the threat of force

[Autolykos]

@Charles Anthony

Back to my point stated on July 8th up above: "An anarchist market for law does not require factoring in intent.

The people involved may want cheap justice. If they chose to pay their security providers to omit convoluted investigations to factor in intent in how their disputes are resolved, intent will never be factored in."

The bottom line is that if people do not want to pay professional arguerers to waste their time trying to read eachother’s minds then lawyers and judges will not waste their own time factoring in intent. The established legal practice is interesting but completely irrelevent in a libertarian discussion of the market for law.

I don’t consider it irrelevant, because I think it serves as a guidepoint for what people may actually look for in a free-market legal system. On the other hand, I didn’t think the point of this thread was indeed to have a libertarian discussion of the market for law.

@Charles Anthony

Irrelevent but interesting nonetheless. Go re-read what I wrote and what you quoted. Here is a hint: the bits before and after the “a different type of” part are pertinent.

Having re-read what you wrote and what I quoted, I fail to see how my latest response was irrelevant.

@Charles Anthony

That is not what I wrote and it can not logically be derived from what I wrote. Regardless, they are all still just guessing games.

If you didn’t mean that all guesses (and means of making them) are equally arbitrary, then I’m at a loss to understand what you did mean. Can you explain it to me in more detail?

[Charles_Anthony]

I mean they are all arbitrary. Just not equally arbitrary.

The point is that there is no objective proof. There are convincing arguments but there is no proof. Your perceivably-less-arbitrary guidepoint may be more convincing but nobody will ever be able to prove events in an absolutist sense. That is ok. That is just the reality of the world in which we live.

@Autokylos

I don’t consider it irrelevant, because I think it serves as a guidepoint for what people may actually look for in a free-market legal system.

It is irrelevent because justice does not need to be that complicate. If people do not want to pay for making justice that complicated, they your guidepoint is irrelevent.

Come back when you have a way of proving what people want to pay for justice.

@Autokylos

On the other hand, I didn’t think the point of this thread was indeed to have a libertarian discussion of the market for law.

You asked: “In that case, why are we debating anything?” and I reply by applying the threat of force/NAP in a practical manner. The only practical manner is by looking at the market for law – i.e., what people are willing to pay and what people are will to supply.

The NAP is just a type of law, the one and only law that defines authentic libertarianism, by the way.