common law is a option in a private free market court system. it’s one possible solution people could come up with as a way to run the court, it’s not the only solution. people would have all sorts of ways to make laws in the courts and we could get some entrepreneurial ideals for court systems.
my comment originated from the one that says statemest thinks laws should be made to solve problems, as far as i know, ancap thinks so as well, it’s just a matter of how the law is done, through a private free market, or possibly including a government. many statists ( we include minarchy nightwatchmen here) allow for both government and private free market court law and solutions.
we see the catholic church deal with child rapist priests inside the church by moving them, that is a example of private law.
To native English speakers, especially Americans, the phrase “there oughta be a law” carries a specific meaning and connotation. I wasn’t saying statists are boring for wanting “law” or a legal framework within which society operates (which, yes, could be provided by private courts). I was saying that the impulse to meet every social problem or interpersonal conflict (poverty, drug abuse, animal abuse, garbage disposal, texting while driving, playing loud music, smoking, nudity on television, nudity in strip clubs, obesity, anorexia, bulemia, suicide, abusive language on the internet, shall I go on?) with a new law, i.e., legislation, is statist and that is what’s boring and repetitive.
Anarcho-capitalists may sound like a broken record (note: another English colloquialism), but in reality what they propose is as diverse as the human mind itself. Statists are the one’s who can think only of using violence and fear to get solutions. That was my point.
im from washington state and i have never heard " there oughta be a law".
so the opposite would be “there oughta not be a law” against murder, theft, rape, property violations, trespass?
legislation can be diverse as the human mind itself.
ok, so nonviolent, nonfearful solutions to murder, how many diverse solutions can you think of? prevent murder by neither creating fear nor violence against someone who murders or someone thinking about murdering.
loss of a reciprocal trading opportunity- fear, paying restitution- violence
i’ll try a " there oughta be a law"
there oughta be a law that all government funding is through voluntary donations.
there oughta be a law that all government participation is through voluntary contract.
i’m still not following this, “there oughta be a nightwatchman government”
all those are statist, each proposing new legislation, yet somehow seems less than “there oughta be a law that we eat only at mcdonalds and the government pay for it, and violators will be shot”.
“some starting a business oughta create a law about how to run the business”
You write like a non native English speaker. Sorry I assumed.
the opposite of “there oughta be a law” is not “there oughta not be a law”. It is “it is not the case that every social ill requires a legal response.” There are some social problems that are best met with non legal responses (think nutrition, or lying to your spouse). Just because some actions might rightfully be against the law, it does not therefore follow that every other issue must also be met by a new law. Once again, my point was never that law=bad, it was that law=inappropriate tool to address many social problems. Unfortunately, the statist solution to practically every problem ignores this fact by consistently calling on the legislature to create a new law.
Its not the fact that its a majority. Its the fact that people are the government. If “the people” are the government such as in a democracy, then if they want a certain agenda or idea instilled in others, they can only turn to the government, for that is where their power lies in a democracy. In an anarchy we would only mind our own business and not bother others who disagree. Of course youre taking it too far by suggesting about bed times, ~~not even the most statist statists do that (~~actually there have been curfew laws, though they arent that intrusive IMO).
We are talking about issues such as homosexuality/education/if you can be naked in the street/hate speech/regulations/marijuana use.
Many things which ought to not have a law, have a law for them.
Democracy welds government within society In a democracy, the whole fabric of society is geared towards the state (Beyond Democracy)
A libertarian society would, perhaps, make for boring history. Seems the most interesting history are made by those with the most repulsive regimes - Stalin, Hitler, Castro, Pol Pot, etc.
Yes, it IS boring and as a result I started frequenting r/anarchism in reddit. So many possibilities of trolling… They even did so I could post only one post in ten minutes, no more.
All ‘-isms’ are boring. It’s a key reason the libertarian position is marginal. I’m a recent convert, and I’m telling you – we really need a simple message to be considered as a legitimate alternative. I know the Libertarian Party has improved on messaging, and Gary Johnson’s got my vote, but we will never get past 3% until we say something like this: ‘Wouldnt you rather decide where your money goes than this guy?’ (pictures of Obama and Romney)
I agree on the last point. I think that in politics libertarians should focus on the single issue of decentralization and localism. On the other issues, more ground is made through more focused educative measures rather than political ones. As we always say, ‘the market will sort it out’ - this time through foot-voting.