What about murderers?

[gotlucky]

I didn’t see this posted in this thread yet, so I’ll do it now. Clayton has written two excellent posts titled What Law Is and A Praxeological Account of Law. I suggest you read them because you will understand where he is coming from better.

@hefty

I skipped it because I believe it was mearly rhetoric, “settled solely by the parties themselves” and “disputes are settled voluntarily” sound a bit like catch-phrases. You are mistaken in your interpretation of these things. The parties agree at aprevious date to an arbitration procedure in case there is a conflict. After the fact, when there is a conflict, one of the parties may want to deny the procedure, but that’s too bad. If A says self-defense and doesn’t want a trial, A is still brought into the procedure. If both A and B agreed to be arbitrated by a referee or the defense agency which they both subscribe to, then we are discussing what rules the agency must abide by when deciding who is in the wrong.

Just as language is what arises from humans trying to communicate with each other, law is what arises from humans trying to settle disputes nonviolently. If you and I have a dispute, there are only two ways it can be settled, through mutual settlement or by violence. Common law and customary law are what arise from a decentralized system of law. There need not be any binding arbitration for either of these to produce law. Statutory law is what arises when there is a monopoly on the legitimate use of force in any given area. When Clayton refers to arbitration, he is referring to the process of mediation, where two or more participants use a mediator to find a mutually agreeable solution to their dispute. Mediation even exists in the modern world despite there being statutory law. In other words, despite having a state, there are people who are willing to settle disputes without a binding solution already! So I would not dismiss his statements as people do actually settle disputes voluntarily - often without mediation.

@hefty

Just because you can’t imagine it is not reason to denounce it. I will expand my scenario in the next reply. I am not basing my example on any of our current situations, nothing that I said hinges on that. The only thing I assume is that there are two parties and that there is a referee(s) that will need to decide using some legal procedure. I am merely discussing what legal procedures should be allowed.

Ditto to you. Just because you cannot imagine people settling disputes voluntarily is not a reason to denounce it. And, as I previously stated, people already settle disputes voluntarily in a wide range of disputes.

@hefty

They don’t necessarily. If they agree to abide by a decision by a “neutral third party” at a previous date. Then the “neutral third party”, which is some kind of arbitrator has the right by contract to make a decision about who was at fault. I think this is how most people imagine a legal system, including Rothbard whose thesis I am currently assuming and discussing. If I am wrong correct me.

Note that even if one of them pays a defense agency, then that agency will have to be an arbitrator in a dispute. If there is a conflict of agencies, then according to Block we will have a third-party agency or a common go-to guy that will referee a dispute. In any case someone will be refereeing a dispute the minute B takes on A for shooting him.

It is possible for people to agree to abide by a decision made by a neutral third party, but this does not mean they will do so. A dispute is resolved only when all parties have decided it is resolved. This is true even today, in Statist America. For example, a murderer is not punished to the extent that the family of the victim would be satisfied. A member of the family then kills the murderer. Only then is the dispute resolved. This kind of thing does happen, perhaps not commonly with murder, but vindictive ex-spouses keying their ex’s car, or something to that effect.

@hefty

This is mearly your definition of “judge”. All I’ve said up till now doesn’t hinge on whether judge means referee or whatever. I am implicitly assuming that there is a voluntary institution with an arbitrator(s) of some sort, which I call a judge. Just because “judge” has a different connotation doesn’t mean I am wrong in using the word. I am not trying to play word games here. If I reframe the question the only thing that may change is your intuition, but the logic of the argument will remain the same, there is no point in this then.

No. Clayton is not defining judge in a different way then you. A judge is someone whose decision is final. A mediator is someone who helps two people reach a mutally agreeable solution. Clayton is using arbitrator in the sense of mediator. So, he is asking you to to imagine how disputes would be settled if there were no judges but arbitrators (mediators).