I find your proposed system has no way of coming about in our world. The only way that this could be the case would be if the places which we lived were no longer accessible from the outside world and could only be accessed if we consented to it. For instance let’s say that community A denies me stealing their stuff. If I go over to community A and steal their stuff then they inevitably have to use violence in order to stop me or they have to accept the fact that I’m jacking their stuff or they have to use violence against me. It doesn’t matter whether or not I accept their rules because I can just do what I like unless they’re willing to hold me to their rules and use violence. I don’t care if I’m being “marginalized in society” if I can just take what I want.
I agree that your proposed system works very well, but only so long as there’s a way to enforce it when someone violates someone else’s property rights. If Bob doesn’t mind be taking his stuff then that’s perfectly fine! It’s just him doing what he wants with his property rights. The fact is that that if y’all don’t want Neodoxies climbing in your windows and taking your TV’s (possibly drawing obcenities on the walls before leaving… depends on how I’m feeling that day) you’re going to have to be willing to pick up your guns.
Why is it so hard to accept the use of force to prevent harm against person and property? That’s what were supposed to be about !
Edit
Also, I agree with Autolykos. While it’s inevitably a system with rulers, ANYTHING is going to be; it’s inescapable unless we are in a world of angels. It’s also a mockery to traditional systems with rulers to put the two on the same level. It’s like saying that a perfectly healthy person inevitably has something wrong with them and that therefore saying that they sick and then putting them on the same level as someone with lethal radiation poisoning because of this.
I advocate a private law system instead of a statutory system. I would even prefer common law or customary law over what we have now. All I was explaining was that the definition of law that Clayton provided encompasses all types of law instead of allowing for only statutory law or maybe also common law. The point about today’s statutory system is that it too uses courts of law as an alternative to violent conflict. I have no problem with violence being used to protect private property. I was only pointing out that if you and I were to duel over whatever, that we are not using law as a means to resolve the dispute; so it is not correct to say that if one of us is to “rule” over the other, that this is a result of private law. It is a result of a lack of law, private or otherwise.
The basic difference between statutory law and private law is that a third party, the state, says to you and me how our dispute is to be resolved - it is not private. If I steal your computer, then the dispute is between you and me. Now, maybe you might forgive me, or maybe you won’t settle for less than twice the value of the computer, it doesn’t matter. What does matter is that no matter what you and I might work out in order to avoid further violence, the state says that I don’t have to pay restitution and you get to pay for me to go to prison.
End of dispute.
Unless I decide that I don’t like it and I attempt to run from the police or break out of jail, or you might want to settle the matter yourself and break into my place in order to take back what is yours, which, by the way, the state also prohibits you from doing.
But you are right that this system doesn’t necessarily lead to a libertarian society, but no system of law necessarily leads to whatever idea of libertarianism one might believe. I think that the further decentralized the law gets, the closer it gets to libertarianism (and certainly to my particular view of voluntaryism). But I don’t believe that any system of law will entail pure Rothbardianism or even the voluntaryist ideas that I believe. I make a distinction between what I see as the best system of law and actions that are consistent with the golden rule.
So, I always prefer more decentralization of law to more centralization (or remaining stagnant), and the logical conclusion of this does not have law based on rulers. Whether or not this society will ever come about is anyone’s guess. It’s not utopian as it doesn’t reject violence at all, so it is theoretically possible. It’s probably more unlikely than a return to common law or customary law, but unlikely doesn’t equal utopian.
it sounds like this problem could be solved by physical security measures such as walls, doors, and locks. One would have to initiate violence by breaching the physical barrier in order to access the premises without consenting to the rules, therefore they have estopped theirselves from objecting to defensive violence.
Exactly, that’s my whole point. If I break down your door (or even if your door is wide open) then you should have the right to use violence if I don’t immediately get the hell off your property once you tell me to. At this point we are giving one individual the authority to “dominate” another individual to some capacity
A general acceptance of the population in the voluntaryist ideal and a dissolving of the centralized state into polycentric law centered almost exclusively around property right protection
I’m sorry, but I don’t envision that happening until…I don’t know…probably the 2500s. Government won’t let someone just waltz in and permit polycentric everything. It’s just like with Ron Paul, did we really expect him to get in there? Hell no, it was impossible.
I dont believe that we do any such thing. Rather, it appears to me that this interaction is outside the scope of nonviolent dispute resolution, and would be better perceived as a physical contest of violence. If this incident ever does fall under the purview of some court, rather than giving one person the right to dominate another, we are declining to recognize a claim because the claimant has estopped himself from making that specific claim.
The dictionary definition is a fair default, therefore I reasonably default to it. Anarchy meaning “without ruler”, and ruler denoting someone who excercises control over others.
Anarchy means without rulers, but law enforcement requires enforcers.
Not sure if I understand what you mean by “separate class”, or by “peer-enforced law”.
Also, and not that I’m attributing this to you, but I’m having trouble understanding why some people can be so bothered by acknowledging what anarchy actually requires. It’s like they have an emotional attachment to a myth of what they want anarchy to mean. There isn’t law in anarchy, at least not if it’s enforced.
well “rulers” would be a separate class from “the ruled”, right? Thats what I mean. You assert that law enforcement necessarily requires a separate class of rulers. I want you to tell me why law enforcement requires a separate class of rulers. It seems to me that it does not. Does language require a separate class of editors, or can we all compose and edit and pass judgment on each other’s composition and editing decisions?
its probably hard for you to understand because youre interpreting their statements incorrectly. There can be law in anarchy, there are actually multiple forms of emergent law that do not require “rulers” as you define them. I seem to recall gotlucky explaining this to you earlier in this thread, but you seem to have an emotional attachment to this idea “anarchy cant happen because I define my terms in such a way that anarchy is the same as statism.”
To be fair, those are your words. What I actually said was “law enforcement requires enforcers”. If you want to talk about classes, then it seems apparent that someone can be ruled and a ruler. Is that what you mean by “peer-enforced law”? Or is it “not-enforced law” like gotlucky was talking about but it just happens to be called enforced for convenience? The language analogy is making me even more confused so if you could avoid it for now that’d be a great help.
Also maybe you can help me out here. I’m failing to fathom more than two distinct possibilities:
yes, I summarized your argument. You appear to consider “law enforcers” to be synonymous with “rulers” which is (apparently) why you dont believe that law enforcement is compatible with anarchy. Because it requires rulers. What part of this summary do you take issue with, if any?
its hard for me to see how you can resolve these two statements. Peers have the same legal status with respect to each other. Rulers have a legal status that permits them to rule over the ruled, who have subordinate legal status.
neither. Its a system where people with the same legal status enforce law. No rulers, only peer law enforcement.
you might find it rewarding to struggle through your confusion so that you can reach understanding.
I am referring to option one, law is enforced (by peers, thus obviating the need for a class of rulers).
Ok well both you and gotlucky are, as I’ve demonstrated, using words like law and enforce in incredibly unusual ways, so please bear with me as I struggle to help you convey your ideas in words that mean something I (and the majority of us who use words in ways that convey the expected meaning) can comprehend.
In common understanding, enforce connotes forceful compulsion, thus an enforcer is a ruler because he controls others. Can you please just explain, in a way so simple a child can understand, how law is enforced without a person controlling another. For example, a child would understand if I said, “Law are enforced rules, and positive laws are manmade rules enforced by men controlling others”.
that is your continued assertion but you have not demonstrated it, rather the contrary appears to be the case. Using your own preferred dictionary site, a ruler is a person who rules or governs, and to rule is to exercise power and authority, to govern. These are all legal ideas, clearly a ruler has a legal status that conveys authority to himself. Peers have the same legal status as each other, I wonder how you can suggest that these could be the same thing in the same sense at the same time. Its also incredibly unusual for you to assert that statutory law is the only kind of law worthy of the name. You should read your own links.
^This is an example of an equivocation fallacy. An enforcer doesnt have to be a governor. An enforcer doesnt have to exercise any more control than a peer, as human interaction always involves exchange of control over some variable, this is the case even for catallacty. A governor, ruler, or archon has a legal status that grants him “control” (as you put it) over those he rules. That makes him a ruler. A mugger who forcefully compels the transfer of a wallet or purse isnt a “ruler” except in your lexicon.
certainly. “Law is the field of established principles and customs that define how, and by whom, disputes are settled. In the case of anarchy, disputes are settled by the parties (they being of the same legal status) and enforced through the assent or refusal to engage in peer-type relations.”
Are you talking about some magical commutopia? “If you can’t explain it simply, you don’t understand it well enough.” —Einstein
In your hypothetical peer-enforced law-that-isn’t-enforced lexicon, does anyone control anyone else? Is there forceful compulsion?
In other words, if law-respecters don’t employ control through forceful compulsion, what stops someone from taking one look at these hippies and simply taking over and doing whatever they want?
