What I’m arguing against is a pluralty of arbitration services in favor of one single jury system that would be universally binding.
Sorry if I didn’t make that clear.
Power is determined by ideas. Ideas are determined by philosophy. Therefore, power is determined by philosophy.
A philosophic system is an integrated view of existence. As a human being, you have no choice about the fact that you need a philosophy. Your only choice is whether you define you philosophy by a conscious, rational, disciplined process of thought and scrupulously logical deliberation — or let your subconscious accumulate a junk heap of unwarranted conclusions, false generalizations, undefined contradictions, undigested slogans, unidentified wishes, doubts and fears, thrown together by chance, but integrated by your subconscious into a kind of mongrel philosophy and fused into a single, solid weight: self-doubt,like a ball and chain in the place where your mind’s wings should have grown. (“Philosophy: Who Needs It?” by Ayn Rand)
You definitely need philosophy.
yes, you favour monopoly as a result of knowing so much economics
Exactly!
I think I get your concern and what you are aiming for, but I can not accept the means that you are using. Basicly: you are centrally planning a society; no different than a state. (To be fair: I think I would prefer your system to the current state any day.)
What you are doing is presenting a end-state result of a society: ‘this’ is the way society should like. And this would be fine, if you would agree (but I assume you don’t; otherwise you’d still be a anarcho-capitalist) that this should be a voluntary system, of which people can opt out in a way that doesn’t violate their rights. Again: to be an anarchists is to say that we don’t believe in agressive violence against innocent people - I think you and ‘the anarchists’ share thát concern. What you are saying is: I’m afraid anarchy will lead to a lot of violence. And this may or may not happen: that is true. But you have to ask yourself 2 questions. Questions I can’t answer for you. First of all: does a state of anarchy - like the average anarchist sees it - tend to reduce violence or enlarge it, given the way people think in what quantity and for what purpose violence is justified? My answer is: yes, it does. Given how people think about violence and when it should and should not be used: I think an anarchist system will produce less of it than a statist system. Second question: obviously the assumption ‘a given state of views concerning violence’ is an assumption witch, in the long run, is untendable: views change. But what kind of system will tend to have a more positive effect on what constitutes justified violence: anarchy or a state? Again: my answer is that in anarchy, the changes are higher that this view will be more peaceful than in a state. If all else fails - custom, mores, etc. - just for the simple fact that violence costs money and if you have to pay for it, you’ll tend to use less of it. (I’m not saying that the homo oeconomicus assumption is the best one. I would prefer the case being made on empathy, sympathy, custom, etc. but after all of this, the simple fact that it is often very costly to use violence, will tend to reduce it as well. That is one of the reasons I’m an anarchist. People don’t need centralized institutions to govern their affairs. Absence of coercive, centralized institutions doesn’t mean a violent war of all against all - history proves this over and over again. (Not that ‘anarchy = peaceful’, but anarchist societies tend to be more peaceful then their statist counterparts - given relative the same background.)
I see no reason to a priori object to ‘pda’s’, ‘insurance companies’ and ‘private courts’. (I would say your ‘trial by jury’ in ‘anarchy’ would constitute a private court; though.) If you are against it: fine. If you can motivate enough people to join fraternal ‘justice’ organizations (or something of the sort): fine! Anarchy is, fundamentally, about the way people interact (and the lack of centralized coercive institutions.) (Their could be decentralized customary law which, for a libertarian perspective, is ‘coercive’ - like in the past - but this is always less than possible in a state.)
The fact that you say: ‘the court will have automatic jurisdiction’ doesn’t sound very anarchistic to me. Simple economic thinking gets me to think that this would be (necassarily) a coercive monopoly (because, as I read your proposal, it should have a monopoly?) I see no reason too enact ‘laws’ by petition. I see no difference between a legislature and a direct democracy to which I didn’t subscribe. Again: I think direct democracy will tend to be less coercive than a parliamentary system, but that doesn’t make it anarchist. It will still be based on coercion; which I think is unjustified and cannot be a part of a anarchist society.
It doesn’t help you.
And how does “simple” not happen without the state. The state is arbritrary. Understand what that means. It means it is illogical. It doesn’t make sense. It has piles and piles of arbritrary codes and rules that don’t make sense at all. The ONLY way to even understand most of the legal code according to the state is to have to look it up because no logical person could EVER think up the state’s legal code on their own. Why? because it’s arbritrarily decided and forced together without due reason. That’s what’s complicated. I want what is simple too. The market is usually very simple because shops that get too complicated will get no consumers cause nobody could ever possibly understand them.
People always make the laws. Robots currently don’t. I merely said that to show contrast to what you asserted. How is what you said not achievable in a free market? Meaning, you like the idea of people petitioning together and deciding upon a set of rules. So they voluntarily get together and decide. Those that come up with any ideas to add to the petition have to market those ideas to all the people involved in drawing up the petition, unless, of course, you are saying this petition is drawn up by coercion and it is not voluntary.
Why should that be?
I would say that this is a straw man, since you are attacking a certain kind of end-result that you predict, whilest the anarchist way is principles of interaction; not the end-result.
It’s a shame you don’t know that the history of the Western world is, in essence, build upon different law courts, different protection agencies and different courts. And while the history isn’t a peaceful, I’ll doubt it would be any more peaceful if it were to be monopolized. The era of the nation state doesn’t seem to be peaceful to me - to you? (The interesting link between the nation state and big business is another matter; Deirdre Mccloskey has some interesting stuff on it in “The Argument of Bourgeois Dignity: Why Economics can’t Explain the Modern world”.
I see no problem in diversity in organizations giving us justice. Coöperation and competition can go together. Your predicting ‘clash’ - or so it reads - but why is this more likely in an anarchist society than in your ‘direct democracy’? Direct democracy can only work if the minority thinks the process through witch decisions are made is legit. No different assumption is made for anarchy.
That is an argument for a world state, as there are hundreds of sovereign states in existence today, each with their own laws and court system.
How do they manage?
I am sorry you think this is how it actually works.
If a man breaks into your house:
-
He does his crime.. a rape or a theft or a murder, then he takes off into the night. You call the cops, the cops arrive in 5 minutes, and they try to find evidence of what happened and who did it. Nobody was protected. They could only act after the fact.
-
You pull a gun and he runs for his life. Then you call the police, they try to find evidence of what happened and who did it. They still protect nobody. You protected yourself. Maybe you pulled a knife and you wielded it effectively, or you know some kung fu. You are your own best protection.
The police can never protect you in a majority of situations.
Laws do nothing to protect us or to prevent crime. Laws can only prohibit. Prohibit.. Prohibition on Alcohol in American. Which is now gone, but we still have Prohibition on Drugs. Which is showing to be an utter failing of protecting us from people doing bad things.
The private market, with the security systems and devices, night-watchmen, bodyguards, owning your own gun, owning your own mace/pepper spray, private security all do a more efficient job at protecting human beings than the statist police do.
Also in such a situation plan on waiting months, or years for your supposed justice to come.
I’m saying there is no permanent solution. There will always be governments. So what do we do?
Make them as responsive to incentives as possible.
Power is a function of numbers and arms. There is no morality to power and no philosophy. It’s a separate subject.
That’s not good enough for me.
Isn’t that a nice idea. But their incentives is power. How do you deincentivize power?
No their incentive is running and maintaining a coercive monopoly and reaping the benefits there in. Remove that and they would have to seek their power elsewhere, perhaps on the market making something of actual value.
Power is the ability to injure without retaliation. You can eliminate power by giving everyone the means to retaliate with maximum force.
But you can’t eliminate the government.