Take a look at this democrats.com forum

Economics Economics Questions
, ,
121

Haha, ok Peter Keating, keep believing everything you read on Mises. I personally do like the site, but you treat everything that it says as gold without using any critical thought. Try thinking for yourself for once, instead of accepting everything you read.

“Serial killers and rapist aren’t really a ‘voting block’ so don’t really fit into any governmental model that I can tell. They are the direct result of political actions meant to keep a minority group in line in some countries and are seen as a valid political end by the ruling class of those regimes though.”

Serial killers exist because of the government trying to keep a minority group in line? I would appreciate some explaination of this odd assertion.

“But yeah, the State does a bang-up job of stopping rape and whatnot.”

So our state is failing, that means any attempt at limited government would be worse at administering justice than your system. I do not believe that follows.

“If they were say 60% sure but needed to gather further evidence through violating their property rights then if they were correct their trespass would be justifiable but if they were wrong then they would have to face up to the crimes they committed in pursuit of their job.”

PDA’s could be 100% certain of someone’s guilt, then search someones home and find nothing. Would the person be compensated then?

You did not answer my more important question, how could you find someone guilty without being able to compel testimony. How would you give them incentive to testify, for paying them would surely make them impartial.

“And as for ‘stealing your profits’, is that one of those intangible properties you are refering to? Didn’t quite realize libertarian ethics had a natural right to ‘profits’, maybe that’s in one of the chapters I haven’t quite gotten to in The Ethics of Liberty audiobook.”

No, thats not at all what I meant. I meant when you labor for something, like writing a book or an essay, you have the right to not allow others to profit from your work without your consent. But would all “impartial” courts see it this way?

Who would decide if a court is impartial anyway? Public opinion? Because we all know the public is INCREDIBLY impartial. Individuals? There is no guarantee that they would agree. Different people would have different views of what impartial is, what is just and what is not. And again, no one ever answers what you do if someone just does not show up to a trial. So a judgement is made in their absence. What significance would that have? How could the court have the power to take property from someone against their will? Then if they use force, they could simply claim the court was biased, and then find a court that agrees with them.

What if the global warming scare were to progress even further (not very far-fetched in my mind), and all of a sudden people felt it was a CRIME if you produced CO2, and they justified it by saying it caused harm to the enviroment and therefore harmed individuals. Since the scare was so popular, the courts that most people would consider “impartial” would be those that followed this viewpoint. You would be brought to court and any attempt to get it tried in a court that favored your view would be met with massive resistance. What would you do in this case? Most PDA’s would want to earn the largest profits possible, and if the overwhelming majority believed in global warming then they would most likely cater to them.

122

What a joke, Why don’t you give thinking a go (stop sneeringly insinuating that others just mindlessly repeat propaganda), and try ask all these questions of government, like who judges whether it’s impartial etc., instead of repeatedly asking anarchists. Golly gee, imagine if not everyone agrees, or if some people have different ideas than others, then what??? It’s the end of the world! [:O] Oh, and guess what, if someone is proven guilty and makes no effort to defend themselves in court, then they have no justification for whining when they’re forced to make good. They had the chance, they forfeit it, now they get to suffer the consequences. It’s that simple. Oh, and by the way, what’d happen if most people in a nation decided global warming were fact and decided to foist their views on all the others? Would they be able to contest this Objective, Absolute and Impartial ™ Provider of Law Inc.'s decisions, or would they be forced to follow them? Yeah, I think you see where this is leading…

-Jon

123

“It’s that simple. Oh, and by the way, what’d happen if most people in a nation decided global warming were fact and decided to foist their views on all the others? Yeah, I think you see where this is leading…”

You again act like I am arguing for the system we currently have in place, which I am not. We need a government whose only duty is protection of rights, and the rights would be placed in the constitution and could not be amended.

You have yet in this whole thread to give a specific example of how these people would be “forced to make good”. If the defendant says no, I will not go to court A I will only go to court B and the plantiff says, I do not respect court B, I will only go to court A. You would say they would be forced to find a suitable court, but what if no suitable court were to be found? Who would decide what “fair and impartial” court they would attend.

Plus you did not answer how your anarchist system would account for things like my global warming argument. The profit motive of following public opinion would be staggering.

And by the way, you act as if I do not question government. I do question its very existance. But I realize government has legitimate roles, those being protecting its citizens rights from threats, both foreign and domestic. Until I see someone PROVE otherwise, that is what I will feel. Grand theories about private insurance companies having cart blanche to use violence to gain a profit does not presuade me.

124

So the legitimite role of the state is to protect its citizen’s rights to life, liberty, and property… by taking away their rights to life (via war), liberty (via conscription), and property (via taxation). Sounds about right to me.

125

Oh…

I guess ad hominems are a one way street with you. Nice.

You have never heard of genocide and rape gangs in Africa? Those are both government sanctioned activites.

If they couldn’t find enough evidence to convict a person they would be guilty of criminal trespass. You’re the one whining about violating people’s rights but only find them valid if it is done by the State. Double standard doesn’t make for a free society.

If you believe in free speech and don’t believe in the corollary of freedom to not speak then it would seem you are the one who is having an ethical dilema and not me. ‘Talk or we will imprison you’ while also having ‘government shall pass no laws’ is another double standard.

Yet again we are talking about what is just and not what is moral. You understand that there is a difference don’t you?

Oh, like not being able to patent or copyright a scientific formula no matter how useful it is in bringing products to the market?

Umm, Customers? Who’s best at figuring out their own personal cost to value ratio?

Maybe they could do something so radical as having someone swear out a statement as an insurance policy against them not showing up to court? Or do you mean a defendent? Why wouldn’t they show up if they were notified knowing full well their defense would be piss poor without them being there? You haven’t heard about the current legal system trying people in absentia?

What if the victim didn’t show up and the defendant won, is that a problem too?

If someone doesn’t care enough to defend their property then they don’t seem to care enough to not have the court take it away from them. This is all predicated on the two sides agreeing on a court so it would seem that the defendant is fully knowledgeable of the threat against their interests.

I kind of think that you have an idea that someone could just file a charge without notifying the defendant and then gaining title to all their material possessions. Who would respect the judgment of a court like that?

I’m surprised you haven’t come up with the question of how to get a jury to show up without paying a market rate wage to them.

Maybe they could base their decisions on natural rights and not Group Think?

Once again, morality vs.ethics.

Oh, and who the hell is Peter Keating? Is he one of those people who actually tries to understand a point of view before spouting off opposition to it from a position of ignorance like you are wont to do?

126

Peter Keating was one of the leading antagonists in Atlas Shrugged.

Just a piece of advice, from one Randian to another, rixross. Don’t call people “Peter Keating” on forums. Even on Objectivist forums, its usually considered to be in bad taste. Doesn’t help at all with the whole “Randroid” thing.

127

He’s a character from Rand’s The Fountainhead who has nothing at all to do with the conversation you were having. I had to lol.

128

You just answered your own question, the profit motive to private companies who don’t really feel like inspiring The Wrath of the Consumers™ would participate in non-global warming production methods if they hoped to compete.

I guess you didn’t think that a free market would allow consumers to vote with their pocketbooks instead of forcing their moral opinions on someone else under threat of violence then?

You know nothing about the Free Market it would seem.

129

Nuh-uh. :stuck_out_tongue:

130

I find this almost comical. Sure these are brilliant theories, but I have yet to hear you explain how they would work in practice. This “impartial court” would somehow have juristiction over someone who did not submit to their authority? How does the free market answer that?

"

You have never heard of genocide and rape gangs in Africa? Those are both government sanctioned activites."

Um, ok. So because SOME rapists and serial killers are government sponsored then all of them are?

“Maybe they could base their decisions on natural rights and not Group Think?”

What are you even trying to say? Of course they COULD do whatever they want. The point is as a business they will act in a way which will give them the greatest profit. If this means conforming to public opinion, then why wouldn’t they?

If someone doesn’t care enough to defend their property then they don’t seem to care enough to not have the court take it away from them. This is all predicated on the two sides agreeing on a court so it would seem that the defendant is fully knowledgeable of the threat against their interests."

You fail to mention what would happen if someone were to say, “this court is false, I do not respect their ruling” and got the backing of some court that agreed with them. What all of you fail to see is that not everyone believes what the people that read the Mises forums believe. Thier would be a market to serve these people. There would be Catholic courts, Muslim courts, and a millions different set of courts. Now, if Libertians like us were in the majority, and we decided that these courts were fine as long as both parties agreed to submit to their ruling, then sure everything would be fine. But that is not how the world works.

A Catholic kills a Muslim. The muslim person wants the trial in a muslim court, the catholic in a catholic court. Neither will agree to any other kind of court because they do not respect any law that is not their own. How could such an agreement come to pass?

What bothers me, is I honestly continued posting on this thread because I wanted an intelligent discusion about this topic. But it seemed that everyone (including myself) have fallen victim to ad hominid attacks instead of discussing the real issues. What I feel is there are serious questions that must be raised about this anarchial system you are talking about. I am not going to out right say that we need to have government. But as of right now, I do not feel anyone has made a case for a better alternative than an extremely limited constitutional republic. Sure it would have its flaws, but atleast it could answer some of the questions I have posed that remain unanswered. Surely any government is liable for corruption, but legally allowing the use of force to any private competitor could cause corruption as well. What I beleive makes free market capitalism work so well is the ultimate protection of life and property, of which I am not convinced that PDA’s could effectively provide. While surely the system of government that America is currently under does not provide this either. I am not saying we need a government like we have now. In fact, I am open to believe that we do not need government at all. But unfotunately, the model you have provided me does not convince me of this.

I would like to be convinced, but what I would need would be real-life examples of how this system would work on an everyday basis. Surely a free market system is able to adapt, but how would we assure that, with justice in private hands, that tyranny of the majority would not become prevalant? How could we be sure that those with means could use this system to their benefit at the hands of those without.

131

AHHHHHH!!! Foiled again by my lack of proofreading!

132

Nope, I was just trying to figure out how your red herring argument would apply to the topic at hand.

So you are proposing that individual rapists and serial killers would be able to sway public opinion in their favor and get the majority of the public to support their position enough so that the private courts would cater to them?

Feel free to correct me if I’m wrong. How did you intend to fit serial rapists and murders into this discussion anyway?

Wait, if both of the individuals agreed to submit to a court that followed Sharia Law you would find that offensive even though it wouldn’t in any way effect you? Yes, the Real World doesn’t work like this because you only have two options presently, government monopoly courts and private arbritration. Oh, wait a second, private arbitration would seem to be a real life example of private courts…imagine that.

I guess the concept of an appeal would also go out the window too as the courts pandered to public opinion, huh?

Oh my, an impasse.

Perhaps the victim’s right to not to be murdered would be able to compel the alleged murder to stand before a non-religious court since they lose a significant portion of their right not to be aggressed against by killing someone.

Is it such a leap to believe that someone would be able to insist on having their case heard in a strict natural rights court if there were a disagreement over the ‘impartiality’ of the proposed court. Or that there would be different levels of courts where the higher courts would see the cases where the lower court’s decisions were contested.

Why don’t you answer that question?

I kind of suspect that any solution you come up with would equally apply to free market courts.

No, really, just answer the question, sir.

133

“Wait, if both of the individuals agreed to submit to a court that followed Sharia Law you would find that offensive even though it wouldn’t in any way effect you?”

No, like I said, if two sides agree to a private court then that would be fine.

“Perhaps the victim’s right to not to be murdered would be able to compel the alleged murder to stand before a non-religious court since they lose a significant portion of their right not to be aggressed against by killing someone.”

Or they wouldnt, because they did not want to go to jail or be executed.

“Is it such a leap to believe that someone would be able to insist on having their case heard in a strict natural rights court if there were a disagreement over the ‘impartiality’ of the proposed court. Or that there would be different levels of courts where the higher courts would see the cases where the lower court’s decisions were contested.”

Sounds alot like OUR justice system. How could there be higher and lower levels of courts, unless they were part of the same corporation? I get how there could be different TYPES of courts, criminal, civil, the works, but different levels among these courts, how would that work out?

“Why don’t you answer that question?”

I misspoke, I meant justice in private hands.

134

I thought that’s pretty much what we started with. Even if you make it completely unchangeable over time the interpretation will change to suit those in power. And even if there is some way to protect that you can’t prevent the government from making a huge power grab like Lincoln did. The government only has to win the battle for power once and they get as many tries as they like.

135

This happens all the time today, only it is done by the state. The people being violated rarely, if ever, get any compensation.

136

I feel for you because discussions can become heated fast when trying to explain/justify/share radical libertarian and anarchist positions with people trying to find answers.

Inevitably it becomes a pissing match of who can make points, and not a well intentioned exchange of knowledge.

The state fails. It’s really as simple as that.

If we believe that the United States Constitution created a limited state, I would say that is false. It created limits for the state, and the state, as could be reasonably predicated, has found ways to erode or bypass those limits.

In a sense, a “limited state” is an oxymoron.

In order for the state to have power, you have to feed it taxes and the authority to be the interpreter of law. It doesn’t even need to be the creator of law, just the interpreter, which will inevitably allow it to interpret in it’s own interest which is more taxes (resources) and more authority.

Unless you can find a way for the state to exist without coercion (taxes) and without allowing it to make or interpret law, it will always be oppressive which seems to be the opposite of your goal.

137

You are right, it would be nearly impossible to prevent the government from gaining to much power. We would have to put even more safeguards than the constitution had. I think we could improve upon what America orginally started with and hopefully we could make it much longer before the government turned into a leviathan. If and when it did, a new revolution would be in order. I do not claim this is a perfect system, only that it would last longer than an anarchial system.

My problem with the anarchial system is that there are people who feel it is their duty to tell people what to do. Now these people fufill this desire through government. How do you know that under a private system there would not be a market to help people fufill these desires? Corrupt courts could be labelled as “just” or “impartial”, PDA’s may trample rights using these courts as a shield. Which brings me to my main argument against this system:

Who gives these private courts the authority to take from an unwilling individual? Surely when people agree on a neutral court this would not be a problem, but you cannot say this will always be the case. Clearly two people will not always agree on constitutes an “impartial” court because different people have different views what is just and what is unjust. If a judgement is entered against a defendant in a court that they did not submit to, then how does the court have the authority to take this man’s possessions without their consent?

You could say that they will settle on a natural rights court, but some people will feel that the Bible, Koran or some other holy text has higher authority than these natural rights courts and would not submit to any court that did not adhere to their strict social guidelines. There could be many other reasons why two individuals would not be able to agree upon a court, this is simply one of them.

And, as I said before, if they cannot or do not agree, then what happens from their? Is the case tried in absentia? If so, would the defendant not be justified to not submit to its ruling, and be able to claim the court has no authority over him? Is the case dropped? If so, how would justice ever be administered? Does some third party pick a random “reputable” court for which the case should be tried? This brings up even more questions like, who chooses the third party, how do we know that this party and the court are both fair and impartial?

Again, try not to simply tell me how our justice system has its problems as well, as I acknowledge that. I simply want to know how an anarchial system would be able to bring about justice in a dispute between unwilling parties.

138

Yes, it certainly seems to have turned into a pissing match.

I agree that government’s can clearly be opressive. We have yet to discover a truly perfect way to govern. But, how do you know some anarchial system will not be corrupted in the same way government is corrupted? Surely, such corruption would hinder profit making, but that is not the highest goal of some people. Some people think it is the will of God that they control people’s thoughts and actions. Would a group of people with means not be able to attain this, atleast in a some sense? They could form their own courts, with their own PDA’s, their own personal armies with nuclear weapons and who is to stop them? For whom would it be profitble? Surely, if they messed with the members of another powerful PDA then that PDA would have to retaliate, but if the people being oppressed had a weak PDA or none at all, what would happen?

Could men not become slaves?

139

Why in the world would this scare you? Under a private system no one has any authority whatsoever to tell other people what to do, while a state system gives them that opportunity in spades. Even the most corrupt private system would be better than a state system in that respsect.

140

Sure, they could. It’s entirely possible. It’s also much less likely than with any state system. What do you think a draft is anyway?