I dont believe in a court exacting punitive measures without consent
But you believe in anyone killing an outlaw without consent? What’s the difference in your view? This is my point: if you’re against the use of violence against people without their consent, then you cannot be for outlawry.
you will have to explain how one achieves restitution through violence because I dont buy it.
Really, can’t grasp this one? Bob wants restitution from Mike. Mike says no. Okay, I guess Bob just goes home? No, he uses violence and takes restitution.
no, the question for you is what makes him a defendant? There has to be a grievance. That grievance is with another human being. The court process has to be agreeable to them both or they will settle their dispute another way AND NO ONE AT THE COURTHOUSE GETS PAID. this ensures equitable treatment for all concerned.
If I’m accused of murder, and I am asked whether I consent to being tried, and I know that no one will use violence against me if I say no, why on earth would I say yes? Equity? Who cares? Even if I’m 99% likely to win the case, why would I risk it when I can tell them “thanks but no thanks” and not risk it? Because I would be outlawed, right? The threat of that is what compels me to attend court, right?
no, I specifically maintain that they remain part of the causal universe. There are most definitely results garnered from killing even one outlaw. There are all kinds of consequences that can be reasoned out but you wont listen because you can only extrapolate from data
Legal consequence, obviously. Meaning, to kill an outlaw is not a crime. That is the only sensible meaning of outlawry, and that’s how you defined it: I believe you said the outlaw is like a beast, with no legal standing.
These courts exist because people have disputes and choose to settle them this way. If the court compels people to appear that is tyranny. If people voluntarily settle disputes with arbitration, that is civilization. I would prefer not to have a monopoly on law, for precisely the reason that we are arguing about jurisprudence right now and under a monopoly, one of us has to live with the other’s system. I would like us both to have our systems, and markets allow for that.
What are you arguing against? Not my position. I believe my very first post (or maybe the second one) in this thread explicity stated that I’m opposed to using force against an accused person any time prior to conviction. The incentive which a person has to attend court is to avoid being tried in absentia, where he would have no representation and be more likely to be convicted: and if convicted (whether he attended the trial or not), violence could then be used against him to get restitution and/or retribution. And while we’re here, no I’m nat saying that the court would use violence against anyone. The court merely makes judges. The right to use violence against a convicted person lies with the victim: i.e. the plaintiff.
Do you insist on ascribing these views to me because you know that your position is bankrupt, or are you simply not reading my posts? When did I say anything like this? I told you I dont believe in aggressive violence.
I think you misunderstand what outlawry is. Its a loss of legal standing, nothing more. No one has to go kill the guy or anything. In fact, I already told you that would be wrong.
you mean he (legally) robs him? He forces him to give up some property?
How on earth could you know that no one would use violence against you? Are you reading minds again? Or extrapolating from past days when no one used violence against you?
well, since I am not you, I dont know your motives, but when I have a dispute with someone, I like to settle it peaceably. And if the dispute were contentious enough to require a court, I would prefer to attend a court that had a good reputation. So if I chose to answer a court summons, it would be because I have an interest in continuing to maintain social and business contacts, and of course retaining my access to legal services. Also factored into that decision is the perception on the part of one individual that I have wronged him or her, which I would like to ameliorate in the most effective way possible.
in the eyes of the court who has issued the writ of outlawry, yes. I specifically told you that others may not feel the same way. Furthermore your attempt to confine the discussion to “legal consequences” is fallacious in the extreme. Law is a social creation. There are human consequences to such an act.
just responding to your posts, buddy. Youre the one who tries to read minds and tell the future.
How do you achieve restitution with violence? You mean like an eye for an eye?
Do you insist on ascribing these views to me because you know that your position is bankrupt, or are you simply not reading my posts? When did I say anything like this? I told you I dont believe in aggressive violence.
You said this:
I will simply add, for the sake of disclosure, that if outlawry were near certain death and the standard for execution were a preponderance of evidence, your assertion fails on its face.
The loss of legal standing, whereby a human being becomes no different from a beast of the field in the eyes of the court.
Now, what does that mean if not that killing an outlaw is not a crime in your view, and that therefore the incentive for an accused person to consent to a trial is the threat of being declared an outlaw?
You can’t have it both ways. Either people would victimize outlaws, and that’s why an accused person doesn’t want to become one, and agrees to a trial; or, people don’t vicitmize outlaws and then the threat of outlawry is not sufficient to persuade accused people to agree to trials. Which is it?
no, that is not an accurate summary of my views on this matter.
as I have said numerous times tonight, the incentive for settling disputes via arbitration is that it is preferable to settling disputes without arbitration. If any one court denies legal standing to an individual, it may not mean very much or may mean a great deal. That is for the individuals who are concerned to decide.
also, you said this:
I am not quite sure How to parse that phrasing, but statements like “killing an outlaw is not a crime” are like saying “wet towels are not dry” or “bad movies suck”
remember we are talking polycentric law. Just because I say he is an outlaw doesnt mean his family agrees.
I did not say that was true. I said IF that was true, then your claim is obviously false and therefore you showed a lack of imagination. The consequences of being an outlaw could range from quite serious to not very serious at all.
no, that is not an accurate summary of my views on this matter.as I have said numerous times tonight, the incentive for settling disputes via arbitration is that it is preferable to settling disputes without arbitration. If any one court denies legal standing to an individual, it may not mean very much or may mean a great deal. That is for the individuals who are concerned to decide.
Ok, so you don’t think that the threat of outlawry is what motivates accused persons to agree to a trial?
Great, but then when I said this:
That’s entirely non-viable, and increasingly so as the crime becomes more serious. No (guilty) person accused of murder, facing a possible punishment of execution, would ever prefer trial to “outlawry” (whatever that means).
Why did you say this:
I will simply add, for the sake of disclosure, that if outlawry were near certain death and the standard for execution were a preponderance of evidence, your assertion fails on its face.
Were you not claiming that being an outlaw means “near certain death,” and that therefore a person accused of murder is likely to risk a trial over the “near certain death” of outlawry?
I am not quite sure how many times I have to answer this question, but people who care about their legal standing will appear in court to defend it, people who do not, will not.
because, as I said (dont know if you neglected to read it or you simply thought it was rhetoric) you shouldnt make blanket statements about how “no member of “x” group will ever do “y” action even if “z”” because youre wrong. You didnt even know the “z” so you couldnt possibly have been correct. I want you to see and understand that so we can move forward from here.
no, I was not. I was commenting on your deficient reasoning and argumentation abilities.
Do you have anything intelligent to say in response to the question “why would a person accused of a serious offense volunteer to be tried” other than “maybe loss of business contacts or social pressure” (LOL). If so, I’m happy to hear it. Otherwise, there’s nothing to “move foreward” to, as you have no position or argument at all. You have a series of ridiculous assumptions based on nothing.
Perhaps you should ask yourself what it might mean to be “accused of a serious offense”
as for your inability to support your beliefs or respond to any criticism whatsoever, all I can say is I understand why you might want a state monopoly on the ultimate settlement of questions via rational discourse to be performed according to your rules and backed by the threat of aggressive violence. I can see why you would consider competing bodies of law to be a a terminal threat.
What’s amusing is that I don’t want a State monopoly, never said I did, pointed you repeatedly to the thread where I explain this in detail. Throughout the entire debate I was generally granting you a polycentric stateless society. The debate was over your silly semi-pacifistic idea that violence cannot be justly used against anyone without their consent (which contradicts both your view of self-defense and your view of outlawry, but you don’t mind contradictions, or even notice them apparently), which, thankfully, is not very common among anarcho-capitalists. And I love how you resort to calling me a statist (or making pedantic non-points about the meaning of phrases like “serious offense”) when you have nothing else to say. You don’t do you, have anything else to say? Anything about why a person accused of a serious offense (let’s say murder) would volunteer to be tried?
a quick review of the thread will confirm that I have responded to every one of your arguments, yet you have not shown me the same courtesy. And the operative portion of my query had to do with the accusation. Why is this person making an accusation rather than pursuing some other means of resolving the dispute? Is it because the court is willing to perform crimes such as home invasion and abduction? or able to authorize others to do so? Notice I am asking questions here. Why do you avoid answering my questions?
in order to absolve themselves of charges in front of witnesses, of course. In order to retain legal standing in that jurisdiction. Because he is a human being and therefore a social animal and therefore takes part in social processes. What exactly do you want to know? What is it about voluntary interaction that mystifies you?
Minarchist, please read the article linked above - I feel like I’m re-typing the entire thing piecemeal when you could just click the link and read the whole thing in one shot and skip all the misconceptions.
It makes a difference. A monopolist of law will impose his view of the way things oughtta be.
No, you have completely misunderstood me. “Whoever makes the law” is a misunderstanding of my position… no one makes “the law”. It’s like saying “whoever makes the language”. No one makes the language. Language is completely decentralized… new phrases, idioms even words come into being whenever people autonomously and without central control begin using them. No one gets to decide what the language is because no one can. The same is true of law, rightly understood.
Probability of guilt can never justify the use of force. The only thing that can justify force is guilt itself - in fact, I don’t even like the language of “guilt” because of the unnecessary eschatological overtones (Great White Throne, Revelations and all that). Please address the illustration I gave where Mike steals Bob’s car and show me where there is “probability” in that - the car is definitely in Mike’s possession. Hell, Mike will even admit it. He just won’t give it back.
If Bob acts on this knowledge and Mike dies in the process (I used homicide in the thought-experiment because it is more extreme than detainment), there was no “probability” involved and Mike’s parents won’t have a legal leg to stand on because Mike opted out of Bob’s offer of non-violent dispute resolution. That Bob “won the war” is no crime. Mike would have happily kept the car had he won the war instead and killed Bob. He rolled the dice and lost.
There is no such thing as “sufficient level of probability” there is either guilt or not guilt. The only person who needs to make a “probability” assessment is the victim himself or herself or the PDA which they have hired to act on their behalf.
In essence, yes. I’m not saying that common law cannot be improved upon but the only way to improve on it that is consistent with a market in the production of law services is to open up shop as an arbitrator and start offering better legal resolutions to disputes!
I don’t care what kind of law people demand any more than I care what kind of tennis shoes they demand. And, unlike tennis shoes, I don’t think that “the law” is something we can control the outcome of. Law is like language: whatever emerges is what emerges.
What I do care about is that parties to a dispute be able to settle it in the manner that they choose. Please, please read the linked article!
I am not a NAP fundamentalist… in my view, NAP is just a good first-order approximation and wipes out about 90% of the nonsense that exists in modern statutory law without breaking a sweat. To go further than that, however, you need something more nuanced than NAP. NAP will not help you derive parental rights and duties or help you derive sensible divorce law, and so on. It will not help you bridge the gap between modern, statutory law and a possible future of smaller political units with more localized, community-oriented law that is a product of culture, not philosophical reflection.
he operative portion of my query had to do with the accusation. Why is this person making an accusation rather than pursuing some other means of resolving the dispute? Is it because the court is willing to perform crimes such as home invasion and abduction? or able to authorize others to do so?
Forgive me, but I assumed that you already understood the basic concept of what a court is/does. It resolves disputes between parties who have been unable to resolve the dispute amongst themselves, precisely because they cannot reach a mutually agreeable resolution. It follows that, if the court is to resolve such a dispute, it will necessarily reach a conclusion which is unacceptable to one or the other party: i.e if the court is able to reach a resolution agreeable to both parties, then the court would never have been involved in the first place, because the two parties would have already arrived at a mutually agreeable resolution. And you can call it a court or a DRO or whatever. The point is that, in cases where two parties to a dispute cannot reach an agreement, the dispute will either be settled through the intervention of a third party, be settled when the two parties physically fight it out, or it won’t be settled. Presumably we agree that it would be good to have disputes settled, and to have them settled in some manner other than a physical contest between the two parties? Presumably we agree that it would be best, whenever the parties cannot reach an agreement, for an impartial third party to settle the matter? Now, in some cases, the two parties - even though they can’t agree on a settlement - will agree to binding arbitration. But sometimes they won’t. In those cases, the third party (the court as I’ve been calling it) will, repeating myself, rule against one party: e.g. ruling that one party must pay the other party restitution. Now that ruling will either be enforced or it won’t. If it’s not, well then its worthless. The ruling of the court must be able to be enforced - against the will of the person which the ruling is against: e.g. the person ordered to pay restitution.
If you’re claim is that all people accused of some violation of the NAP by their alleged victims will consent to trial, you need to explain why, because it’s far from evident. If your claim is that somehow all disputes can be resolved without the ruling of a third party being enforced against the will of the convicted person, you need to explain how, because it’s far from evident.
in order to absolve themselves of charges in front of witnesses, of course. In order to retain legal standing in that jurisdiction. Because he is a human being and therefore a social animal and therefore takes part in social processes. What exactly do you want to know? What is it about voluntary interaction that mystifies you?
If your position is that it is logically possible for all people accused of crimes to volunteer to be tried, then I agree. It’s also logically possible for a the current U.S. government to be fully funded through voluntary donations. Of course it’s absurd to believe that this would actually occur. Something’s being logically possible does not mean that we should suppose it likely, or base our political philosophy on the assumption that it will occur. Likewise, for all persons accused of crimes to volunteer to be tried because of social pressure (as opposed to some threat of force) is extremely improbable, and pending some reason for believing otherwise, it would be foolish to found a political philosophy on the assumption that this would occur.
If Bob robs Mike, Mike is due restitution from Bob, correct? How can he get it? He can get it with Bob’s consent. But could Bob refuse to give restitution? Sure. What happens then? Is there any circumstance in which it is just for Mike to use violence against Bob to take restitution?
My simple point is that if your answer to this question is “No, it is never just to use violence against Bob (no matter how certain Mike, or some third party hired by Mike, may be of Bob’s guilt) unless Bob consents,” then Mike cannot get justice. And in a society where Mike cannot get justice, then I say the legal system has failed.
Consider this one case with Bob and Mike. Assume it is occuring in an anarcho-capitalist society. How do we get Bob to pay restitution to Mike without using or threatening to use violence against Bob? (In other words, do not resort to the notion that somehow this question does not apply to a stateless legal order with competing firms. It does. Competition between firms has no role here. Each firms will be faced with situations like this. If they all take the position that violence against Bob without his consent is unjust, then they all face this problem. And that’s the question: supposing this idea about using violence only with consent is prevalent, is the legal doctrine which is common, what happens? I say, the Mikes of the world can’t get justice.)
O, and I read your article. Very well-written, interesting, but not relevant to my concern. Also, keep in mind I’m not advocating State-law, at all. Never did.
That’s also outside the scope of logic and cannot be proven, only accepted or rejected. In this case, that’s because it’s a value judgement.
Is the notion “all human beings are inherently self-interested” an a priori proposition or an a posteriori proposition, in your view?
Strictly speaking, logic doesn’t care where assumptions (premises) come from. It only cares about the consistency of propositions that are claimed to derive from the assumptions.
Does anarcho-capitalism rest only on a priori reasoning? In my opinion, it does not. It also rests on certain premises, which others are entirely free to accept or reject.
Then why do you make claims containing the word “will” without any qualification, such as “probably”? That is, why are you saying things that you don’t mean?
so in your view, at least one of these gentlemen should have a gang of bullies on their side in order to impose a “solution” that doesnt solve anything precisely because it is not agreeable to both parties. Sounds like tyranny to me.
exactly how does the court “resolve” a dispute by denying one party their human rights? what kind of “resolution” has to be imposed on one party? What did you resolve?
so people are not even allowed to choose to take disputes to court to seek mutually agreeable resolution? The entire purpose of the courts is tyranny?
if one party has the option of pursuing a solution that satisfies him and denies satisfaction to the other party, he will sometimes choose that route rather than pursuing a mutually agreeable solution. Your system is inherently unstable because the norms are not universal and you institutionalize tyranny.
also, it defies logic that a solution could be reached without the consent of both parties. If one party has an outcome imposed on him without his consent, then there is still a dispute to resolve. Your courts have not solved anything.
perhaps you could explain what it means to you to have a dispute settled, and how exactly you plan to avoid a physical contest when you explicitly state that your court authorizes people to impose settlements without consent? It seems like you just want a formal gang to run around “settling” disputes by doing whatever they want to people. I have asked you repeatedly to explain yourself but you refuse. Why?
oh here it is. Despite my requests to the contrary, you continue to “presume” things about my position. No, it is not best for an outside party to enter the situation and impose a solution that leaves one party satisfied and the other party dissatisfied. Such an organization could not even be described as “impartial” as they unquestionably showed partiality to one party.
you neglect to account for the entire sphere of human action, as I have said, you lack imagination. Now, look here, you contradicted yourself “even though they can’t agree on a settlement - will agree to binding arbitration” well then they agreed to a settlement sight unseen, now didnt they.
you still have not explained how a court is supposed to use violence to force restitution. I want to know the actual mechanics, because “forced restitution” sounds an awful lot like a weasel term for “institutional robbery.” you havent been very forthcoming and so naturally that makes me nervous, with all this talk about forcing things upon people without their consent and imposing settlements on people…what is it about coercive violence that infatuates you?
its inherent in the nature of dispute settlement that both parties to the dispute must consent to settlement. Otherwise, from the point of view of one party, nothing was settled, they were simply agressed upon by a third party. Therefore, the dispute still exists.
additionally, you need not invent claims for me, simply read my posts. I state my claims in plain language and I never said “all people accused of some violation of the NAP by their alleged victims will consent to trial” or “somehow all disputes can be resolved” so quit trying to inject even more of your hideous strawmen into the discussion.
my position is that courts should not run around trying people like a 6th grader with a book of “yo mamma” jokes under his arm. Courts settle disputes that are brought to them for adjudication, they shouldnt “try” people to find out if the guy deserves to have his human rights violated. My point is that this accusation comes from somewhere, and the court becomes a partisan when they give higher regard to the accuser than the other party.
I’m not sure why you think that is so, but I disagree. Its mathematically impossible, thats why they fund it with debt and money printing rather than taxation. People simply do not have the discretionary funds to volunteer.
its absurd to believe that people would consent to settle disputes through arbitration if you made the terms favorable to both parties? Where is the absurdity in that?
since you are burning strawmen here, I have no response except to remind you that I said no such thing.
not sure why you consider the threat of violence to be eliminated from consideration since I never said that. Truth be told, I am getting weary of your inability/refusal to answer my questions and deal with my arguments as they are presented. It actually appears that you understand my points and refuse to engage them precisely because they threaten your whole “coercive monopoly on justice” plan here.
Thanks. But you must have missed the section “Why We Bargain Rather Than Fight” because that section is precisely about this subject. It explains why people will want to go to an arbitrator to settle a dispute even if they are in the wrong (will lose). From that section of the article: “There cannot be social order without the cattle-prod of the prospect of violent conflict driving disputants to arbitrate their disputes.” I’ve repeated this point several times in this thread and you seem to be missing it or confusing me with one of the other posters. You seem to think that violence is “never an option” but this isn’t even the NAP. Violence is an option in defense of property… and defense also includes the recovery of property, by force if necessary.
Let’s say Mike in fact steals from Bob, but Bob did not catch him in the act. Now, you’re saying that Bob deciding that Mike is probably guilty of the theft does not justify Bob’s arrest (false imprisonment) of Mike. Is that correct?
If so, then under what conditions is Bob justified in using coercion against Mike? Suppose Mike were tried in a court and found guilty, with Bob as the plaintiff - is Bob then justified in using coercion against Mike to retrieve his stolen property? Is the court’s decision that Mike is guilty of the crime fundamentally different from Bob’s decision that Mike is guilty of the crime? Aren’t both decisions about the likelihood (as opposed to certainty) that Mike is guilty?
You responded:
It will only have been justified when Bob suceeds in convincing Mike to agree that it was justified (perhaps as part of a settlement for the theft). Please see the link above to my article on “A Praxeological Account of Law.”
I took your comment to mean that Bob is only justified in using violence against Mike (e.g. to seize property in the interest of restitution) when/if Mike consents.
Now you say this:
you must have missed the section “Why We Bargain Rather Than Fight” because that section is precisely about this subject. It explains why people will want to go to an arbitrator to settle a dispute even if they are in the wrong (will lose). From that section of the article: “There cannot be social order without the cattle-prod of the prospect of violent conflict driving disputants to arbitrate their disputes.” I’ve repeated this point several times in this thread and you seem to be missing it or confusing me with one of the other posters. You seem to think that violence is “never an option” but this isn’t even the NAP. Violence is an option in defense of property… and defense also includes the recovery of property, by force if necessary.
And I am in complete agreement. My point throughout this entire thread has been very simple: without violence and/or the threat violence, justice cannot be done. The idea of restitution/retribution (the essence of justice) being ethically/legally permissible only when the criminal consents is absurd. If we’re in agreement on this point, then we have nothing to debate, and this has been a misunderstanding of some kind.
I suspect we may be misunderstanding one another in some way.
The only claim that I’ve been defending is (as I told Clayton) the claim that violence or the threat of violence is necessary for justice. When one person violates the NAP and, for example, steals property from another person, the victim has a right to restitution. In some cases, the criminal will agree to some kind of settlement or to binding arbitration by a third party. In some cases, the criminal will agree to nothing. In that case, my claim is that the victim has the right to use violence to gain restitution: e.g. recover stolen property. You object to this? You think the victim should not be able to use violence to get justice in the event that justice cannot be obtained without violence? If so, then we have a disagreement. If not, then we have a misunderstanding.
“Man can seldom, if ever, be metaphysically certain, that is, certain that there exists no alternative in the universe to his judgment.”
But you can be certain that you can’t be certain? Certainty is manipulation, obviousness, and what tools you use to describe and interact with the picture of reality which is relevant to you.
As long as there is necessity to any interaction, there is certainty. It all depends on what game we are playing and what the rules are.