Framing the debate between minarchists and anarcho-capitalists

[JoshE]

Welcome to the Mises forum.

I don’t know how you can have a monocentric anything and be (let alone remain) “Stateless” since it implies a central authority that asserts dominance over the entire region. And over what area would its monocentric jurisdiction cover - a state, several states, an entire country?

If an Anarcho-capitalist society were achieved, it seems it would need to first devolve into minarchism before getting to the point of being a full-blown State. Like cancer, the State’s tendency is always to grow, and a society that sheds the State only to implement a centralized legal authority is giving itself a small cancer at the outset.

[Minarchist]

Before doing anything else, let’s get this settled.

The words I speak mean exactly what I tell you they mean. You cannot rationally tell me that what I’m saying means something other than what I say it means. That’s the nature of communication. Now, look at what I’ve said about the government court system. I answered your claims that it violates the NAP in a dozen different ways, and you keep making the same claim. I understand what the NAP is, I understand what you’re claim is, I have explained exactly why your claim is false. I have explained that the government court DOES NOT…

D.

O.

E.

S.

N.

O.

T.

…convict anyone of a crime unless 1) they have determined that this person committed the act of violence in question, and 2) that said act was not just retribution.

Now, those words mean what I say they mean. You do not get to claim that I mean something other than what I have said, and then argue against that position which I don’t hold. That’s called a strawman. So, are we clear on this? Is anything unclear? In what way does a court violate the NAP if it’s only task is to convict accused people when they are found to be in violation of the NAP?

[Autolykos]

@Minarchist

Before doing anything else, let’s get this settled.

The words I speak mean exactly what I tell you they mean.

All well and good, except I’m not always sure what you’re telling me they mean. After all, I’m not a mind-reader.

@Minarchist

You cannot rationally tell me that what I’m saying means something other than what I say it means. That’s the nature of communication.

See above. Communication isn’t mind-reading.

@Minarchist

Now, look at what I’ve said about the government court system.

I already have, thanks.

@Minarchist

I answered your claims that it violates the NAP in a dozen different ways, and you keep making the same claim. I understand what the NAP is, I understand what you’re claim is, I have explained exactly why your claim is false.

Apparently not to my satisfaction, which is why I keep bringing it up.

@Minarchist

I have explained that the government court DOES NOT…

[Snipped attempt at intimidation. I suggest not doing this again, but it’s up to you.]

…convict anyone of a crime unless 1) they have determined that this person committed the act of violence in question, and 2) that said act was not just retribution.

Then logically speaking, it will not view - legally speaking - any case that isn’t brought before it as anything at all. Right?

However, I’m being generous here, as your above depiction entirely leaves out the notion of the government court system only judging cases that are brought before it. I’m assuming that you’re still implying that notion, just not stating it explicitly.

@Minarchist

Now, those words mean what I say they mean. You do not get to claim that I mean something other than what I have said, and then argue against that position which I don’t hold. That’s called a strawman. So, are we clear on this? Is anything unclear? In what way does a court violate the NAP if it’s only task is to convict accused people when they are found to be in violation of the NAP?

My point is that this contradicts your earlier statement about the government court system viewing - again, in a legal sense - any act of violence that hasn’t already been authorized by it as a crime. Note that this “any” wasn’t qualified by you. Therefore it includes cases that aren’t brought before the government court system at all. Do you see my point yet? This amounts to the government court system ruling on cases that aren’t brought before it (and therefore that it doesn’t have any authority to rule on).

[Minarchist]

My point is that this contradicts your earlier statement about the government court system viewing - again, in a legal sense - any act of violence that hasn’t already been authorized by it as a crime. Note that this “any” wasn’t qualified by you. Therefore it includes cases that aren’t brought before the government court system at all. Do you see my point yet? This amounts to the government court system ruling on cases that aren’t brought before it (and therefore that it doesn’t have any authority to rule on).

What? When I say the court views “any act of violence” in such and such a way, I’m obviously talking about how the court views any act of violence that is in question in some case before the court. What does your misinterpetation of what I’ve said even mean? How does a court rule on matters that aren’t before it? Why on earth would you think that’s what I was saying? Anyway, it’s not. Are we now clear?

EDIT: and I might add, in the very first post where I described the government court system in question, I explicity stated that the government courts are passive, in that they only hear cases brought before them. In the absence of a public prosecutor and public police, what else could they do? I’m baffled by your latest post…

[Autolykos]

@Minarchist

What? When I say the court views “any act of violence” in such and such a way, I’m obviously talking about how the court views any act of violence that is in question in some case before the court. What does your misinterpetation of what I’ve said even mean? How does a court rule on matters that aren’t before it? Why on earth would you think that’s what I was saying? Anyway, it’s not. Are we now clear?

Maybe now you understand my confusion. I was reacting much the same way as you’re reacting here. Again, your statement was that the government court system would view (again, presumably in a legal sense) any act of violence that it had not already authorized as a crime. That statement wasn’t qualified to only concern cases that were brought before it. Honestly, I wouldn’t expect anyone else to infer that qualification from the context.

So you’re now saying that the government court system would only view acts of violence that it had not already authorized to be crimes in cases that are brought before it. Okay, but now there’s an issue with the government court system making rulings before it makes rulings. That also sounds nonsensical, as I think you’ll agree. Maybe you mean the government court system, in cases brought before it, would assume that a violent act is a crime until sufficiently proven otherwise (i.e. in an affirmative defense)?

If so, my concern then would be about the government court system requiring affirmative defenses in cases of violence brought before it. This destroys the notion of “innocent until proven guilty”. It means the government court system would assume the defendant did, in fact, commit the act of violence that the plaintiff claims he committed. As a result, the facts of the case are made irrelevant and the only thing that matters is whether the defendant can come up with a good enough excuse. However, the common-law notion of affirmative defense requires the defendant to actually affirm at least part of the plaintiff’s claim, which implies that he’s free to not do so.

@Minarchist

EDIT: and I might add, in the very first post where I described the government court system in question, I explicity stated that the government courts are passive, in that they only hear cases brought before them. In the absence of a public prosecutor and public police, what else could they do? I’m baffled by your latest post…

Yes, I know you said that the government court system would be passive and only hear cases brought before it. That’s why I was baffled when you went on to say that it would view any acts of violence not already authorized by it as crimes. “Viewing [something] as a crime” is to render a legal opinion, is it not?

[Minarchist]

Maybe now you understand my confusion. I was reacting much the same way as you’re reacting here. Again, your statement was that the government court system would view (again, presumably in a legal sense) any act of violence that it had not already authorized as a crime. That statement wasn’t qualified to only concern cases that were brought before it. Honestly, I wouldn’t expect anyone else to infer that qualification from the context.

So you’re now saying that the government court system would only view acts of violence that it had not already authorized to be crimes in cases that are brought before it. Okay, but now there’s an issue with the government court system making rulings before it makes rulings. That also sounds nonsensical, as I think you’ll agree. Maybe you mean the government court system, in cases brought before it, would assume that a violent act is a crime until sufficiently proven otherwise (i.e. in an affirmative defense)?

As I said previously:

The question is now: how does the court determine whether or not the defendant in question had a legitimate right to commit his act of violence? This is a question about determining the facts of the case, and the burden of proof is on the defendant: it’s like an affirmative defense.

Per the scenarios above, this means that John Jr must prove that Bob killed John, thus granting him (John Jr) the right of retribution against Bob in the first place. The burden of proof is on the defendant to prove that the violation of the NAP, which he is claiming justifies his own act of violence, in fact occured.

You continue:

If so, my concern then would be about the government court system requiring affirmative defenses in cases of violence brought before it. This destroys the notion of “innocent until proven guilty”. It means the government court system would assume the defendant did, in fact, commit the act of violence that the plaintiff claims he committed. As a result, the facts of the case are made irrelevant and the only thing that matters is whether the defendant can come up with a good enough excuse. However, the common-law notion of affirmative defense requires the defendant to actually affirm at least part of the plaintiff’s claim, which implies that he’s free to not do so.

Re the underlined passage: no, not at all. I am suggesting that once it has been established that the act of violence in question did occur (either because it has been proven to have occurred, or because the defendant admitted that it occurred), then the question arises: was this act of violence actually an instance of just retribution? And if the defendant wishes to claim that the act of violence was just retribution, it is his claim to prove.

To summarize:

Step 1) the plaintiff claims that the defendant committed some act of violence,

Step 2) the court determines whether or not this act of violence in fact occurred, with the burden of proof on the plaintiff;

Step 3) if the court finds that the act did occur, the court then determines whether or not this act of violence is a violation of the NAP (i.e. whether or not it was an acceptable use of violence: e.g. just retribution), with the burden of proof on the defendant to prove that it’s not.

Yes, I know you said that the government court system would be passive and only hear cases brought before it. That’s why I was baffled when you went on to say that it would view any acts of violence not already authorized by it as crimes. “Viewing [something] as a crime” is to render a legal opinion, is it not?

As I said several posts back, that was a poor choice of words on my part - obviously, or it wouldn’t have yielded such confusion. And I tried to explain what I intended for that remark to mean, but I think my explanation just caused further confusion. So, let’s strike the troublesome remark from the record, shall we? Ignore that and listen to what else I’ve said about the workings of the court, which I think I’ve described now quite thoroughly. The courts hear only those cases brought before them by the self-ascribed victims, the court determines whether the alleged act of violence occurred (victim as plaintiff has burden of proof), the court determines whether that act of violence was a violation of the NAP (if defendant claims it was justified he has the burden of proof), the court renders a ruling. The end. And as should be evident at this point, the court does nothing but hear cases and make rulings: it does not in any way enforce any ruling, nor does it compel a defendant to attend trial, nor does it compel witnesses to attend, nor jurors, nor does it have any other powers of coercion. It coerces no one in any way or in any case whatsoever. If a plaintiff wins his case, he alone has the right of retribution against the defendant (he always had the right if he was in fact a victim, the trial was just about publicly establishing whether he did or not), which he can exercise personally, or (as we’ve been discussing) hire a contractor to act on his behalf in exercising that right.

Before moving on, is there anything else about the operation of the government court which is unclear?

[Autolykos]

@Minarchist

Re the underlined passage: no, not at all. I am suggesting that once it has been established that the act of violence in question did occur (either because it has been proven to have occurred, or because the defendant admitted that it occurred), then the question arises: was this act of violence actually an instance of just retribution? And if the defendant wishes to claim that the act of violence was just retribution, it is his claim to prove.

To summarize:

Step 1) the plaintiff claims that the defendant committed some act of violence,

Step 2) the court determines whether or not this act of violence in fact occurred, with the burden of proof on the plaintiff;

Step 3) if the court finds that the act did occur, the court then determines whether or not this act of violence is a violation of the NAP (i.e. whether or not it was an acceptable use of violence: e.g. just retribution), with the burden of proof on the defendant to prove that it’s not.

This might seem like a quibble to you, but there’s a difference between determining whether the violence occurred at all and determining whether it was caused by the defendant. Furthermore, as I said previously, an affirmative defense involves an open admission by the defendant to all or part of the claim brought against him. So it would seem that an affirmative defense, strictly speaking, requires no determination on the part of any court.

@Minarchist

As I said several posts back, that was a poor choice of words on my part - obviously, or it wouldn’t have yielded such confusion. And I tried to explain what I intended for that remark to mean, but I think my explanation just caused further confusion. So, let’s strike the troublesome remark from the record, shall we? Ignore that and listen to what else I’ve said about the workings of the court, which I think I’ve described now quite thoroughly. The courts hear only those cases brought before them by the self-ascribed victims, the court determines whether the alleged act of violence occurred (victim as plaintiff has burden of proof), the court determines whether that act of violence was a violation of the NAP (if defendant claims it was justified he has the burden of proof), the court renders a ruling. The end. And as should be evident at this point, the court does nothing but hear cases and make rulings: it does not in any way enforce any ruling, nor does it compel a defendant to attend trial, nor does it compel witnesses to attend, nor jurors, nor does it have any other powers of coercion. It coerces no one in any way or in any case whatsoever. If a plaintiff wins his case, he alone has the right of retribution against the defendant (he always had the right if he was in fact a victim, the trial was just about publicly establishing whether he did or not), which he can exercise personally, or (as we’ve been discussing) hire a contractor to act on his behalf in exercising that right.

Before moving on, is there anything else about the operation of the government court which is unclear?

Aside from what I pointed out above, I don’t think so - although I see no reason why the government court system must have jurors.

[Minarchist]

This might seem like a quibble to you, but there’s a difference between determining whether the violence occurred at all and determining whether it was caused by the defendant. Furthermore, as I said previously, an affirmative defense involves an open admission by the defendant to all or part of the claim brought against him. So it would seem that an affirmative defense, strictly speaking, requires no determination on the part of any court.

The plaintiff has the burden of proving that the act which he claims occurred did in fact occur (and, obviously, that the defendant was the actor - as if that needed saying). If it’s determined that the act did in fact occur as claimed, then the defendant has the burden of proving that his act was just, if he wishes to make that argument.

I see no reason why the government court system must have jurors.

It is far worse to convict an innocent person than to acquit a guilty person, and certain practices can be employed to minimize the risk of convicting an innocent person: e.g. the right of appeal, double-jeopardy, pardons, and jury trials (where the judge has the right to overturn a jury conviction but not a jury acquittal). Best to error on the side of caution. As I say though, I wouldn’t have coerced jury duty. I’d have a large pool of paid volunteers, from among whom jurors are selected randomly for each case. To directly answer your question, the jury allows for the division of power at the court, between itself and the judge, which affords the accused another opportunity to be acquitted. Why a jury and not a second judge? The other advantage of a jury is that it is (in theory) less subject to corruption than a sitting judge, because it’s members are drawn at random on a case by case basis. To have only a jury leaves the fate of the accused in the hands of amateurs, while to have only a judge leaves him in the hands of a politician. Whereas, given both, either the accused can be acquitted by an honest jury if the judge is corrupt, or acquitted by an expert judge if the jury is foolish.

To elaborate on the other protections I mentioned; each convicted person should have guaranteed access to one appeal, regardless of the specifics of his case, and the elected representatives of the county would have the power to pardon any of their constituents.*

*I haven’t described the entire structure of the government as of yet, so you don’t know what I’m talking about when I say “county” et al. The relevant point here is that there are elected officials other than the judge, and these have the power to pardon.

[Autolykos]

@Minarchist

The plaintiff has the burden of proving that the act which he claims occurred did in fact occur (and, obviously, that the defendant was the actor - as if that needed saying). If it’s determined that the act did in fact occur as claimed, then the defendant has the burden of proving that his act was just, if he wishes to make that argument.

With all due respect, I think it did need saying. I want to make sure there are as few misunderstandings between us as possible.

Is the defendant allowed to change his line of argument in the middle of the trial? Doing so would seem to be required by what you describe above.

@Minarchist

It is far worse to convict an innocent person than to acquit a guilty person, and certain practices can be employed to minimize the risk of convicting an innocent person: e.g. the right of appeal, double-jeopardy, pardons, and jury trials (where the judge has the right to overturn a jury conviction but not a jury acquittal). Best to error on the side of caution. As I say though, I wouldn’t have coerced jury duty. I’d have a large pool of paid volunteers, from among whom jurors are selected randomly for each case. To directly answer your question, the jury allows for the division of power at the court, between itself and the judge, which affords the accused another opportunity to be acquitted. Why a jury and not a second judge? The other advantage of a jury is that it is (in theory) less subject to corruption than a sitting judge, because it’s members are drawn at random on a case by case basis. To have only a jury leaves the fate of the accused in the hands of amateurs, while to have only a judge leaves him in the hands of a politician. Whereas, given both, either the accused can be acquitted by an honest jury if the judge is corrupt, or acquitted by an expert judge if the jury is foolish.

Why do you consider a judge to be a politician here? Is it because he’s elected (as opposed to being for hire)? If a judge were to be for hire instead, would you still consider him to be a politician?

On another note, the possibilities are left wide open for both a corrupt judge and a foolish jury to preside over a trial. In fairness, the same applies to the opposite possibility (expert judge and honest jury).

[Minarchist]

With all due respect, I think it did need saying. I want to make sure there are as few misunderstandings between us as possible.

Is the defendant allowed to change his line of argument in the middle of the trial? Doing so would seem to be required by what you describe above.

It is not difficult to design a government whose only function is judicial, and which does not violate the NAP through its operations. The important question is whether such a government would be viable. Or, what is the same question: can a free market for legal services sustain a natural monopolist? The details of the court procedure for the hypothetical government are not relevant to this question. Do you have anything to say on this question? There’s a large amount of material on this that I posted above that elicited no response from you.

Why do you consider a judge to be a politician here? Is it because he’s elected (as opposed to being for hire)? If a judge were to be for hire instead, would you still consider him to be a politician?

I imagine that I would call any elected official a politician.

On another note, the possibilities are left wide open for both a corrupt judge and a foolish jury to preside over a trial. In fairness, the same applies to the opposite possibility (expert judge and honest jury).

Yes, that is why I chose to use the word “minimize” rather than “eliminate” when I said: “certain practices can be employed to minimize the risk of convicting an innocent person.”

[Autolykos]

@Minarchist

It is not difficult to design a government whose only function is judicial, and which does not violate the NAP through its operations. The important question is whether such a government would be viable. Or, what is the same question: can a free market for legal services sustain a natural monopolist? The details of the court procedure for the hypothetical government are not relevant to this question. Do you have anything to say on this question? There’s a large amount of material on this that I posted above that elicited no response from you.

Why are you changing the subject all of a sudden? Didn’t you want to clear things up about the procedure of your hypothetical government court system?

@Minarchist

I imagine that I would call any elected official a politician.

The implication then is that judges would be elected in your hypothetical government court system. Why couldn’t you just say so explicitly instead of giving a rather snarky answer? Do you think I was being snarky to you?

@Minarchist

Yes, that is why I chose to use the word “minimize” rather than “eliminate” when I said: “certain practices can be employed to minimize the risk of convicting an innocent person.”

Well, how do you think that risk minimized in your hypothetical government court system? Otherwise, I was just noting those other possibilities explicitly for the record.

[Minarchist]

Didn’t you want to clear things up about the procedure of your hypothetical government court system?

No, not really. I never wanted this thread to be about my preferred government court system. I described it briefly when I was asked to describe it, and then I reluctantly responded to the many questions and criticisms about it, but I consider this an excursion from the main issue. There’s no question that it is possible to design a firm (such as the government court system) which provides legal services without violating the NAP. The problem with minarchism has never been that minarchists can’t figure out how to design a coercion-free government. The problem is how to make this government viable without resorting to coercion. Thus the real debate here is about whether it is possible to have a natural monopolist in a free market for legal services. If so, then my government court system (or any other legal services firm) can exist as that natural monopolist and there can be a monocentric legal system without the State; if not, then not. If you look back, the majority of my comments in this thread address this issue of natural monopoly, why law is special and can sustain a natural monopoly, and I only get into the details of my government court system when I have been asked. Our entire exchange (and our mutual misunderstanding) about court procedure was an excursion of this kind. But if you would like to talk more about the details of my government court system, that’s fine by me I guess, I’ll post a more detailed outline and we can dig into it.

The implication then is that judges would be elected in your hypothetical government court system. Why couldn’t you just say so explicitly instead of giving a rather snarky answer? Do you think I was being snarky to you?

I did assume you were being pedantic (asking about how I use the word politician) rather than asking a genuine question, because I had already stated (in the first post describing the government courts) that the judges were elected officials. I said: “Judges are elected by citizens for single-terms.” We seem to have a communication problem in general Autolykos.

Well, how do you think that risk minimized in your hypothetical government court system? Otherwise, I was just noting those other possibilities explicitly for the record.

That’s fine. My point was quite simple. Ceteris peribus, it is less likely for several people to be corrupt/inept than for one to be corrupt/inept. Hence the value of leaving the power of judgement in several hands (jurors and the judge), rather than in the hands of a single person (the judge). I think the general rule that power divided is less likely to be abused than power concentrated is fairly non-controversial.

[Autolykos]

I realized that I had neglected this thread. Sorry about that.

@Minarchist

No, not really. I never wanted this thread to be about my preferred government court system. I described it briefly when I was asked to describe it, and then I reluctantly responded to the many questions and criticisms about it, but I consider this an excursion from the main issue. There’s no question that it is possible to design a firm (such as the government court system) which provides legal services without violating the NAP. The problem with minarchism has never been that minarchists can’t figure out how to design a coercion-free government. The problem is how to make this government viable without resorting to coercion. Thus the real debate here is about whether it is possible to have a natural monopolist in a free market for legal services. If so, then my government court system (or any other legal services firm) can exist as that natural monopolist and there can be a monocentric legal system without the State; if not, then not. If you look back, the majority of my comments in this thread address this issue of natural monopoly, why law is special and can sustain a natural monopoly, and I only get into the details of my government court system when I have been asked. Our entire exchange (and our mutual misunderstanding) about court procedure was an excursion of this kind. But if you would like to talk more about the details of my government court system, that’s fine by me I guess, I’ll post a more detailed outline and we can dig into it.

With all due respect, I think you’re contradicting yourself here. You say that you never wanted this thread to be about your preferred government court system, but you go on to say that your intended purpose of this thread was to debate whether it’s possible to have a natural monopolist in a free market for legal services. Obviously your position is that this is possible, and as support for your thesis, you’ve presented your preferred government court system. However, this means that the thread effectively is about your preferred government court system, which means that if other participants in the thread (such as myself) are confused about one or more aspects of it, it would appear useful for you to clarify them.

So in other words, in using your preferred government court system to try to advance the argument that a natural monopolist is possible in a free market for legal services, you put up your preferred government court system for any/all critical examination. To protest against such examination means you’re either confused or being disingenuous.

@Minarchist

I did assume you were being pedantic (asking about how I use the word politician) rather than asking a genuine question, because I had already stated (in the first post describing the government courts) that the judges were elected officials. I said: “Judges are elected by citizens for single-terms.” We seem to have a communication problem in general Autolykos.

I wasn’t being pedantic in the slightest. That judges would be elected officials (i.e. politicians) in your preferred government court system was highly implicit because the only place you referred to it was in the following: “To have only a jury leaves the fate of the accused in the hands of amateurs, while to have only a judge leaves him in the hands of a politician.” I wanted to make this explicit, for the record, as I think leaving it so highly implicit would be insufficiently clear. But I now see that you had referred to judges being elected by citizens for single terms in a much earlier post, so I stand corrected here.

@Minarchist

That’s fine. My point was quite simple. Ceteris peribus, it is less likely for several people to be corrupt/inept than for one to be corrupt/inept. Hence the value of leaving the power of judgement in several hands (jurors and the judge), rather than in the hands of a single person (the judge). I think the general rule that power divided is less likely to be abused than power concentrated is fairly non-controversial.

Right, that’s certainly true from the standpoint of mathematical probability - given 12 uniformly distributed random variables that can be in one of two states, the probability that all 12 will be in the same state is 0.5^12 = 0.000244140625, or less than 3% of 1%. But I don’t think it’s realistic to model juror behavior that way. I think the chances of all 12 (or however many) jurors being corrupt/inept can be much greater than 0.000244140625.

Plus, even accepting arguendo that a 12-person jury will necessarily be less corrupt/inept than a single person, wouldn’t that mean that a 13-person jury will necessarily be even less so? How then does the 12-person jury actually minimize corruption/ineptidude? Mathematically speaking, minimizing that would require a jury of an infinite number of people. Of course, that’s not realistic, but the “next best thing” to an infinite-person jury is a jury consisting of everyone. My point here, however, is simply to show that your claim that the risk of convicting an innocent person is not actually minimized by what you advocate.

[Minarchist]

@Autolykos,

I realized that I had neglected this thread. Sorry about that.

No problem.

With all due respect, I think you’re contradicting yourself here. You say that you never wanted this thread to be about your preferred government court system, but you go on to say that your intended purpose of this thread was to debate whether it’s possible to have a natural monopolist in a free market for legal services. Obviously your position is that this is possible, and as support for your thesis, you’ve presented your preferred government court system. However, this means that the thread effectively is about your preferred government court system, which means that if other participants in the thread (such as myself) are confused about one or more aspects of it, it would appear useful for you to clarify them.

So in other words, in using your preferred government court system to try to advance the argument that a natural monopolist is possible in a free market for legal services, you put up your preferred government court system for any/all critical examination. To protest against such examination means you’re either confused or being disingenuous.

The question of whether a natural monopoly is possible in a free market for legal services is distinct from the question of how any given legal services firm should operate (ethically/legally speaking). The former is an economic question, the latter is an ethical/legal question. For example, we started discussing whether there should be a jury system or not - but this question has no bearing whatsoever on the question of whether it is possible to have a natural monopoly in legal services. I want to discuss the economic question of the possibility of having a natural monopoly, not the ethical questions of how any particular legal services firm (whether one of several rival firms or a monopolist) should operate. The structure of the natural monopolist firm that I’m advocating is relevant only insofar as it pertains to economics. For example, you might point out that the firm is structured in such a way as to have calculation problems. That’s germane to the economic question at hand: whereas talking about whether juries should exist or not is not relevant to the economic question at hand, it is a legal/ethical question.

So, let us please limit our discussion to the economic question (can there exist a natural monopoly for legal services in a free market?), and leave the ethical/legal discussion for another time. The details of my proposed system are relevant only insofar as they have economic implications.

Now, since we talked last, I’ve elaborated on and changed my vision of the government court system. Again, the ethics/legal practices aren’t relevant. But there are some new structural features which do change the economics. I don’t have time to get into it just now, but I’ll post again shortly.

Cheers

[Autolykos]

Minarchist, you were the one who kept inserting details about your preferred government court system to support your contention that a natural monopoly is inevitable in a free market for legal services. If you didn’t want the nature of your preferred government court system to be challenged, then I don’t think you should’ve inserted any details about it. So no, I see nothing wrong with challenging the nature of your preferred government court system as a means of challenging your broader contention. The challenges I was making concerned whether your preferred government court system would actually operate the way you think it would, including whether it would actually constitute a non-aggressive institution. As anarcho-capitalism is not merely an economic theory, I see no reason to limit our discussion to economics. I don’t think you’ve done so yourself to begin with.

With all that said, I look forward to reading about your revised government court system. Rest assured that I will challenge it in exactly the same way that I challenged its first incarnation.