Lol. The most I can do over Facebook is poke him.
I would ask him, but that is such a minor point, and he appears to have conceded/dropped it. Now he just said something along the lines of “We are going in spirals and I have physics homework to do :P”
To which I replied “Spirals? We went down a ladder to the basis of the theory I hold. I have defended each part and countered your points. I then decided to start looking at your theory with the ‘backing up’ comment.”
Eric: That’s true - but would he not ultimately have to admit that he would uphold the desire of ‘society’ to execute him for no stated reason? If he admits this then he has shown that the ‘will’ of society is the basis of his philosophy and that anything contradictory this will be eschewed by him - any further discussion is futile.
Wheylous: I don’t think it’s a minor point - it is the point around which the entire debate hinges. Presented with two contradictory ideas (namely self-ownership and society-ownership), your interlocutor must pick one. Whichever he picks ends the debate, i.e. I don’t see him changing his mind if his philosophy is based on society owning his body. He might, however, put more thought into the ideas afterwards.
Aristippus, I think he would retreat to his usage of the statement “at times”. Of course, if he thinks that the will of society can be abusive, then it follows that he thinks he has a higher claim to his life than society does; why is this? If society got a little enjoyment out of seeing him executed, the utility of his execution becomes awfully relative, doesn’t it?
Yes, exactly - the question then becomes: who or what determines in what instances society’s will is or is not followed? It must be either society or the individual, which brings us back to the initial debate about which of these holds a rightful claim to the ownership of said individual.
Hm, now he says
“One more question: how do you deal with suspects in a criminal investigation. You have insufficient evidence to say they did it; can your police force haul them in?”
This is a question I’ve thought of myself. I know that private law might take care of such matters (as there would be existing contracts), but what if it’s a person who has not signed these contracts?
What law enforcement system are you assuming? Insurance companies as in Chaos Theory? Even with just simple PDA’s and arbitrators per Rothbard, they could haul the accused in, but would they actually do so? Remember that if they are wrong in their accusation, the party physically dragged in could sue the PDA for damages - thus it’s unlikely that they would do such a thing unless they were pretty much sure of his guilt. But the fact that someone refuses to attend trial despite various offers would not sit well with the judge and the accused would know this - failure to appear in court under such circumstances would just about be an admission of guilt.
If you specify the system you’re proposing I’m sure there are other answers.
Yeah, I am assuming the Chaos Theory system. Sounds like a nice answer. The problem is that the last part seems a little eh: "But the fact that someone refuses to attend trial despite various offers would not sit well with the judge and the accused would know this - failure to appear in court under such circumstances would just about be an admission of guilt. "
It makes sense, but it’s not as “BAM” as some other answers libertarianism provides.
Failure to appear in court is no more admission of guilt than failure to move to “free-zone” (or space) is an admission of legitimacy of the State. Hope you get my drift.
Yeah, you could be getting frivolous/false lawsuits.
Bear in mind Murphy states:
"Please note that my views since grad school have matured (which sounds nicer than changed) and I now think that private judges, not voluntary contracts, are a better starting point for the Private Law discussion.
So, if you really want to know my views on market anarchy, please read this short essay first, then enjoy Chaos Theory."
For this and more articles relating to Chaos Theory, see the Mises Wiki entry.
The person you’re debating isn’t very strong. Let me try.
----SOCIALIST MODE----
If you are willing to not aggress, then why do you enforce “property”? The state is required to enforce the concept of property, and if you “protect” it you are agressing on others.
----SOCIALIST MODE----
@ JJ: I shall read those. Thanks for the reminder, I had forgotten about that.
@ My Buddy: That is one of the problems I am having connecting the dots in AnCap at the moment. If we consider property to be aggression, then an institutionalized protection of this property can equate to the state. The argument then becomes “is enforcement of property aggression?” This is my weak point, and if an opponent I quick enough to realize, I am toast in a debate, as the whole idea of “arguing from principle” flied out of the window if I assume property. I know that I have been linked to some articles here when I have posited this question before, yet I can’t seem to find the thread. I do know a very basic flow of Hoppe’s argument of scarcity. We need property to avoid conflict over control of scare resources. But why use homesteading, why not divvy up the land equally among everyone? And property doesn’t prevent conflict. You still have resentment and possibly theft. Removing private property boundaries would likely grate on people’s nature a bit, but if people respect the NAP (albeit without property besides the self), then the society could be considered “more free” than one with private property (if private property is not logically deduced to be needed and “free”).
Could I use the following to combat it (is it sound reasoning)?
Property - the exclusive right to use a limited resource. Hence, self-ownership is a type of property. If we can own ourselves, why not own objects and land? Owning others inherently is out of the question, because birth and self-control is homesteading in itself.
Besides the above, an argument such as yours can hardly come from a socialist, because socialists are for property as well - property of the laborers. If a socialist is for dividing up all the land and distributing it equally, the question of “why property” still exists and is exacerbated by the question of “is there some natural order of things, some decree or entitlement, that says everyone must own an equal piece of everything?”
Don’t worry, everyone has a weakness of some kind.
The easiest way to deal with property is noting that it stems from life and liberty, two things that you are unlikely to find anyone (Socialist or no) disagreeing with. You use your energy (life) and time (liberty) to create property out of raw materials. At least, that’s it in its short form. Someone else ought to expand on that.
@ JJ: Murphy at the end mentions arbitration and points to the AAA. It doesn’t appear to have a nice Wikipedia page 
:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Arbitration_Association
About other of his arguments:
One major difference between private and State judges is that the former only entertain cases when both parties submit to the “jurisdiction” of the judge. (In contrast, one or both parties in a State court case may strongly object to the judge and/or jury who will decide the issue.) Cynics of private law may consider this proposal as ridiculous—the very idea that a rapist or bank robber would agree to plead his case before a third party, ha!
However, this glib dismissal overlooks the fact that most disputes in modern commercial society are not between an “obvious” innocent and an “obvious” malefactor. Rather, it is often the case that both parties to a dispute genuinely believe themselves to be in the right, and would be happy to make their cases in front of a disinterested third party.
Often, but what about all the scenarios when it’s not? What about the scenarios with the murderers? Do we simply not trade with them? If there are contracts, then the matter is greatly simplified, but there are not always contracts.
It is bad for business if Owens runs around telling people he was brutally attacked, and if Johnson does nothing to rebut these charges. If people give any validity to Owens’ story, they will shop elsewhere.
A man who hurts his customer doesn’t care for business anyway.
Even beyond the pecuniary aspects, if Johnson is at all a normal human being, he will feel uncomfortable at social events if people are whispering about the tale behind his back.
If he feels uncomfortable, he would not have broken the arm in the first place (if he is indeed guilty).
But once a judge had rendered a quite “reasonable” ruling, even if it had gone against Johnson, the store owner would eventually submit in order to put the issue behind him and get back to his business.
Same thing with statism. Most people today are comfortable with welfare for the disabled, so would find it quite normal for a judge to strip a man of his property rights for welfare.
I guess the success of the system hinges on the idea of the education of the masses in the NAP during transition to AnCap. If society believes in rights, there will be rights.
people could arrange beforehand on the judge
…
involvement of guarantors
These make it a bit sweeter sounding, though in theory are not needed if society really believes in NAP.
Another common objection is that the rich could purchase rulings in a private court system. Again, this overlooks the rampant corruption in government courts. At least on the open market, future disputants could avoid judges accused of accepting bribes in the past.
Red herring. The same argument could be used in minarchy: Me: “In minarchy you force people to pay your taxes.” You: “But in the current system you pay so much more.”
For those Randians who are tempted to email me and claim that there is one objective set of laws that any intelligent thinker can discover through ratiocination, I merely respond: Even if this were true, no government in history has yet achieved what you desire. Perhaps it is time to consider a different approach?
Alright, well, no government has accepted AnCap, so “Perhaps it is time to consider a different approach?”
The general ideas are nice, though his argumentation is slightly weak in places.