can you evidence? or state?, or point to an external article that states an argument for this ?
So, these democracies you advocate, how are they states?
They aren’t.
Popular referendum, citizens arrest, and trial by jury. Add them together, and you have democratic anarchy. No legislation, regulation, or taxation needed.
Who pays for and maintains these services.
- Who pays for the Jail, court house, Judge, ect…
What happens if a private security agency would like to offer it’s services to a city? Is that allowed or does your ‘direct’ democracy still assume a monopoly over force?
So, how is this incompatible with anarcho-capitalism?
No it isn’t. Why do citizens obey their rulers, when the former greatly outnumber and have more arms than the latter? It always comes back to ideas. Ideas rule the world.
See Mises, Boétie, and Hayek for starters.
Right, and those numbers are dependent upon consent, which is dependent on ideas, which is dependent on philosophy.
You won’t be able to grasp this stuff,unless you start to take your premises through more than one logical progression.
I suggest reading De La Boetie on servitude. You can find material on this site.
This thread should be re-titled to “Why I’m an anarcho-capitalist who believes in direct democracy.”
Court fees. If somebody goes to court, they have to pay for the jury, the guards, etc. The court costs should be evenly split between the plaintiff and defendant, so that one side doesn’t have the advantage. Anybody who cannot afford to pay the court costs should set up a legal fund and have sympathetic people contribute.
Since the service is paid by user fees, no taxes are necessary. It creates a positive externality; you enjoy the peace and security the law offers, but you don’t pay for it unless you actually use it.
If some security agency or PDA wants to offer their services, fine. But they cannot make up their own rules; they have to abide by the laws that have been set by court precedent and public referendum.
A pluralty of police companies is ok; a pluralty of law codes is not.
what keeps courts/judges honest, where there is not competition in courts/judges?
What? Its either one world government or its plural, which is it now?
No contradiction there.
I’d still like to know how the system you advocate is incompatible with anarcho-capitalism.
Are you sure?
Show me twelve jurors selected at random, and I’m sure they are honest.
Show me a career judge who has been presiding over a court for twenty years, and I’ll bet he has been offered some cash from interested parties.
Under direct democracy, majority consensus is legally binding.
Under anarcho-capitalism, only contracts are legally binding.
I think…
How are the democracies you advocate entered into if not by contract?
are the random-selectors chosen at random ?
do you have a problem of regress…
Ouch, ama gi in full retreat now!
By natural law.
Morality is not optional. It is not “entered into” by contract. You are obligated to respect the lives and properties of others, regardless of whether or not you signed a contract to that effect. For that reason, contracts are not the be-all and end-all of civil law.
If a law has been passed by democratic processes, and it is consistent with natural law, it is a moral imperative to obey that law. If a law has been passed by democratic processes (or any other process) that is not consistent with natural law, it is a moral imperative to violate that law. It’s as simple as that.
Natural law is what protects human rights. But–here’s the kicker–natural law is invisible. Inaudiable. Almost imaginary. And for that reason, somebody needs to put that law into words.
Now the question is, who? Some dictator? Some legislature? Some privileged nobility class?
Or maybe some myriad of private corporations?
I’d rather have natural law be verbalized by you and me. Ordinary people without any fancy titles.