Territoriality and Monopoly

[Conza]

@AJ

@Conza88

@AJ

I don’t even need to believe in objective ethics to condemn Naziism - I can just subjectively disapprove.

And since your “objection” / disapproval is personal, the Nazi’s personally approved - so where the hell does that leave your disapproval when it comes to justice & the law (as is always normative)? It is thus completely meaningless.

This really isn’t that complicated: I would certainly patronize private courts that were against Naziism, and I assume you would do the same. Does the fact that you purport to objectively condemn Naziism and I purport to subjectively condemn Naziism make any difference whatsoever as to the effect of your patronage of those courts versus my patronage of those courts?

You assume the context of a stateless society. Ahh.. why? I’m talking about historically, back in that period. Where are your objections, that are all the more important - from a statist context?

[Amanojack]

@trulib

@AJ

With the rise of the Internet, the idea is occurring to more and more people that social organization needn’t necessarily be territorial.

AJ - I don’t see anything profound in the article you linked to. I can’t see any reason to seperate “territorial goods” from “non-territorial goods” - in fact I think it only adds confusion. It plays into the minarchist position that there are two classes of goods - those the free market can handle, and those governments must provide. Is this your position as well, or am I missing something?

The link was not meant to be profound, just meant as a striking example of people of a more mainstream persuasion questioning the assumption that social organization needs to be entirely territorial. It’s not my position, no. My position is simply anti-monopolism (monopoly of force, not monopoly in the Austrian econ sense), which I think entails panarchism. I was just surprised to see ideas leaning toward panarchism (although indeed not fully reaching it) couched in language and a general attitude that seemed so mainstream.

This gives me some optimism for the future, because it hints at an unexpectedly short path from mainstream thought to full-on libertarianism that I had not seen talked about before, and because it seems to signify an growing level of questioning the status quo in this area.

@trulib

@AJ

For what reasons does the legal system need to be universal across the enter span of a given territory?

I take it your answer to this would be ‘no reasons whatsoever’?

Although I definitely lean toward “no reasons whatsoever,” I can think of arguments for both sides. For now I am simply interested in eliciting people’s ideas on the subject.

[Amanojack]

@Conza88

You assume the context of a stateless society. Ahh.. why? I’m talking about historically, back in that period. Where are your objections, that are all the more important - from a statist context?

I don’t see the reason for the question, but here is an answer just for clarity’s sake.

In the statist context, where “objecting” would only have useful meaning in terms of the state’s laws, I think my answer is even less surprising. If I wasn’t allowed a lawyer but was allowed to speak in my defense (or the defense of others) on trial and had time to prepare, I would learn the ins and outs of the law as best I could and try to object in the way most likely to get me the results I want within the legal system.

If it wasn’t a court trial, I would try to persuade people not to support the Nazi regime. I would only try to couch my “objections” within a normative context if I believed my audience was agreeable to the norms referenced by such objections. It’s common sense that you appeal to people’s values when trying to make a value-based argument or objection. Or I may just base my “objections” on consequences.