You have to write the law, interpret it, and enforce it. This necessitates the use of scarce resources. Now, unless you want to argue that the resources for such services are to be provided as a gift from nature or God, then you must concede the point that law is an economic good.
Well I completely agree with that, I don’t think I’d be able to wriggle out of that if I was so minded, I don’t think I really butted in very well. Any way my real quibble is with Anarchism rather than Austrian Economics, the latter being irrefutable.
Someone kindly posted a “answers to 10 objections” leaflet. This went somewhere to answering concerns.
I have a couple of questions that you or someone on this forum may help me with.
In an anarchist society as there is no central law majority arbitration agreement would become that central law. Is that a correct understanding? For example “property” would become “property” through consensus of arbitration?
One of the central tenets of Anarchism seems to be non-coercion. Coercion appears to be allowed to deal with breakers of this tenet and also to prevent it’s breaking. In an Anarchist system where you have religious groups such as Islam for instance it’d very likely start utilising Sharia for its arbitration -but in areas where it was the majority it’s very likely try imposing it on non-muslims . How would an Anarchist society prevent a takeover like this (obviously Islam is only an example here)?
The whole point behind competitive institutions providing law is to prevent such a coercive “takeover” as the one you describe. In fact, it is precisely the system of monopolistic government that leaves you with no protection from such impositions, so this is rather strange criticism that is often raised. You’re right, why take radial Islam as an example, when nearly all of the current laws on the books are coercive impositions that you are compelled to accept.
In a free society, you would patronize only those institutions that you support so you could not be compelled to accept any such impositions. You must remember that in the free society, all property is privately owned. So that undesirable conflicts can be systematically avoided. You do not have to smoke in a privately owned restaurant that bans smoking. I trust that you would not consider such a ban as a coercive imposition but as a right of the property owner to set his own rules. You do not have to associate yourself with that owner.
Sharia arbitrations, like Hassidic Jewish arbitration, would be compulsive to only those voluntary members of the institutions that provide and enforce such laws. If the members of such communities want to interact with the rest of society, their laws could in no way impose any involuntary obligation on anybody else.
Attempts of “takeovers” by force by radical groups are theoretically possible but just as they are now also possible under State monopoly. Such attempts would be suppressed by private defense agencies of other customers. Individuals in the free society also retain the right to bear arms on their property and the property of others who allow it. It is precisely the monopoly of the State that leaves you more vulnerable to such violent “takeovers”. The State is inefficient and highly prone to corruption. It is political in nature. The radical groups can win political favors with certain politicians that actually make their “takeover” more feasible. There can be no such political favors with private defense agencies operating in a free market.
Great! I hope you continue to challenge and study these ideas more in depth so you can be more confident about your positions on these issues. The more knowledge you gain, the more effective you will be on influencing others.
In an anarchist society, it is conceivable that a central law agreement could come about, but I think it most likely that the law would always be in flux, much like production of anything else is. New situations, arising from changing societies and new technologies, will always have the law changing. But the law would start with some basics that all human societies agree on, and the details can be worked out over time, always subject to change.
Property would become property simply by being claimed. It is only when there is a challenge to that claim that we might need arbitration. The property is yours when you start using it, at least in the economic sense. In the legal sense, someone might challenge it and say that although you have it, you should not have it. An arbitration process might be needed to sort out the disagreement, at which point the system will rule on the should which might make the having change hands.
Non initiation of coercion, not non-coercion.
Anyway, it is quite possible that a society of followers of Sharia law might use their critical mass to impose themselves. For instance, Friedman argues that an anarchist society of private defense agencies would still leave us with many drugs being outlawed. An anarchist society doesn’t have to be libertarian, but I think the economic pressures of such a society would constantly push it in that direction.
So the anarchist society might not prevent the takeover, but at least it would make the takeover difficult. England had more trouble dominating Ireland and the Ibos tribe of West Africa than other societies because there was no central apparatus to which all individuals had sword loyalty, or been brainwashed into supporting. A Sharia takeover is never ruled out as a possibility, but decentralizing a society makes it harder.
I never said anything about respecting other people’s ‘property rights’. Do what thou wilt shall be the whole of the law sort of thing. If you think Max Stirner was an An-Cap you’re smoking Spooner’s crack.
So you think it is OK for people to rape you? If not, do you think it is OK to rape others? If so, then you are being inconsistent. So no, it would not be a consistent philosophy.
One cannot rape nor murder those without rights. Also, I think it is legal. I don’t advocate doing it, and I would appreciate it if you would be mature enough to recognize that.
Also, you think people can have their children taken from them without a trial first. You also think children have negative rights, but that locking them in their room is not a violation of their rights. Inconsistent much?
I don’t know what you mean by ‘okay’. If you mean normatively justified, I don’t think anything is normatively justified (except by some arbitrary hermeneutical nonsense). I think if you want to rape someone, and the costs and benefits are worth it (from your perspective) then you’d have to be crazy not to.
I’m not speaking for spideynw as E.R. made a good point about his position.
Liberte, I wouldn’t leave out the other characters in this possible world involved in the conflict over scarcity. From the “perspective”, or more accurately, the act of the person being raped and/or trying to stop the rape. Their act of stopping the rapist, to use your proposition, “the costs and benefits are worth it (from your perspective) then you’d have to be crazy not to (stop the rapist).” Such an act of defending against a rapist wouldn’t be “nonsense”.
