Firstly, I did not make the statement in bold. I did not ever say that the mafia would be better for libertarian rights. So I’m not sure why you would accuse me of such a statement. Secondly, the reason I brought up the mafia was because you were making an unsubstantiated assertion. You claimed that the only kind of competition possible in regards to PDAs is force. This is not true. I brought up the mafia because the criminal elements within in are pretty bad. Yet even the mafia can reach agreements with each other so that they are not competing with force. So, if the mafia can reach agreements so as to not be at all out war, I would think that honest people would have an even easier time of reaching agreements so as to not be at war with each other.
You would greatly benefit from reading those posts carefully. Those posts directly address what is justice and law and crime. Is English your second language? I don’t mean any offense, but you seem to have difficulty with reading comprehension.
You do not seem to understand what the mafia is. You can choose to become a member or not. The mafia does not conscript (it may threaten you to do something for them, but that does not make you a part of the gang itself). The mafia does pick who will be “protected”, but that is not the same as joining the gang itself.
Just like the very nature of a state. At best, the laws of any given state will sometimes coincide with “libertarian laws” (whatever those may be). Typically, the statutory laws of the state are in direct opposition to what would be “libertarian laws”.
No. I won’t all of the state abolished. The court system does not protect “libertarian rights”. There are many crimes for which people are prosecuted and incarcerated that are in direct opposition to “libertarian rights”.
And how does this forward “libertarian rights”? The monopoly justice system enforces its statutes, most of which contradict “libertarian rights”. How is this a good thing?
I really suggest you read those two posts carefully. It is clear that you did not bother to understand what you were reading, as this paragraph perfectly illustrates.
Crime is a violation of someone’s natural rights. Before we pronounce someone a criminal, we have to prove that he is. This is where courts come in. Once we prove that he is a criminal, law enforcement agencies will take care of exerting punishment.
Your assumption here is that market police / legal system would simply duplicate the existing statist system. This is likely false, although no one can know for sure. Unlike in our current legal system in Ruritani murdering a murderer is total kosher, and most career criminal types would likely exist in a state of persona non grata, undesirable to any private protection agency and outcast from society at large. Think ‘rep’ creds on a forum.
What if the negotiation turns out like this, that the thief claims that he has the right to take your car. And since his “protecting agency” is much more powerful that the insurance company you have picked, he gets his way.
If any insurance company going to give car insurance to someone who crashes cars into walls for fun? No company would protect a career criminal as it would not be profitable. These people would be persona non grata.
Exaclty! And so there exists no one who sells such insurances today. It isn’t feasible to compete with force. That’s no way to freedom. It’s a pipe dream.
You mean, just like when the state comes in to steal people’s homes to give them to a private organization? This is called eminent domain. Here is a link to a CBS news report on some of the various eminent domain abuses. I will quote some of more important parts:
So, it turns out that the state does exactly what you fear. How can you support an organization that steals not just property, but houses, only to give it some private group?
That’s only a good definition of government if we use it in the Nockean sense. I prefer ‘an organization with a territorial monopoly on violence or decision making’. Which is a serious problem to have, since if I had a monopoly on decision making I would decide all your money was mine.
gotloucky, you describe a part of the government that I, and all minarchists, want to abolish. We want to keep the criminal court system. Their only problem today, is that they don’t apply criminal laws on government force. Otherwise, they do protect peoples negative rights.
Meistro:
if I had a monopoly on decision making I would decide all your money was mine.
I bet you’d do the same if you had enough violent power to not be detered by a libertarian monopoly on justice. Freedom will only be achieved when enough people act to protect libertarian rights, not when thugs “compete” forcefully with each other. That only leads to the non-libertarian monopoly we have today.
(Formatting and quoting is really weird in this editor)
This is nuts. The courts do not solely protect people’s negative rights. More than 50% of inmates in Federal prisons are from drug related crimes. Read here, here, and here for more info. Don’t forget all the people who are sued for violating IP laws. More negative rights being violated there.
Drug laws are not part of the criminal law code, but separate legislation (like tax legislation and so on). At least where i live. The criminal courts of the government is today the ONLY organization which protects your negative rights to any degree! They only need to abolish government’s exceptions from criminal laws, and voila we have a libertarian society.
You are throwing out the baby with the bath water when you want to abolish the criminal court system, just because that part too is “called government”. Look at the reality of their actions, don’t just stare yourself blind on their formal title.
This is tiring. At no point have I stated that I want an end to a court system. I just don’t want a monopoly court system. Please stop mischaracterizing my beliefs. Again, from your statements, it is clear to me that you have not read the two posts I provided to you earlier.
It seems then, that anarcho capitalists are minarchists under another name. Because you don’t accept any anti-libertarian competition against a libertarian justice system, do you? For example, you wouldn’t accept NSDAP as a competitor, and their aggressions against for example jews according to their laws. So you do want a monopoly in effect! You just don’t use the word “government” for the monopoly.
No. That is not the case. Anarcho-capitalists do not want a state.
You have absolutely no idea what law is. Law is the peaceful resolution of disputes. This holds true for whether it is law governing a specific organization or the law of the land. If you were to read Clayton’s posts, you would understand that the Nazi aggression against Jews existed under statutory law, not customary law.
No, I do not. I believe I asked you stop mischaracterizing my beliefs and statements. I have to ask, are you here to debate honestly, or are you a troll? In addition, it appears that you do not know what a monopoly is:
I do not want there to be exclusive control in the market on law.
Well, a great place to start would be those posts I gave you earlier. Another would be the wikipedia entry on customary law. But there really is not competition among customary laws. There can be different resolutions to disputes, but something either is a custom or it isn’t. In other words, it’s custom to drive on the right side of the road in America, regardless of the statutory law. There aren’t competing customs of driving on the left side.
In a customary law society, there is no statutory law. If someone has the ability to create statutory law, then the customs are not long for this world.
I don’t understand how you can argue for a monopoly in courts. Just look at today’s Supreme Court. Go to their website (or oyez.org ) and read some opinions or listen to oral arguments.
What a circus! Half the judges basically twist the law into whatever they wish to be the desired result (according to their personal political philosophy). The half of the other half do the same, just for the opposite set of views. Scalia supposedly is originalist, but in reality he worships the precedent more, and in fact is a hypocrite (he thinks that Texas can enact sodomy laws, but Illinois cannot enact gun control laws; he seems to be an enemy of abusing Interstate Commerce Clause, but he is ok abusing it to control marijuana growth for cancer patients). Kennedy doesn’t know what he is doing at any point of time. Thomas is the most fair and consistent of them all, but also seemingly the most corrupt.
Again, what a joke! Do you think such judges would be favored for their opinion-providing service on a free market?
Not that this is only the case with the Supreme Court. Individual States’ courts are equally inept and corrupt. Take, for instance, Texas. Or, on the other side of the spectrum, Connecticut.
Helloween does make some valid points, the most important of which is that having a free market in the production of legal/security services does not necessarily entail having libertarian legal/security services. You don’t abolish the State and therefore necessarily have a libertarian world; you abolish the State and have whatever kind of world consumers demand.
That’s true. But that’s like saying: Markets won’t necessarily produce plasma-screen TVs. They will produce whatever the customers desire.
Therefore what? Whatever the markets produce, it will be better than whatever government-run TV factories produce. And with the latter, innovation will happen more slowly, and prices will be higher.
The main advantage of free-market–produced law is that you will have a few version of it coexisting at the same time, competing with each other. And, if it is really true that libertarian natural law is more effective, more fair, and more beneficial to the society, than the society will tend to select for libertarian lawyers and judges.
Or at least it will select for the judges whose “opinions” and legal philosophy would be better for the society. Just like in any other industry.
Unless you have the elitist view that the individual ivory-tower sages know better than the public what the public needs.
Oh no! That’s like trusting that “someone else will do it”.
The only way is to use our reason and action in order to promote libertarian rights, instead of “competition in itself” without appying our values to it.
An-caps straddle between a description of sociatal evolution, which is totally flawed, obviously! And a nihilistic stand point that everything everyone does is as good as anything. All while somehow trying to deny that all justice necessarily is based on the use of force, as opposed to a market.
Reason is great, but it only takes you so far. It’s like the market on oranges. Do you know what the price of oranges should be in New York City? What about Paris? No, we cannot know the specific price, but we can know how the price of oranges comes about.
It’s the same with law. The details cannot be reasoned out, only the framework.
More unsubstantiated assertions. Why do you do this? To what purpose? Do you believe that this is a good method to further debate?