What if the public courts are funded on a voluntary basis?
Welcome =]
Thanks! How many are we, on world base?
whats public about them?
That’s an oxymoron
Doctor Ron Paul is not an-cap is he?, can he still call himself a libertarian?
Well, maybe a thousand people ? Make it two thousand ? =P
Because the dictionary allows it, much to the discontent of those who pretend to have the powers to freely define words.
The monopoly.
False. Justice is meting out the earned.
He’s not publicly, nor should he be. Ancap - that is.
And yes he can. What else would he be? A Republican? Ha!
Plumb Line Libertarianism by Walter Block
Pffft! Way more than that…! Ron Paul votes in the US presidential campaign in total were around 2 million and that’s just the United States. World wide , this gives a bit of a figure. More folks are being pushed into the direction of Austrian Economics daily, and will naturally end up ancaps imo. [:D]
“What chiefly makes it so, I think, is that in any given society the Remnant are always so largely an unknown quantity. You do not know, and will never know, more than two things about them. You can be sure of those – dead sure, as our phrase is – but you will never be able to make even a respectable guess at anything else. You do not know, and will never know, who the Remnant are, nor what they are doing or will do. Two things you do know, and no more: First, that they exist; second, that they will find you. Except for these two certainties, working for the Remnant means working in impenetrable darkness; and this, I should say, is just the condition calculated most effectively to pique the interest of any prophet who is properly gifted with the imagination, insight and intellectual curiosity necessary to a successful pursuit of his trade.” - Albert Jay Nock
Wooohhooooo!!! Btw, I apologize for insulting you so many times. [B]
Ideologically, I would say there are maybe 10,000 ancaps. People who try to walk the walk, is probably closer to 2,000.
So, one kind taking 99% of the resources for himself, and leaving the other 1% to everyone else is just for the sole reason that it involved “meting out the earned”? Your concept of justice is far too vague.
I can almost see you pout when you post. lol
Anyway, you’re making progress, and for that, I am happy.
Why not?
I actually never pout. I was smirking when I wrote that.
Which is why the Randian State is still coercive in nature.
Justice
2. |
rightfulness or lawfulness, as of a claim or title; justness of ground or reason: to complain with justice. |
|---|
3. |
the moral principle determining just conduct. |
|---|
4. |
conformity to this principle, as manifested in conduct; just conduct, dealing, or treatment. |
|---|
5. |
the administering of deserved punishment or reward. |
|---|
6. |
the maintenance or administration of what is just by law, as by judicial or other proceedings: a court of justice. |
|---|
Neither view is false. There is one’s personal sense of justice as well as how one acts within the larger framework of people that have rules and customs in place.
3 Examples:
-We have a Pinochle game and set the rules for “no cheating” and define what cheating is. Anyone caught has agreed to forfeit their game, or points, etc. I play the game because I prefer playing games with no cheating.
-
I have a business and I set the rules for “be polite and courteous in front of customers, do not steal, work when scheduled, etc” or else your job will be terminated if you do not comply.
-
I see a government agent trying to legally seize my property for tax evasion and I resist, sticking with my personal sense of justice but not the justice of the authority of the government.
Whether one agrees to enter an environment where there are laws in place, or whether one is forced into said environment makes no difference; so long as you comply within the rules of the group that has their justice/laws/customs in place, you are serving their sense of justice. If you do not comply to any group, philosophical, or individual’s sense of justice and act according to your own will, you are operating within your sense of justice.
I think the argument of whether justice is something that is for social cooperation, to protect the individual, or any other definition or concept of what one has of justice is secondary. What should be of primary concern is the concepts, science, and philosophies of the way people tend to act in variously structured environments.