Problem is that juries have to come from somewhere. Volunteers?
I fail to see how that follows.
You do realize that you’re proposing majority-rules, which has neither metaphysical nor epistemic grounding.
I’d take direct democracy over an-cap any day. An-caps seem to think that it’s a good idea to have a hundred different PDAs and a hundred different courts with different law codes–and what could possibly go wrong?
I, for one, prefer not to take that chance.
And give me a sound reason why this would never happen under PDAs.
Ever more reason to base present choices upon small changes (Popper’s thesis of piecemeal social engineering found in volume one of The Open Society and Its Enemies) rather than a complete rehaul of the entire system.
Just because you don’t like it does not mean that its completely arbitrary. Nor being completely based upon a notion of the superiority of systems that have survived historical evolution mean that such a system is “purely arbitrary”.
Punishments can never be determined through pure reason, they are empirical concepts.
How about keeping an individual out of society while not executing him.
My 1988 Cadillac Brougham was stolen over the weekend of January 6/7, 2007. I called the police. I neither got my car back nor was anyone brought to justice.
I was assaulted on July 11, 2006 by a man who grabbed me from behind, put a knife to my throat and demanded money. Fortunately, I was neither harmed nor had my money taken. Still, I called the police. No one was ever brought to justice–and the detective assigned to the case retired 3 weeks after he was assigned it!
Let’s just say reality has falsified your claim, since it doesn’t necessarily follow that reporting a crime to the police will result in justice.
Of course.
And if nobody volunteers, offer wages. It’s supply and demand, baby.
It has practical grounding. You either persuade the people to respect your property rights, or you have to be better armed than everybody else.
I prefer the former.
What could possibly go wrong with letting people vote on rights! It’s not like they could pass a law stating that blacks had to sit in the back of the bus. Oh wait–they could. It’s not like they could pass a law stating that jews could not own property. Oh wait–they could.
Sorry, but this is ridiculous, and you are misinterpreting what I am saying. We might assign the word “expert” because a company using whatever process and people becomes prevalent. This economic success is vaguely “democratic”. I never said that I expect jury trials with members of the public to be useless, or that multiple judges may sit at a trial.
When I need a plumber, I am at least going to call someone from the plumber section of the yellow pages, not thumb through the white pages indiscriminately.
Paid by whom? And wouldn’t the whom look a lot like a PDA? If not–how not?
No, it doesn’t. Even if it did, assuming for the sake of argument, that opens the door for all sorts of atrocities to be committed in the name of practicality. No thanks.
Honestly bro, if I thought that everyone was like you, I’d be all for anarcho-capitalism. But they’re not. You know what I mean?
Of mankind, we may say in GENERAL (not everyone is as rational, logical and peaceloving as Wilderness) that they are fickle, hypocritical and greedy of gain.
You will be undone, Wilderness, by the people who are not like you.
Ummm…the latter is called a PDA.
Let’s take you at your own word. You said law codes had validity when supported by “a million or so” subscriptions. With a world population approaching 7 billion people, how is legislation treated that is supported by, say, 5 million people, but rejected by the other 6,995 billion?
And since I assume that your direct democracy will not be operating on a global scale, how are all the different nations/legislative groups going to reconcile their differences? Wouldn’t that be chaos, even anarchy?
But if a group of politicos manages to do that, why shouldn’t a bunch of companies?
So, Juan, will people tolerate that sort of thing?
Therefore, we need the state?
How can I answer that kind of question ? Am I omniscient or something ?
Yes, I think so. What do you think? Do you think you will be undone by those who are unlike you?
Well, what does your gut tell you?
Let me get this straight:
Humans can do bad things, so we need a group of humans (who can do bad things) to rule over us via a monopoly?
Ummmm…I’m not seeing an upside to that, nor am I seeing internal consistency. Y’might want to fix that.
Assuming that was true, then, do you understand that government is a bad idea BECAUSE people are “fickle, hypocritical and greedy of gain.” ?
Furthermore, if anything, the current state of things can be traced to the fact that SOME people are “fickle, hypocritical and greedy of gain.” NOW, if that is true - people are “fickle, hypocritical and greedy of gain.” - then ANY attempt at reforming government is useless. SO your own political program, whatever it is, is USELESS.
Your premise undermine ANY sort of political reform. Your criticism of libertarian anarchism can be turned against any system you propose.
It is a fact that people can choose to live peacefully or not. My gut doesn’t predict the future.
Well, as far as I can tell, it’s worked out ok here in the US so far. What you’re proposing sounds worse to me, so I am not an anarcho-capitalist.
The other thing to consider is that…technically no one has to convince the radical libertarians of anything. You’re in the minority. I’m not trying to be a dick here, I’m just saying.
Juan, the problem isn’t the system, it’s humans. We’re the problem. People want to blame systems. But humans came up with the systems. Humans operate them. They’re just a byproduct of humanity. The problem with an-cap is that it’s not made for humans, it’s made for angels.
“But what is government itself, but the greatest of all reflections on human nature? If men were angels, no government would be necessary. If angels were to govern men, neither external nor internal controls on government would be necessary. In framing a government which is to be administered by men over men, the great difficulty lies in this: you must first enable the government to control the governed; and in the next place oblige it to control itself.” - James Madison