I don’t use legitimacy for my ethics. I hope you don’t either.
I never said it was unrealistic, I just don’t find it an ethical solution. I’m not saying any alternative is ethically superior either.
Maybe there is but what is criminality but unethical behaviour? Now I hope you are not saying that what insurance companies do as long as they follow the freedom of contract is totally ethical. Even fraud is relative.
What do you do with freedom if your daddy assaults you but the others are not allowed to intervene? For me freedom is not inexcusable.
Yes probably many are, but I think its a tad arrogant to say that about everyone who doesn’t want anarcho capitalism is just plain irrational.
You still haven’t solved the issue of the Island I spoke of because “rights” are fundamentally subjective. In anarcho capitalist society, others would have to trespass one’s liberty in order to resolve the issue of abortion or children’s rights. If everyone else on the island would condemn violent assault on the last familes kids, some anarcho capitalists would call it it “tyranny” to intervene, but I don’t because my ethics is not based on total liberty.
Not at all, I’m just more pragmatic in the sense that in case of my Island, I would advocate democractic way to decide whether abortion or owning weapons of mass destructions should be allowed or not. Its not flawless, but I think its better than advocate liberty above everything.
I do in fact. Rights are legally [ legitimate ] enforcable claims an individual can make against another. When I say I have a right to this pen what I really mean to say is that you have no right to take it from me. If you do, I can legally coerce you to take it back.
If that was happening then my father is beating me and I can cry for help and an agent who takes up my claim can defend me if I cannot do so myself. You have a lot to learn about the ethical implacations of Anarcho-Capitalism.
What do you “use for your ethics”? When people discuss certain terms like morality, ethics, sovereignty, etc. there can be some confusion without proper definitions laid out.
What is an example of an unethical contractual agreement? What is an example of “relative fraud”?
Sure, there will always be some arbitrariness or subjectivity involved in meting out justice. What you are missing is that we are only concerned with the advantages of common (private) law over civil (state) law. So, I can only guess if the people of the island will draw guidelines for child abuse as being a “one time case of bruises lasting 5+ days” or “a certain pattern of leaving bruises on at least 5% of the body over X time” or whatever. Had the abusive parent agreed to a certain chain of arbitration, their decision is likely to not be found to be “tyranny”.
The fact that you term the parent’s actions ‘violent assault’ means that a crime has been committed for purposes of discussion. If you want to be more specific, we can take a guess at what punishment (if any) might be appropriate. We can only guess that guidelines for what is child abuse will usually come down around those we have today. That is, spanking is generally okay but breaking bones or locking a kid in a closet their entire life isn’t. The case of parents and children are special in terms of ownership. Children are not mere property, even if they are very young. If you live under a “voluntary government” that allows breaking infants’ arms, you run the risk of outside ancaps liberating children and punishing abusers.
There are other threads on these so I won’t address them all. I kind of feel like you aren’t genuinely concerned with how these issues should or would be handled in a stateless society. You ought to try figuring out what thing libertarianism is primarily concerned with and attempt some critical thinking of your own. That way, you might be able to construct meaningful arguments instead of these fallacious and vacuous shots at our treatment of every hotbutton issue.
I just have a question for anyone opposed to abortion rights: If a mother is supposed to commit murder, to whom is restitution owed?
You’ve just crossed over…into the realm of nihilism…oh wait did I say realm? I meant nothingness…in fact I don’t even think you crossed over into anything because there is nothing to cross.
You missed my whole point. My point is that you are trying to evade your high belief in one objective morality. I’m saying state is a tool to to implement ethics just like the other families on the island will use force to prevent child abuse or sex with minors. When they punish the child abuser, they can wave a flag of state if you wish.
So you accept force as a method for imposing ethics on the minority.
A system of law and justice can be established without the state.
You have to explain this one. You are saying that when we are punishing criminals for the crimes they commit against individuals, we are somehow aggrandizing the state apparatus?
The 9 families just formed a system of justice an imposed their justice on the last one, you can call it state or private court, whatever, its semantics. Now atleast in most democracies most people accept their existence of the state as a system of justice. Its not any different.
If the 9 families imposed it upon the last family then it is a state. However, the point of anarchism is voluntary exchange and voluntary co-existence. The last family should not be obligated to listen to anything the other families have to say as long as the last family does not formulate violence against the other 9. One family can establish itself as abitrarors to the rest of the island. I would call that a private court system. However, to think that a state is in any manner similar to a private court is just plain moronic.
Well I think they are waking up to the realization that the government isn’t really a system of justice. I hate to be all dialectical and whigish but if you care to look at the progression of political power in history, it is rather obvious that it is becoming more and more decentralized.
The 9 families agreed that hey we need to bring this last guy to justice and okay, from now on we need a justice system and everyone on the island needs to pay taxes for it. You may disagree that they have the right to do this because its coercion but what you fundamentally disagree on is their ethics not the coercion, because if you disagree them imposing their ethics on the last family, you couldn’t accept them bringing the last family to justice. Whether they condemn beating up kids, having abortion or not paying taxes for court system is the ethical question.
Libertarianism makes no guarantee of a perfect society. Are you trying to paint murderers or child abusers as a downtrodden minority? OK great, the state is a “tool to implement ethics” [enforce laws]. That is in no way a case for a state being better able or necessary to enforce laws. Try again and please go back and answer questions in my previous post.
There can be cases where a murderer believes he has done nothing wrong and, lacking previous agreements, refuses to agree to any arbitrator whatsoever. In this case, society, expressed through actions of private courts, may decide to punish the murderer regardless of his holdout. That there is a risk to “taking the law into your own hands” is an impetus for victims and criminals alike to agree to agree to arbitrators who have historically been deemed fair. The profit motive of private justice firms vs a state system, with its untrained jurors and inferior procedures, helps ensure that society will deem the private system more fair relatively.
If everyone agreed to pay for upkeep of a justice system, it isn’t taxes being paid but fees. I don’t know how exactly they are “imposing their ethics on the last family” yet because you aren’t specific about the case at hand. Until you clarify, I assume we are talking about something I would agree is “violent assault on a child”, as you said.
I see your point though, it isn’t everyone that agreed to fees for a legal system, it is 9/10 inhabitants (or 99% of people who have no problem whatsoever with government handling justice). I don’t agree with the existence of states but I am shit outta luck right? So, how is this any valid criticism of anarchy when the same applies to a society with a state? Again, you fail to realize that there are inherent disadvantages of states’ legislation and monopoly on violence.
Libertarianism has clear answers to your ethical (legal) dilemmas if its one principle is followed correctly: “beating up kids” and thievery (taxes) are wrong, then women have the right to “abort” (evict) a fetus.
Yeah I never said “states” were perfect, not more than any other human organizations. But I’m here to question the people who think its in princple, wrong to force ethics by coercion.
Libertarianism and Austrian economics prove states to be not only “not perfect” but also inferior in every way possible.
You still haven’t defined “ethics” for the purpose of our discussion, or said where you derive your ethical principles from. If we are talking about ethics as laws, then it is necessary to use aggression/violence/coercion to enforce laws. The difference is that we are guided by the idea of doing so only in a defensive way.
