Uniform, perchance?
No contradiction whatsoever. Once the courts and judges are elected into position your feelings (about their reputations or otherwise) play no role. The court ruling is out and police is at your door with the handcuffs – your feelings notwithstanding. Where’s the contradiction here?
It actually has not been pointed out. Your last statement is a mere demagoguery in its own right.
Z.
What strength does the Constitution have? What governments are restrained by their Constitution? What Constitution has been entered into voluntarily by every citizen it claims authority over?
The answers are, none, none, and none.
The purpose of a Constitution, is to create an artificial reputation for government as a limited, law abiding entity. The truth in action, is that the Constitution is an unenforceable contract by the citizen party, and thus, it is null and void.
Governments however, benefit from people defending them under the guise that Constitutions make their actions legitimate, regardless of the efficiacy of that contract. That is the power of reputation. You are enforcing it right now.
Uniform law is inherently unjust. It is impossible for a uniform legal code to reflect the values of every individual, and their needs/expectations in voluntary exchange.
Right, that is how it works in tyrannies.
Sure it has. I pointed it out with the Hasnas essay you have continued to evade. I think it has been pointed out to you several times now.
It isn’t. He’s making a statement based on what we understand about monopoly and market competition. If you disagree with his analysis, then you’re basically refuting the entire premise that competition provides efficiency. Are you sure that is your argument?
Yes.
Everything, pretty much.
Z.
@Jon,
Our friend Z has already informed us that he believes he has the right to force people to order to his specifications through the use of violence.
For him, authority is force. And order is obtained with violence.
No, it differs.
Contradiction: Once. How exactly do they get elected? Someone’s “feelings” about their reputation both in judiciousness (and/or politics, now) obviously is the deciding factor in any election. Instead of reputation amongst the general public being important, now its only the electors. By throwing out the “vague” concept of reputation you’ve undermined your own position as well. Unless, you favour oligarchy.
Why even have courts at all, just have the police chief just decide? I mean, it is uniform after all.
It has been:
And see here. As well as the many other links I’ve given to you before.
I shouldn’t have to explain why these (or Nike, or Goldman Sachs, etc.) are straw men.
And what of your obsession with monopoly? Are you REALLY sure that monopoly law enforcement can be the foundation of a functioning society, without devolving into a hypermilitarized police state?
How? And would I be coerced into accepting it? This “common” law, I mean.
If yes, what’s the difference from uniform law? If not, why would I voluntarily submit myself to it? Oh wait, I forgot. If I didn’t accept it (say, by sacrificing a 10yr old child to my gods each Halloween) then no one would like me, my reputation would be sullied, and no one would be buying cookies from my bakery. Close?
Z.
Yes, I do have the right to do whatever I want with the water, flowing over my property. Who is going to stop me from doing whatever I want with it?
That would be up to the courts. Would you not agree that a land-owner owns some of the space above and below ground? Would you not also agree that a land-owner does not own all the land to the other side of the planet from his plot of land or to infinity in the sky? If you do agree, then there would be some point above and below ground where his ownership ends.
Really? Who is going to stop me?
Really? Who is going to stop me?
I am starting to understand why some people get annoyed with Rothbardians. One cannot homestead “noise pollution”. If you think someone is being too loud, you can either move away or ask them to be quieter.
Hunting licenses have everything to do with the state. I don’t see how this is relevant to this conversation.
I haven’t had my coffee yet so I’ll answer this later.
Let me tell you a story. In the town that I live there was a adult man who was accused of having an inappropriate relationship with a female student at the local highschool. He was arrested, tried, and convicted. He spent a few months in jail.
When he got out the real punishment began. He was greeted with dirty looks and cold faces everywhere he went. None of his friends wanted anything to do with him. His family even avoided him. He couldn’t hold a job because no employer wanted to hire him. He ended up leaving town. He once told me that he would rather die than go back home. “You’ll never know how hard it was just to go to the grocery store,” he said to me.
Something to think about…
The idea is not necessarily that someone “stops” you from doing it, but rather that you may be held liable for the consequences of some of those actions, depending on whether they are injurious to others according to prevailing social norms.
This appears to be the best you can muster.
I’m not sure I’m interested in pursuing a discussion with a confrontation fetishist. The theme behind this thread, if I may be a little loose, is something like:
In a society of individuals with occasionally conflicting interests and desires, how can we resolve these interests and adjudicate/arbitrate honest disputes between members? Or, what are some mechanisms or institutions by which these individuals might arrange to resolve their disputes as amicably as possible.
If at every turn, you simply reiterate “Really? Who is going to stop me?” then you’re being a troll. Get lost.
How is me using the water on my property how I want to use it, injurious to others?
Get lost or else what? Are you going to make me? Are you threatening me?
I wasn’t asking you to start a debate about common law. Can’t you just answer my questions above without going into detail (or assuming any knowledge on my part) about what “'common” law is? Or at least explain how the content of that law would be relevant in answering them.
Z.
It may not be. It all depends on how you use it and/or what you actually do with it, or to it.
You don’t own the water any more than you “own” the air which circulates the glob, occasionally passing over the land which you occupy, possess, or otherwise claim to own. To the extent which it adversely impacts others, anything which you do to the water, or put into the water, may be considered injurious to others.
You wouldn’t go to a forum discussion about internal combustion engines and ask the members there to explain the laws of thermodynamics (and their relevancy). It’s equally ridiculous to engage in a discussion about society and law, without understanding how a 1,000 year old legal tradition is relevant to the topic at hand.
Common law is relevant because it both predates modern law, and is a foundation for most western legal systems. If you aren’t familiar with common law (which has been around for about a millenium) then you’re out of your element, and reading up on it might be beneficial.
As opposed to freedom-loving societies where convicted criminals march themselves to prison (singing and uncuffed, lest they sully their reputations)?
While at it, would you care to have a stab at this question that’s conveniently being avoided (among the many)?
One more… Would a criminal suspect have a say about where he’s going to be tried, and who would he be “negotiating” this with toward a mutual satisfaction?
Z.