on anything.
Then what does this all have to do with families? Your conclusion only holds if one thinks that all families are equally powerful. If not, then by your previous statements, they won’t appeal, the more powerful family will win. This is no different from what you said about individuals.
Families provide security and justice at the small scale. Most disputes won’t need to be appealed to higher up.
On a related note, my family had once agreed with an insurance company to see an arbiter, and so we did. We didn’t have to waste time and energy in court, the insurance firm didn’t, and we came to an agreement and both saved money on it. The firm that does the arbitration is really good and well known by many law firms.
Private courts and arbitration are one thing and can be easily handled. Enforcement of law is another issue, probably dealing with police/security (which i know nothing about)
The last job I had used arbitration to settle its disputes with workers. Its faster and less costly for both sides.
So you claim justice cannot be provided without securities, when challenged appeal to the existence of a non-family mechanism, then say it doesn’t contradict your point because it would only be rarely used?
Calling Hoppe Judeo-Christian truly exemplifies what I was saying in the Molyneux thread about making things up.