You’re still missing the point, without might this all falls apart. Which just goes to show that at the end of the day, might, not right is what matters. Now, I believe that a stateless society would largely conform to most people’s conception of justice and rights, but I also believe that it would radically depart from various people’s conceptions of what is right in numerous ways. And at the end of the day you’re going to have to try very hard to change that, simply being right is not sufficient.
No, of course not, because that’s ridiculous. It means any petty criminal is a state. Stranger made a wonderful post not too long ago outlining what exactly a state is, I suggest you go read it. Alternatively pick up a book by Bertrand de Jouvenel, Anthony de Jasay or Martin van Creveld.
Once again, you’re missing the distinction, I’ve never talked about entities creating uniform laws for other groups of people, only inidividuals and various other groups upholding norms and standards that already prevail.
And PDAs do what?
That’s a nice utopia you’ve painted there, because I’ll give you a clue: there will always be coercion or some kind or another. Essentially you’ve defined anarchy as an ideal that will never be acheived.
Nobody is talking about right or wrong, I’m talking about what will be and what won’t be, what is and what isn’t.
i’ll try one last time and you can tell me precisely what im doing wrong. imagine a small tropical island, the island is not inhabited by crusoe and friday, it has other occupants, Rothbard and Mises. now if Rothbard and Mises ‘get along’ and respect each others property rights etc, and enter not into conflict over them, this is because of Rothbard’s and Mises’ moral character and not through any calculus of their respective strengths.
I’ve never said people are all murderous thugs, the opposite, so you’re missing the point.
in the example i gave does ‘might make is’?
Yes.
thats seems obviously wrong. i wonder what other people think?
You don’t need “might” if all individuals honor Natural Law. But unfortunately not all individuals tend to follow Natural Law. This is what’s understood as the anti-utopian or un-utopian perspective on how individuals will act in life. There will be criminals. This is why even a Natural Law society needs police and possibly a militia/army to enforce a society of Natural Law. In a society of individuals that are acting in more brute ways to hold their ground, Natural Law may or may not see the light of day to a grand jury (which is merely the judgment of ones peers). As long as we find food and water it might not matter. Resources are scare and many gangs are fighting each other. But in time this more chaotic society may find it more flourishing to take a step back when they notice others in their group are killing random innocents. Individuals may discover that their life may one day be threatened just because the whims of leaders or other peers find killing fun. So in time these individuals that find such random killing of innocents to be outrageous and a threat to their own person may form a gang of their own for protection, and hunt down whom they call murderers. If this police-type gang is able to grow in numbers with a larger appeal, then more people will find this society to be honest and helpful for killing and fighting all day leads to nobody tending the farm fields and people eventually get hungry. Also life becomes miserable if ones life could be killed in a moments notice just cause you looked at somebody wrong or just because you were there. I basically have been seeing this whole discussion as involving agreement. I don’t see how anybody is being “wrong” thus far. Maybe I’m missing something?
giles said that regardless of whther the people we consider honour the natural law still ‘might makes is’, whilst i say that in that scenario might is irrelevant.
How is might ever irrelevant? If a small group of powerful individuals intend to subject everybody else to their view of justice unless, those that adhere to natural law use their might to stop it they will be subjected. In fact, going further to even uphold natural law, PDAs would need to use their might to force certain individuals to refrain from coercion.
its irrelevent on Mises-Rothbard island, etc.
I think what nirgrahamUK is asking would Mises and Rothbard fight it out in a hardcore, bloodthirsty cage match? And we’re not just talking about for the fun of it. Am I correct nirgrahamUK?
sure , the outcomes of who has what property and when, will be decided without might since both parties accept that whilst might helps them fell trees it is no good in their interpersonla relations. now if crusoe and friday head on over with the intention of stealing their fishing nets then might will be a factor in the out come, unless through their tremendous oratory skills M or R can crusoe and friday be convinced to respect the natural law.
You’ve said that already, now, try to prove it.
The very fact that he’s asking that proves he misses the point entirely. No, they wouldn’t, and when I said “might makes is” I didn’t mean that would happen in a stateless society, unless we’re talking about a very unintelligent, high time preference society. Conversely I believe that people would generally cooperate for reasons already elaborated upon by various Austrian economists.
prove what? they’re dead
so for you, your might makes is doctrine holds without caveat only under statist society? and only under stateless society with some caveats?
and those caveats are exactly the ones that i said and that you rejected when i said them?
Can you read?
can you ask a stupid question?
And that’s utterly missing the point. I suggest you try to read what I’ve said, instead of charging in here to defend your view of justice and morality. Which by the way, I may well happen to agree with.