Do you know what the single legal code consists of?
can i get a copy to read?
Do you?
To have the differences in cultures/religions/etc. be as such. If a group of amish wish to have their own legal code, why not?
Nope.
That’s because it’s impossible. You’re trying to create a square-circle. Not. Possible.
Okay - yes, I did use the term monopoly there. I don’t see how else it would be achieved. Is it a privilege or simply a matter of reason - the law has to be set up with a complete definition of “force”.
What other law can you even think of that would apply in respect of all people? As far as I can see, any other laws by which people want to live cannot be said to be universal in the same way as the law prohibiting coercion. Every other rule, law, edict or regulation is something some person or group of persons can choose for themselves. The law respecting the initiation of force should not be negotiable. How do you propose to enforce it?
And how is it to obtain and maintain said monopoly? Answer: initiate force.
So you see: what you want is a contradiction-in-terms.
For unowned properity, the first person to put it to use is its owner.
People can enforce it by defending themselves against agression, and hiring others to aid them. Other forum moderators can explain it more.
you constantly confuse moral law with legal law.
or to use alternative jargon: ‘natural law’ with ‘institutional/produced law’
The single legal code is the prohibition of coercion, the banning of the initiation of force in all its forms.
Sure - different cultures & religions have their rules etc. They are all still subject to the law prohibiting the initiation of force.
And yes you are mistaking individual codes & “laws,” which you showed when you cited Amish law. There is no contradiction between individuals’ voluntary choices and the Law of the Land.
And I bet you would have had a tough time accepting that the Sun doesn’t revolve around the Earth.
so steph, is the ‘single legal code’ something written down?, or is it something that is true for people even if never written down?
And you can’t have a monopolist provider of it without initiating force.
Those “rules” are actually laws. You’re confusing terms.
Nope.
It’s not me making the confusion. Moral laws - laws, rules, etc., chosen by individuals voluntarily is their private business. If they try to force it on me, then they are guilty of breaking the Law prohibiting the initiation of force.
That is the only way to secure the freedom of all individuals from coercion by others.
What I want for christmas:
a square circle
a minarchist state
a person that does not act, but is still alive
an adult human 1 inch tall
keynesian bs to somehow be true
Yeah, it is.
And why would they try to force it on you? Why would you be subject to their laws? And yes: they are laws. I’m not talking about a “moral code”; I’m talking about laws.
…by initiating force. Self contradictory.
The Amish are not libertarians/individualists/anarchists. Their ‘legal code’ is a statist theocratic legal code. I admit there are even worse system than that of the Amish…which is another argument against this cultural conservative stuff.
The idea of multiple legal codes is flawed.
Relevance? None.
When you post, have something of relevance to say.
True. But then, we don’t need a monopolistic provider. I already said I agree with that side of it. The discrete parts of “defense services” and “dispute resolution services” are all suitable for provision via the market. It is the law itself that must be explicitly stated and followed by everyone without exception. That is how you have lawful government. It’s the rule of law.
That’s not “lawful government”; that’s market-based law and defense/police/protection. You’ve got your terms all muddled.
I haven’t really given voluntary government much thought myself. I liked natural government cause it says to me Nature is governing, which falls neatly in place I think with Natural Law and Reason as a faculty to understand what is already here (Natural Law being that which is already here we reason to know it). But I do see the hesitation to avoid anything coming even near the concept of “government”.
That concept alone can easily be misconstrued as statism. And therefore it blocks clarity. It might be even easier to state the free market would be governed by Reason. But it’s this “governed” part I think that might be a hurdle for some even in that statement. It’s either my mind is so used to statism that once I see a concept such as “governed” my or anybody’s knee jerk reaction might be: “Well, who’s doing the governing?” And that inclines either to reason or merely to cultural baggage (only politics or statism can govern). But I think it’s more reasonable than cultural to understand that principles guide or in other words govern individuals too. Natural order does rid the need to explain all this which is helpful and again provides clarity for “government” doesn’t even come up in that phrase.
For we are both talking about self-ownership. Maybe instead of stating natural government, though reasonable and I think intellectually sound, it might be easier so explanations need not arise, for me to say Nature runs the free market, not the State, the State just taketh.
rambling…
thanks [:)]
Well, I replied to your post…which is as relevant as mine. And what I said is 100% relevant. You only quoted a setence.
You’re utterly confused. You said that different “legal codes” are needed “to have the differences in cultures/religions/etc. be as such.”. The fusion of a legal code and ‘religion’ is known as theocracy. The fusion of a legal code and “culture” doesn’t have a name, but has nothing to do with the kind of thing an individualist philosophy such as libertarianism would advocate.
Multiple legal codes : nonsense. Stephanie does have a point in that the NAP is the only ‘law’ needed in a free society.
Well, “Amish” are probably unlikely to behave like “Environmentalists” or “Neo-Con/Anti-Abortionists” but my point is there are people who want to shove their morality down my throat via the mechanism of law. A law banning coercion cuts them off at the root.
Juan, I believe that Knight was making an abreviated argument about the Amish.
posit libertarians, who decide to agree to live by a code, that obliges them to behave in set ways, in a formal law/rule type manner, The founders might agree that to enjoy the condition of being recognised by each other as ‘Amish’ that they should subscribe to pda’s that offer an ‘Amish’ law, that takes precedence in disputes between two ‘Amish’ and that would deal with disputes between ‘Amish’ and ‘Non-Amish’ in a way mutually agreed out with any Non-Amish PDA’s etc. The private Amish courts could well have diferent operating procedures than NonAmish, Amish inspectors would be in their rights to inspect Amish members are keeping to the codes, if the amish habe given them such rights.
this is voluntary, and not monopolistic. it is contractual. and consentiual.
I suppose that we could talk more about the Rothbard contract theory, and we might posit that wannabe Amish might need to transfer various property titles, under a contingent basis , in order to be included in the Amish community, but this is close to getting OT.