How are the police, army and courts gonna make money if not taxing the people or benefiting from crime?
For-profit justice/security/defense is just too far out of your typical mode of thinking for you to understand it yet. Kings/natural elites were once basically defense insurers. There is enough history of this that you can’t just claim it is hypothetical.
Proper justice is not preventative in nature but punishments are focused toward the victim’s suffering, not fallacious “crimes against society”. Part of the punishment or retribution is costs of capture, more accurately costs of recapturing all that is owed. Security firms stand to profit from both providing fair treatment to a pool of insured customers as well as fees for “tracking down bad guys”.
The poor will likely have security at many public places. It makes sense to have a few patrols at a supermarket pulling in millions per year. As a side effect and maybe minor cost, any person will enjoy security in these places. The poor typically rent housing and this would be part of the cost. Even uninsured poor will have plenty of security firms ready to defend them for profit when they are targets of crime.
We don’t want kings and natural elites in a libertarian society?
language tip:
its more fruitful to discuss what is compatible with libertarianism rather than what various people ‘would want there to be’ in a libertarian society…
Police, courts and defense service providers will have to make money like everyone else: They must provide a product the consumers value more than they do.
If some consumers refuse to pay for these services, that is fine. They can certainly defend themselves. The poor will probably fall into this category.
Consider the poorest places in the USA, these are typically the places where people have the least power to defend themselves and their property from aggression. And the biggest agressor is normally the government. These places have large tax burdens that suck resources away from those that need them most. Look at Detroit as an example.
Regarding the Iceland solution: Why would anyone pay to become a lawgiver if it didn’t give them any advantages?
The poor were at no disadvantage. The poor could sell their right to justice to someone, such as a chieftain or another respected peer, who could collect or make right upon the victim.
Need I say more?
yes?
So if a poor guy sold me his rights, I could treat him as I saw fit?
And the judges, wouldn’t they have to be educated personell? Why would anyone educate themselves in law if they didn’t get paid for their work?
no you misunderstood what right is sold. its the right to pursue justice in a particular matter of property. not of ones stake in justice in general.
ye, i reckon judges that are educated would have some comparative advantage over judges that lacked appropriate education…
why would people not get paid for work?
No we don’t. The problem is that in this site you’ll find people who can be described as ‘anarcho conservatives’ - not libertarians - and who say confusing things, probably on purpose…
Well, I don’t know where people get the idea that Iceland under the vikings (pirates/criminals right ?) had anything to do with a free society.
I don’t think you can look at the past and find an example of a libertarian society. Trying to find such an example where none exists will only create confusion.
Who should pay the judges?
The disputants who hired that judge to attempt to settle their dispute. In libertarian theory, parties to a dispute have a right to settle their dispute however they both see fit. This is the reason for duels. But if you’re not up to a duel, you can offer mediation. Unfortunately, many libertarians leave out the fact that, if you are a victim, you must be a sufficient threat to your aggressor for him or her to have an incentive to come to court. Otherwise, they’ll just give you the finger and that’s that. If you take matters into your own hands (without adjudication), you are liable to be charged with a crime and you must be able to show you were in the right.
Clayton -
Are anarcho-individualism, voluntaryism, anarcho-capitalism and agorism synonomyes?
Which means that the judges would benefit from crime?
in the same way farmers cooks and waiters benefit from hunger and starvation.
and sheep farmers and textile workers benefit from bad weather and human frailty
etc. etc. etc.
benefit maybe isnt the right word.
The middle two are. The first one, I don’t know what that is. Everyone creates these new anarcho-somethings all the time. Like that guy Juan up thread. Anarcho-conservatives. Except no one identifies themself as such.
Agorism is new libertarian stuff. Counter-economics. Which is black markets, engaging in what is illegal under the state, but is not illegal in a libertarian sense. This means working for cash and paying no taxes, barter economy, drugs, sex, security etc. Agorism is mostly a theoretical concept. I don’t think there are many people actively engaging in tax resistance or bartering home-grown food products. The idea is to replace the state with a counter-economy, a market anarchist economy. It’s mostly pie in the sky stuff.
I am a voluntaryist or an ancap. I am for non-aggression. My personal preferences are no ones business but my own, although some here have opposition to others practicing revealed religion or individual sovereignty, so not everyone is on the same page with that stuff.
The judges would benefit from resolving disputes peacefully (the other alternative being that disputes would be resolved violently). Clearly, society benefits from this.
Clayton -
So if there were none of very few disputes over a long time, judges would lose their jobs. And then the system would be vulnerable to criminal activity.
I can see why we wouldn’t want kings in a free society, but what’s wrong with natural elites?