Which is it? Is it your solution, or the solution?
I don’t see why you’re so surprised by me and others saying that we would interfere if faced with the situation you presented. On the other hand, I don’t see how saying that necessarily makes me a utilitarian. Can you please explain?
No one knows what necessarily would happen in such a situation - if anything. All any of us can do is bring up possibilities and assign likelihoods (hopefully backed up by reasoning) to them.
I don’t appreciate you asking questions and then pre-empting answers to them. It suggests that you’re not actually interested in others’ answers.
That aside, I’m not sure what you even mean by “law”, so let’s start there. What do you mean by “law”?
I’m genuinely trying to understand the anarchist conception of law enforcement.
Try the forum’s search function. We’ve had several such discussions over the past few months and there are probably even more the further back you go.
Not sure how you got from the statement “a society without government does not necessarily imply a society without law” to “So the law is universal”.
Why not start there after you’ve had time to digest the previous conversations on the topic, which includes some pretty good reading material and even a video.
As for the OP, I stand by my answer for the reasons I provided.
I mean ‘natural’ as in spontaneous: something that happens even if no one planned for it to happen. Another way to look at it would be to see it unavoidable, an ‘iron law’ if you will. Finally you can say that authority is natural as in it is created without anyone pointing guns at anyone. In these senses I say that authority, not power or submission as you say, is natural.
On another note nobody has any duty to help this person wheter it’s under statism or ancap system and it is in his best interest to protect himself. Ancapistan is no utopia and doesnt turn humans into angels and solve all of their problems.
So another interesting and honest reply would be: I wouldn’t do anything, because I don’t care - it is not my problem.
In the essence it really doesn’t matter. Even if the kid is thief who stole something from the man, the man can agress against the kid only in reasonable proportion enough to get his property stolen. And this is very normal concept that more or less exist in criminal law in 90% of the States in the world.
Laws regarding conduct between people come from people.
In my situation, if I went outside my house and saw a guy beating a kid, I’d do what I could to stop it.
In a different situation, it depends on the circumstances.
What’s your answer to the question, then? What would you do
Look at my avatar, what do you think I would do? I have no qualms about “respecting property rights.” Fences/land claims are borders. And as an anarchist, I don’t respect borders.
In a society without government, what would you do if you walked by and saw a man beating his 5 year old child into a bloody pulp?
Not enough info. Is this what I imagine a stateless society to look like or what you imagine it to look like?
The point that is not being looked at is there would likely be market mechanisms for punishment that do not involve property right infringements. The observer need not ‘do something’ physically to intervene. This would likely be the least harmless. The observer could call a 1800 kids help number and give his eye witness or video testamant. The organization may then stage an extremely effective boycott, smear scheme, denial of transportation or transactions, causing embarsement loss of job, etc. The parent may end up with his or her face on a milk carton that says “child beater”. Things of this nature would likely be more of a deterant than jumping a fence and beating up a guy who is beating up on his kid
Thy will be done. Hire a PDA and go for it.
I’m sorry, was my answer not clear enough for you?
Correct, one cannot establish whether or not it’s aggression without an understanding of whatever property rights are being used.
Lets say you find out later that the kid is an arsonist and he was caught red handed about to burn the old man’s house down.
So the question is. Where did the beeting take place? Did the violence occur on someone’s property? I would start there. Do either party’s have insurance? If not will a donater charitably cover the costs of investigation and arbitration of one of the parties?
There are quite possibly an infinite number of ways this problem could easily be handled. I don’t see what the big deal is. What happens now? I know family’s whos siblings had been murderd and after decades have yet to recieve restition. So I don’t see the point in badgering on about this as if the market didn’t already have built in provisions to handle it.
The point that is not being looked at is there would likely be market mechanisms for punishment that do not involve property right infringements. The observer need not ‘do something’ physically to intervene. This would likely be the least harmless. The observer could call a 1800 kids help number and give his eye witness or video testamant. The organization may then stage an extremely effective boycott, smear scheme, denial of transportation or transactions, causing embarsement loss of job, etc. The parent may end up with his or her face on a milk carton that says “child beater”. Things of this nature would likely be more of a deterant than jumping a fence and beating up a guy who is beating up on his kid
So are we just assuming that there would be a well functioning market in the scenario? Seems like a strange and most likely unrealistic assumption if we are talking about a stateless society in my opinion.
@EricSo are we just assuming that there would be a well functioning market in the scenario? Seems like a strange and most likely unrealistic assumption if we are talking about a stateless society in my opinion.
I would make this assumption. I don’t think it would be considered a leap of faith to believe that such mechanisms would be apparent in the stateless market. Rothbard details many of the most effective boycotts in his lectures series “On The American Economy and The End of LF”. I would understand how such a market would take some time, but, just look at how many tweets and facebook spread the rumor of Taco Bell mystery meat. Taco Bell was quick bring commercials to the market to spear this rumor.
Thy will be done. Hire a PDA and go for it
Tho I understand the “pick your battles,” sometimes calling in someone else is not an option.
Also, me and all my friends are practicing martial artists and gun enthusiasts. We’re our own PDA,
You think all sorts of things.
Are you saying that well functioning markets can only happen under aggresive monopolies?
Eric still doesn’t understand that law comes from the market.
The statists would deny you the right to self defense, if you take their argument for the need of a monopoly of such services as a principle.
We need a monopoly state to ajudicate conflicts. We need a monopoly state to provide laws. We need a monopoly state to provide enforcement.
The implicit theme is that you and other private citizens are INCAPABLE of resolving conflicts, making customary rules, or protecting yourself.
No statist will touch this in an argument, because obviously it makes them sound like idiots and sociopaths, but that’s the implicit argument they make.
YOU cannot take care of yourself, therefor YOU must be taken care of by force.
But …
While not capable enough to care for yourself, you are capable enough to vote for who cares for you …