When private legal jurisdictions compete it will either be violent conflict with neighboring jurisdictions or to acquire the customers of a neighboring jurisdiction, which is really just war, right? I don’t see how competing private legal jurisdictions are any different from states.
Doesn’t the libertarian philosophy just suppose all these private jurisdictions will somehow “obey” the principles of voluntarism?
Why don’t you educate yourself and read some of the literature rather than trolling over and over?
Yes, private law will be just like statism. Probably worse in many respects. But the OP is the wrong way to approach this topic. The proper approach is: private firms will still use violence based on the worst terms that society can be pushed to accept at any given time. The main difference is the violence will be used to defend moral system X instead of moral system Y. And to the extent they use courts, perfectly arbitrary judgments will be made which is no improvement over the arbitrary court systems we already have.
So you just admitted it can’t work, so how should it be done?
It shouldn’t, that’s the point.
Hashem,
Care to prove that bold assertion?
Which?
hashem, is that Rothbard in your avatar? Just curious.
No. It supposes that if enough individuals obey voluntarist principles, then so will the agencies, organizations, and institutions they create, even if a minority don’t hold those principles. Hashem is probably right in as much as it’s acceptable to be a lying, cheating, statist prick, people will be lying, cheating, statist pricks, and behave accordingly. That’s why private law could collapse into statism, not because of the system, but because of the people not accepting its boundaries
Hashem,
You’re really gonna have to explain this one, since a day ago you were railing at Ron Paul for not talking fully about his anti-statism
MML,
While I think that Anenome has a point that you might want to read something before making these sorts of posts (I’d reccomend chaos theory) I know that your intent is not trolling.
Your question can be divided into two questions: The first is what stops private law firms from continually conflicting violently? The second is what ensures that law will be voluntaryist.
Even if all of this fails then there’s always the more voluntaryist solution. Why not have non-monetary courts? If a town has a court, or if people simply come together to make a court then there is nothing wrong with this. These groups will not want to fight one another and would likely arise specifically in response to abuses by firms.
Therefore it is extremely unlikely that firms will choose to fight with one another, and if they did “public” courts could still come about to restrict such conflict.
A useful recommendation I would make when dealing with the results of these sorts of systems is this: What are its incentives? Is a viable firm structure really one in which you have to hire a military to fight as opposed to simply having a voluntary compromise, possibly including third party arbitration.
If not enough people believe in anti-statism then there will be a state and statist law, there is no way around that. This is obvious since we well… Have a state right now. However, as soon as the state itself is abolished and we have private law then we can guarantee that law will be generally libertarian, although there can certainly be noticeable differences between the law of different regions. This is because a libertarian law is the easiest to enforce. If one fails to enforce property rights then you’re in a heap of trouble, and people are willing to pay a lot to see that property is protected. Property violations tend to be a threat not just to the person whose person or property is being violated, but all people and property owners in the region will likely feel threatened. Meanwhile, how much money are you really willing to spend of your own money to stop people from doing drugs?
Especially in the absence of the state it’s really hard to see law being able to attain the funds for anything beyond a basic law: maintenance of property rights and protection against violence. Anything else is expensive, hard to justify in the first place, and unlikely to align with the views of the people who would not form a state in the first place.
Does this make sense to you?
Courts can wage war?
Who makes this crystal ball you gaze into, hashem and OP?
So the assertion is that private law would necessarily degenerate into marauders in search of conquest, or more simply “statism”. Really? How would they perpetrate this when the only funds they have are from those who volutarily pay for their services and they don’t have a monopoly claim on the use of force?
It would be a lot different if it were a trillion dollar racket like governments have going, but there’s no way a private business can afford to expend its limited resources on caveman ideas like destructive clashes with its competitors. Those kind of situations require a government/mafia partnership to come about.
workers do but the capitalists took some of the labor so some of its missing so you cant see evrything
Video linked by Buzz Killington demonstrates pretty well exactly why “libertarianism” is statism under a different name. Violence by any name still smells like shit. The idea that someone’s enforcement agency can threaten you (for example, with court), is statism. The idea that someone’s court can use force against you, is statism. The difference is that the violence is decentralized (supposedly, in theory), and that the excuse for violence is “libertarian” morals instead of whatever else.
IN ANY CASE, people always get the worst service that they’ll put up with. So it’s unreasonable to posit some magically flawless theoretical ancap society, because markets don’t work like that. And further, it’s silly to posit the system in the first place—it doesn’t exist, so it must be achieved through gradual change or else seasteading or something.
Sadly, almost every thread on this topic goes the same. I’m really losing faith in my fellow critical thinkers. Surely you can come up with something better than violence with a different excuse.
Most of us don’t have a problem with violence per se.
^
And that will confirm everything that he has to say.
Hashem, if you could have any system put into place (without changing fundamental human nature, I.E some will still want to use force against other people) then what system would you impose exactly?
To say that you’re losing faith in the Austrian orthodoxy still believing in violence sounds exceedingly Utopian. Because I think that the answer is no, thusfar no human being who has ever lived has developed a practical system devoid of any sort of violence, so I wouldn’t blame those around you right now.
do you have a rigorous definition for statism or is this just a pejorative usage? Also, is it still a “bad thing” for the court to use violence to, stop smebody who attacked a witness, for example. Notice I am only asking. I may agree with you.
yes, when they have more options they will put up with less.
I really dont think people have been suggesting that.
doesnt thought precede action?
I would like to know your theory on why sudden changes do not occur.
education? Argumentative discourse maybe?