This argument is nothing but a vicious circle. You define all of the terms in such a neat way as to never yield an undesired consequence.
Who is the supreme arbiter who outlaws PDAs? Furthermore, why would PDAs have to enforce the NAP, and libertarian ethics as opposed to, for the sake of example, Sharia law to remain lawful(I don’t even understand how PDAs can be “lawful” because they essentially get to define their own laws to enforce) PDAs?
You assume that an appeal process would even be possible.
No it’s not. Hil-arious. All the terms are properly defined - and as I just said above, there could be undesired consequences (initiating violence / aggression / killing Socrates and Jesus Christ)… but the individuals who did so, even with the backing of whatever agencies are not justified.
Not who, but what. It is objective and accessible to every purposefully acting individual. Want to take a guess?
Are you asking about - who would be the final decision maker in terms of a private property dispute?
Why would it not be?
One common objection to the feasibility of marketable protection (its desirability is not the problem here) runs as follows: Suppose that Jones subscribes to Defense Agency X and Smith subscribes to Defense Agency Y. (We will assume for convenience that the defense agency includes a police force and a court or courts, although in practice these two functions might well be performed by separate firms.) Smith alleges that he has been assaulted, or robbed, by Jones; Jones denies the charge. How, then, is justice to be dispensed?
Clearly, Smith will file charges against Jones and institute suit or trial proceedings in the Y court system. Jones is invited to defend himself against the charges, although there can be no subpoena power, since any sort of force used against a man not yet convicted of a crime is itself an invasive and criminal act that could not be consonant with the free society we have been postulating. If Jones is declared innocent, or if he is declared guilty and consents to the finding, then there if no problem on this level, and the Y courts then institute suitable measures of punishment.[3]
But what if Jones challenges the finding? In that case, he can either take the case to his X court system, or take it directly to a privately competitive Appeals Court of a type that will undoubtedly spring up in abundance on the market to fill the great need for such tribunals. Probably there will be just a few Appeals Court systems, far fewer than the number of primary courts, and each of the lower courts will boast to its customers about being members of those Appeals Court systems noted for their efficiency and probity. The Appeals Court decision can then be taken by the society as binding. Indeed, in the basic legal code of the free society, there probably would be enshrined some such clause as that the decision of any two courts will be considered binding, i.e., will be the point at which the court will be able to take action against the party adjudged guilty.[4]
Every legal system needs some sort of socially-agreed-upon cutoff point, a point at which judicial procedure stops and punishment against the convicted criminal begins. But a single monopoly court of ultimate decision-making need not be imposed and of course cannot be in a free society; and a libertarian legal code might well have a two-court cutoff point, since there are always two contesting parties, the plaintiff and the defendant.
I wasn’t aware you were against government subsidies. I am pretty sure you have defended them here before. Specifically for the funding of science IIRC. I’d look for sources but the forum search doesn’t work.
Do you oppose public funding of science and not seek any grants for your own work?
I agree with this. Anarchy/polycentrism need not be libertarian. And I would argue that the State is a polycentric order (there’s no government ruling over the politicians).
Section 4 (p.17-41) is a documentation of the historical evidence.
No such evidence exists: there has never been a perfectly libertarian market anarchy. But there is evidence of anarchies existing with varying degrees of libertarianness. I take the historical evidence to merely show that stateless societies work, and that they can be desirable. Moreover, I don’t think the historical evidence alone is conclusive; the theoretical arguments are primary, whereas historical evidence is only illustrative.
I agree, market anarchy would be unappealing if it actually required this. But I see no reason to think that it does.
Remember that demanding radical change is not the same thing as actual radical change. W.L. Garrison: “Urge immediate abolition as earnestly as we may, it will, alas! be gradual abolition in the end. We have never said that slavery would be overthrown by a single blow; that it ought to be, we shall always contend.” I don’t see that being a radical abolitionist entails the rejection of gradual piecemeal change. As Long writes:
[T]he swiftness of the process, the radicalness of the final goal, and the degree of explicitness about the final goal, are three different things. The process many market anarchists advocate is one of “building new institutions within the shell of the old,” a gradual process of replacement and education rather than an overnight revolution. But that doesn’t mean we shouldn’t point explicitly to the desirability of our intended final goal as part of our propaganda to get people involved in working toward it.
So being a radical (i.e. focusing on the root, rather than symptoms) does not necessarily entail immediate social change. In a tradeoff between swiftness and effectiveness, I would choose the latter. See also my post here.
Do you see yourself as making a strategic objection to market anarchism? That is, you accept that MA is the most just and efficient society, but think that it would be difficult or impossible to implement?
But the viability of market anarchism is not some independent variable outside of our control. Rather, it is directly related to our efforts in educating people and building alternative institutions. So why not become a market anarchist and work toward making it a viable alternative? Join us! Your present attitude is a self-fulfilling prophecy: anarchism is not a viable alternative, so I won’t become one; but not becoming an anarchist is what prevents it from being a viable alternative!
John McCain said that “if you’re disappointed with the mistakes of government, join its ranks and work to correct them.” This argument doesn’t work for government, because government’s flaws cannot be corrected, but it does work for the libertarian movement: if you’re disappointed with the libertarian movement, join us and help make it better.
Another point to remember is that anarchy is omnipresent: every social system must have at least some anarchic relationships. For example, different governments are in a state of international anarchy, the agents of a government are in a state of anarchy vis-à-vis each other, etc. So if any stable social framework is possible at all, then it must be possible under anarchy. On this see Cuzán and Plauché.
“There needs to be a supreme arbiter for each dispute.” (Could be different arbiters for different disputes, but every dispute does have one supreme arbiter.)
does not imply
“There needs to be ONE supreme arbiter for ALL disputes.” (All disputes have the same supreme arbiter.)
(If you’ve studied calculus, you’ll recognize this logical distinction as the critical one for understanding the concept of a limit.)
its not about people voting making right or wrong decisions in who gets their vote. its that the very act of granting a monopoly of power and legitimacy to people who win votes is retarded. whereas if it was possible to ‘vote’ and grant people your support for their being a competitive provider of power with a particular legitimacy that you grant them over a particular class of dealings given certain conditions (or not if you dont support) then that would be great. such a system is the market system.
When did I say that we should give power to people who win votes?
I said NOTHING OF THE SORT. The very point of direct democracy is not putting politicians, judges, or any other professional busybodies in charge. We should be making laws ourselves, instead of having somebody else make them for us.
You, on the other hand, want to set up a form of representative government by putting private firms in charge. The problem with any form of representative government is that the “representatives” are capable of engaging in all kinds of corruption for as long as their actions remain undiscovered and unproven.
2)what does a vote mean? what significance does a vote have? (in other words, how does it differ from merely advertising your position on subject X by telling people about it)?
are private firms that deliver services ‘allowed’? if so, i can have my market solution. if not, justify that.
