It doesn’t appear “open and shut”. Further down you even write that Rothbard acknowledges “that the market will decide the rules”.
So how would you like scarcity issues resolved?
Right, but they’re basically arguing that we ought to choose no-choice. Their argument wants you to voluntarily cooperate with them.
Even if the end-game isn’t an anarchist or libertarian society, they certainly begin on anarchist premises. The idea is to stop them while they’re on our ground before they construct the state.
If nothing else it forces the discussion to the fact that they are willing to use violence against other people.
More specifically, its how statists formulate their arguments and if we can jack that away from them before the conversation even begins.
Bring it on [8o|]
Yes, fully agree. If we’re starting from an anarchic situation, a Statist would be even easier to defeat. It seems that either situation can be self-reinforcing. Unfortunately we’re in the Statist situation right now.
I think the best way to combat Statism is with the concept of monopoly. It’s a new and fresh idea for most people, and the only rebuttal I’ve ever heard of it is “read Hobbes.” It gets people thinking, because it doesn’t trigger any kneejerk responses. This is just in my personal experience.
Moral debates are, to me, a quagmire to get into - even supposing they make any sense, which I think they do not unless we are talking about persuasion where you’re able to use the person’s own subjective moral positions to lead them away from monopoly Statism.
Yes, and you make a very good point in the OP. If you can get them to agree that any such social agreement should be voluntarily entered into, then hit them with the arguments you listed, that could impel a lot of soul searching on their part.
Private courts. Or whatever system arises in the absence of a monopoly on force (besides of course a new monopoly on force). My general “political” position is just anti-monopolism. Other than that, I’m not a legal expert or anything so I don’t know the best way to resolve such issues. I’ll leave that to the market, confident that the result would likely be better than what we have now under the monopoly. On the off chance I become an expert someday, maybe I’ll start my own court or legal association.
What is the content of these private courts? What do they stand for? Why would you shop at one and not another? Would you like to own your own? Would you be a judge or attorney or private detective? if so, what would you stand for?
Since you’re not an expert but “maybe” you’ll start your own court…", what would you market?
Its not about what kind of society we have now, its about how they formulate their argument. If they argue we “should” have a government, they are implicitly admitting voluntarism is legitimate.
Since you asked: adherence to the NAP and voluntarism would figure prominently as guidelines in my choice of private court or legal association. Other than that, their reputation for efficiency, fairness, price, etc., but that’s really a question for a time when such courts actually exist - why ask now? I could lay out all my specific moral beliefs and leanings, but I don’t see the relevance. In fact I’m arguing against any one person’s moral views being particularly relevant to how society will organize itself in the absence of monopoly.
Once we’re out of monopoly, most laypeople are just going to be consumers vis-a-vis the law. Some of us will doubtless be advocates for or against certain laws and particular legal agencies or associations, but our words will not sway public policy makers because there won’t be any defined set of public policy makers. Some of us may go into the legal profession, maybe even head up a PDA, DRO or panarchist legal assocation. In the case of the latter two, what I stand for would be something to ask me, but if I’m just a consumer my own influence on the particulars of specific legal conventions will be quite small so why even ask? I do support the NAP, but why should that be significantly important to anyone else?
That is why the only thing I wish to advocate is anti-monopolism, and once we have no more monopoly and assuming I’m convinced it will last, I may well never give a another thought to politics or economics (and assuming the AnCaps are correct in their conjectures, I may need to give very little thought to which PDA or courts I choose). At that point, what I now perceive to be the problem will cease to exist, so I will cease to devote time to trying to solve it (unless it looks like a monopoly could re-form).
Depends on who they’re addressing specifically. If they are just asking you to support them in coercing everyone else, it’s not admitting anything about voluntarism. So practically speaking, you can take my input to be: first get them to clearly state that everyone should support a government. Then you have them.
Well, they are saying something about some voluntarism. I think these statists go into the second type as mentioned in my OP.
Yes. This is the first type of statist.
So I think what you’re proposing is to get Statists to clearly declare either (a) they are for coercing others into the system or (b) they are not. Could be a good strategy. Let’s try it out.
Yeah that’s always good.
With respect to coercing others, they may be able to get away. But if someone is trying to convince me I ought to be coerced, it is obviously not coercion if i have consented to it.
not necessarily. an individual doesn’t simply one day say, “I’m opening a court.” and then open the court that day. They become educated. They find investors. They market a product, thus, they have foresight of what product they want to sell. And something as challenging and delicate of a topic as law, takes years to learn.
I’m an educated consumer. And it depends on what product I’m interested in, but sometimes I research a couple weeks ahead of time and that’s on material items. When it comes to something as vital and potentially destructive as defense agencies (people with guns that will pick a side and fire at a criminal or enemy, when the line is drawn) I find the subject to be a bit more of an education process than merely buying a chainsaw or computer. On the other hand, I have worked in the justice field and I have first hand experience on what’s it’s like to be up against people that would kill somebody because they simply didn’t like them and wanted nobody to stand in their way (sometimes it was as literal as standing in their way). So my insight is a bit more first hand and thereby I am curious about this topic. I know what’s it’s like. Maybe I’m not only an educated consumer, but an educated entrepreneur.
as long as you understand what a monopoly is or isn’t. I don’t know if you do or not yet from I can tell. I hope you would hold off on applying your knowledge until it was a bit more mature on the subject. I’m going by what you stated earlier in this thread. It was haphazard at best. You have the gumption, but I can tell you’re still performing abstract exercises and haven’t decided upon some things.
Well, if I ever notice myself heading down that road, I’ll devote more time to thinking about such things.
If there were significant difference among the PDAs, for example, I think I would devote quote a long time to studying about their differences as well.
If you’d like, please explain what you mean a monopoly is and isn’t.
If not enough are 100% NAP-abiding, wouldn’t that just be what we have now? Basically various monopolies of force controlling, various geo-political areas? If NAP is the basis of law, then States as we know and define them now could not exist. Our law in the US applies NAP when non-state individuals commit crimes, when individuals within the state apparatus are involved in crimes political influence, not NAP rules the law. Special privleges and exemptions are granted to all individuals acting on behalf of the state. I use to act on their behalf, we followed a different set of rules than civilians.
The problem is monopoly power, NAP precludes monopoly power. What it doesn’t preclude is violence. It is my conjecture that the NAP applied to all individuals including the applicators will reduce the problem of violence to a nuisance, and will reliably prevent a monopoly state from engaging in large scale violence.
The problem is how to get everyone to follow NAP. I have no solution to that problem. Force cannot be used as the ends never justify the means. I have to go with cognitive discourse. Socrates is helpful.
you’re not thinking about these things or you are?
Wilderness: I’m thinking about monopoly, not (very much) about the specifics of what kind of PDA I would patronize.
I’m thinking about cheeseburgers, yep I’m gonna eat one now
Since multiple courts would cover any given geographical location or area, there wouldn’t be a monopoly on force. At least with our current technology, I think only a territorially exclusive provider could monopolize. In other words, monopoly implies territoriality, but the private courts won’t have territoriality even if they violate the NAP. That’s the beauty of not having a monopoly on force.
I agree with this sentiment, but later you say:
Right, that is a problem. So how about we look at it in reverse: The absence of monopoly power minimizes NAP violations. Or more carefully stated: “The less concentrated power is, the more closely the NAP tends to be adhered to.” There are of course other factors influencing adherence to the NAP, but I suggest that the statement holds in terms of power/monopoly or the spectrum of how centralized power is.
Getting rid of monopoly - however daunting a task it may be - seems much easier than trying to get everyone to follow the NAP in order to do away with monopoly power. At least, it seems you’d want to get rid of monopoly as the most logical and practical first step for getting everyone to follow the NAP.