you may have a de jure victory, but not a de facto one. I would recommend an emphasis on de-facto justice seeing as everyones natural law de jure victories are within their own power, and produced law de jure victories without de facto victories are merely hollow
Little boy, you have a lot to learn. You made some grandiose claim that had no backing whatsoever and used some example which was irrelevant. You’ve still yet to show that there’s some reason that there can’t be multiple legal codes. Why can’t there be? What is it about legal codes which requires only one? IOW: it’s the same as the statist having to show why there should be a monopolist provider of law.
In the future, I expect better from you.
We have laws banning the sale of certain drugs. How’s that working out?
What you described is just an imaginary construction. An attempt at recreating a ‘social contract’ by allegedly voluntary means. But things don’t work like that in the real world.
People here are not advocating individualism but a system which they believe will enable little ‘voluntary’ theocracies and other collectivistic anachronisms.
A voluntary legal code which dictates how individuals must behave might be theoretically created ‘by consent’ but is philosophically at odds with libertarianism.
De facto justice vs. de jure victory… hmmmm… and of course this applies to everything and everyone. So you are saying that just having the law isn’t enough, we need a way of enforcing it. How are we going to do that?
Get rid of those laws. Self-government is the key. What you or I choose to ingest is our own business.
And what you’re advocating is that everyone has to live how you want them to. Not very libertarian.
That doesn’t answer my question.
Strawman much Little Boy ?
i can understand and sypmathise with this perspective, i would agree if using a particular interpretation of must. people always have the ‘power’ to behave as they wilt, this is a ‘sort of’ freedom. but there are consequences. all i gave in my example is a way for people to describe to each other the consequences, i.e. if you breach a minor littering law, pay fine when asked, or ultimately lose the title to the property you put in bond with the pda, and our members will shun you in variously described ways.
I believe voluntary legal codes are entirely philosophically compatible with libertarianism. in fact, it is the only elegant way to solve ‘boundary’ problems, and to reduce conflict where ‘information quality’ is an issue between possible conflictees.
None at all, Little Boy. Your words clearly indicate a tyrannical streak and desire to rule over everyone. Look, I don’t like the whole religious thing either, but saying that they can’t have their own laws is DICTATORIAL, Juan. Don’t play that game.
You’re assuming that those kinds of rules can really be set up voluntary. And again, such ‘restrictive covenants’ have nothing to do with individualism and libertarianism philosophically considered.
I disagree. They are just theoretically compatible since theoretically they are a contract of sorts. But notice that a contract which regulates your whole life is exactly the sort of statist nonsense we live in now, where everything is regulated.
I didn’t say they can’t have their own laws. And I wasn’t singling out religious ‘communities’ specifically, just commenting on your example.
Anyway, such ‘communities’ are an attempt at having EVERYBODY to think and behave like clones. I submit that such an attempt has nothing to do with libertarianism, even if the means used to achieve it look ‘kinda’ in line with the NAP.
Calling me tyrannical because I criticize people who ‘voluntary’ dictate even what clothes their fellows are allowed to wear is a bit ironical.
I’m not proposing any mechanism to prevent people from trying such totalitarian ventures. I’m saying that their legal codes are not, at all, in line with a libertarian view of the world.
If those little “voluntary” theocracies and other collectivistic anachronisms are truely voluntary, then you are advocating individualism. You can voluntarily join a “Kibutz” if you want. As long as you can always opt out, then I don’t see how this is not individualism.
Yeah you did and yeah you were.
I submit that such is a strawman.
Look: you need to let people live their own lives.
you are assuming that those kind of rules cannot be set up voluntarily…
you say they ‘have nothing to do with’ and i cant tell if you think they are just ‘parallel’, i.e. the one does not say about the other, or that they are outright incompatible. the former would admit the possibility of such voluntary bodies of law; Id be interested to hear a justification for the latter which i cant yet see for myself.
well, let us cross out all such overarching contracts as both impracticle and undesired by consumers of law, and just consider the practical and desired law codes that are left…
We can play these newspeak games forever no ? A kibutz is a socialist, collectivist ‘commune’. You may argue that it is voluntary collectivism, but you would not deny it is collectivism would you ? Just like anarcho commies theoretically are voluntary collectivists ?
Individuals join a group and don’t see themselves as individuals but as part of a group ? The GROUP is what matters, NOT the individual ? Is not that philosophical collectivism ?
As long as they’re not violating YOUR rights, why not keep YOUR nose where it belong?
do you think sports teams and business teams are incompatible with libertarianism and individualism?
from Methadological Inidividualism we know that even individuals that identify in groups, are still individuals, despite any collective sense-or-nonsense that might be going on.
I’m not sure how that can be done. Again, this is all theoretical. There’s never been a free society let alone a society in which different ‘legal codes’ are layered over a libertarian framework.
Anyway, I’m done. I’ll let Knight believe I’m a totalitarian and the theocratic builders of ‘legal codes’ are lovers of freedom.