Multiple Governments -- The Ultimate Free market solution?

[denison]

Choice Governments
The choice government concept is the backbone of Multigovernment systems. Our descriptions up to this point have been of compulsory organizations; that is, the citizens have to belong to the geographical democracy and be subject to the rulings of the judicial republic. It is a philosophy of Multigovernment that when governments are compulsory, only those government functions absolutely necessary should be performed.
Compensating for the vacuum of services not performed by traditional government, Multigovernment suggests that governments be created to meet the different needs of men, so any man can find the exact, or almost perfect, government for him. Man, if he so desires, may belong to no government at all except the above compulsory governments with the bare necessary functions. Those who belong to no government are called "free agents."
The free agents will be living as the conservative (right-winger, libertarian, etc.) would like to live today; that is, conforming to their idea of freedom: freedom from government intervention. The weakness of present-day conservatism is that they do not take into account those who cannot exist, or do not wish to exist, in the conservatives' version of freedom.
On the other side of the coin, the weakness of liberalism (left wing, collectivism, etc.) is that they all want government services but in different ways. In other words, what, where, who, and how much. Each faction has its own idea about which direction government should go. The crux of the Multigovernment idea is that governments and organizations coexist and fulfil each faction's idea of good government. Then each person can choose from among the competitive governments, the government he wants to belong to.
Multigovernment will present to every individual the right to a broader choice of options in every aspect of his lifestyle. It will introduce a new dimension of freedom not yet experienced by mankind.
Multigovernment will eliminate wars. If government's ideology is built around the individual and not land-mass occupation, who are the conquerors going to conquer?
The Multigovernment system will cause all revolutions to cease. If you don't like the government you have, you can quit and join another.
Multigovernment makes the observation that no one system or form of government is best for all people. One government cannot be all things to all people. All individuals have a right to belong to the government that suits them best. The only answer is to allow organizational and social systems and governments to exist simultaneously, within the same location.
Multigovernment asserts that not only is the above described governmental method workable, but it is necessary to save civilization as we know it.
True Freedom cannot exist unless the individual can choose the exact form and amount of government he wants. Government structure must be created for that end and not to justify its own existence.

True Liberty can exist only when:
- Only protective functions are compulsory.
- There is fair and equitable judgment.
- Government functions of human welfare are voluntary.
- Necessary government functions that must be performed and cannot be handled on a profit or volunteer basis are handled with utmost efficiency.

Therefore, summarizing the basic structural theory of Multigovernment:

The only compulsion level of government is a Geographical Democracy.
The justice level is a Judicial Republic.
The volunteer level is the Choice Government.

http://panarchy.org/day/multigovernment.1977.html

Do you think a system like this is workable?

[FreeTraveler]

One group of thugs "permitted" to steal from me is bad enough. I sure don't want a bunch of them arguing over who I "permitted" to rob me.

Just what we need -- multiple gangs. Sounds like inner-city LA. :D

[South Park Fan]

It seems workable. How exactly is panarchy any different from anarcho-capitalism?

[powerofreason]

A government is by definition a territorial monopoly on the use of force, two cannot exist within the same territory. If there is a free market in how people are protected and in everything else that is called freedom. Aka anarchy. No rulers. No leaches. No political prisoners.

[Kludge]

Maybe workable but still coercive. Why take an allegedly principled stance if you're still going to commit aggression? It's not as though government intervention would be abolished in the system described, as a government would still have a monopoly on granting and securing property rights (among others).

This is deluded nonsense:

"It is a philosophy of Multigovernment that when governments are compulsory, only those government functions absolutely necessary should be performed."

Who determines what is and is not "absolutely necessary"? What an absurd allegation of "truth". You're opening up a big can of worms when you say a government has a duty to grant and secure rights. Which rights? Not only are there people who believe there is a natural right to IP, but there are some who actually believe there's a right to "free" healthcare, a "right to assemble", and rights to privacy.

Then, of course, you have "All individuals have a right to belong to the government that suits them best." which they are contradicting by forcing all citizens to belong to a "judicial republic".

While we're on the topic of delusional nonsense, I found use of the phrases "True Freedom" and "True Liberty" to be outright offensive.

[Epic]

by the way, voluntary society = anarchism = anarcho-capitalism = panarchism are all the same and all allow for multiple governments (defining government as a organization that only operates within the group of people who consented to it).

The capitalists get to live free, the socialists get to live among themselves, and so on.

When you have total freedom, you can contract with other like-minded people and live with people you want to.

[Kludge]

Anarchism is NOT anarcho-capitalism nor this version of panarchism. Anarcho-capitalism is NOT a voluntary society. Under Rothbard's system, his morals ("Natural Law") would be forced on everyone through private courts. That's a coercive quasi-government force.

[powerofreason]

Anarchism is NOT anarcho-capitalism nor this version of panarchism. Anarcho-capitalism is NOT a voluntary society. Under Rothbard's system, his morals ("Natural Law") would be forced on everyone through private courts. That's a coercive quasi-government force.

They're not his morals. They're morals he discovered using simple logic and reasoning. Obviously you've never read Rothbard.

[powerofreason]

Anarchism is NOT anarcho-capitalism nor this version of panarchism. Anarcho-capitalism is NOT a voluntary society. Under Rothbard's system, his morals ("Natural Law") would be forced on everyone through private courts. That's a coercive quasi-government force.

I almost coughed up my drink when I read that tripe :rolleyes:

It is the market supplying justice as a good, voluntarily exchanged for another good. The loser pays.

Under Government: Group of people claim rulership over piece of land. They force their subjects to build courts. They then make arbitrary laws the people are forced to follow, including (without a single exception in history) victimless crime laws. In a criminal case the loser gets subsidized housing and food and medical care by the rest of the people, for a set period of time.

[Kludge]

They're not his morals. They're morals he discovered using simple logic and reasoning. Obviously you've never read Rothbard.

You have admitted he would be enforcing morality -- the same morality he believes in.

What makes it okay to enforce Rothbard's morality but not others? Just because he believe his morality is absolute and reasoned? If we accept Rothbard's morality as true because his is based on reason, why not a Christian's because their morality is based on absolute truth even if others don't accept it?

[Kludge]

I almost coughed up my drink when I read that tripe :rolleyes:

It is the market supplying justice as a good, voluntarily exchanged for another good. The loser pays.

Under Government: Group of people claim rulership over piece of land. They force their subjects to build courts. They then make arbitrary laws the people are forced to follow, including (without a single exception in history) victimless crime laws. In a criminal case the loser gets subsidized housing and food and medical care by the rest of the people, for a set period of time.

You didn't disprove what I said. Roth-Capism involves coercing people to adhere to "Natural Law" by claiming "natural law enforcers" have a right to govern over others and punish those who do not comply, which necessarily implies they own that person and all property. When someone says they can judge you and tell you what you can and cannot do, they are claiming you as their own.

[RevolutionSD]

I agree 100% with power of reason.
Multiple gangs is not a system I would be for.

[torchbearer]

we were suppose to have a republic of republics. a competition of governments.
People were suppose to have the choice of voting with their feet.
Since people are a source of revenue for a government, it would have to attract the most people with the best policies.
Once you have a monolithic central government that creates universal laws no matter where you live... the system is destroyed.
Our republic of republics fell in 1865.

[powerofreason]

You have admitted he would be enforcing morality -- the same morality he believes in.

What makes it okay to enforce Rothbard's morality but not others? Just because he believe his morality is absolute and reasoned? If we accept Rothbard's morality as true because his is based on reason, why not a Christian's because their morality is based on absolute truth even if others don't accept it?

Absolute truth isn't reality, its just faith. Christians can't prove their morality, Rothbard can. That is why it is superior. If you favor human happiness then you favor Rothbard's morals. If you don't favor human happiness you probably have some sort of mental impairment and I feel bad for you. Private property leads to order. Disorder leads to unhappiness, thus disorder is bad. Thats not too hard to understand, is it?

[powerofreason]

we were suppose to have a republic of republics. a competition of governments.
People were suppose to have the choice of voting with their feet.
Since people are a source of revenue for a government, it would have to attract the most people with the best policies.
Once you have a monolithic central government that creates universal laws no matter where you live... the system is destroyed.
Our republic of republics fell in 1865.

Thats all true but you left out one important fact: It was doomed to fail from the start. Its in the nature of a coercive monopoly on law and order to expand its reach slowly over time. If you dispute this, then find me one historical example of a government shrinking long term.

[powerofreason]

You didn't disprove what I said. Roth-Capism involves coercing people to adhere to "Natural Law" by claiming "natural law enforcers" have a right to govern over others and punish those who do not comply, which necessarily implies they own that person and all property. When someone says they can judge you and tell you what you can and cannot do, they are claiming you as their own.

You give permission to submit to arbitration. You don't have to agree to a contract, verbal or written if you don't want to. A publicly funded court system will not exist in a free land.

[Conza88]

Anarchism is NOT anarcho-capitalism nor this version of panarchism. Anarcho-capitalism is NOT a voluntary society. Under Rothbard's system, his morals ("Natural Law") would be forced on everyone through private courts. That's a coercive quasi-government force.

Epic fail. You have misconstrued political ethics with personal morality.

ie. Some people may see abortion as immoral, but would not use political force to stop someone from doing it.

And Natural Law has nothing to do with Rothbard essentially.

Furthermore, it is not WHO determines what is natural law, but WHAT.

= REASON.

[torchbearer]

Thats all true but you left out one important fact: It was doomed to fail from the start. Its in the nature of a coercive monopoly on law and order to expand its reach slowly over time. If you dispute this, then find me one historical example of a government shrinking long term.

Doom to fail from the start?
All humanity is plagued by tyrants and people who wish to rule over others.
There hasn't been any system that has been able to reign in this stupidity of our herd.
Anarchy or any semantic an-cap "private protection" scheme has no guards against the above problem.
And now- since the states lost their battle- not only do the Ron Paul people have to fight against the tyrants, they have to fight against those who wish to throw us into the other tyranny- law of the jungle.

The constitution is a good starting point, but their needs to be real and enumerated punishment for those who break the contract.

Now we are heading down the road to civil war. In the end- it will either be Big Brother or A Republic of Republics in confederacy. Anarchy will simply be the transition from one government to another. The question will be- which government will rise from the ashes-
One based on Ron's ideas or one based on Rahm's ideas.
Will their be a civil society based on property rights and decentralized power, or one based on the whims of the ruling elite and a centralized oligarchy.

[torchbearer]

You can't stop a government from forming, you can only hope to be the one to create it and guard it.

[Epic]

Anarchism is NOT anarcho-capitalism nor this version of panarchism. Anarcho-capitalism is NOT a voluntary society. Under Rothbard's system, his morals ("Natural Law") would be forced on everyone through private courts. That's a coercive quasi-government force.

This is incorrect. Without a large centralized government, each community's court system will reflect the subjective value sets, as manifested through market demand, of the community.

So, different communities may have different laws, because the people in different communities will demand different protections and norms.

[Conza88]

You didn't disprove what I said. Roth-Capism involves coercing people to adhere to "Natural Law" by claiming "natural law enforcers" have a right to govern over others and punish those who do not comply, which necessarily implies they own that person and all property.

http://www.isil.org/resources/introduction.swf

Where is the coercion?

Sorry Kludgermon, you're going to have to do better than that.

Those who follow natural law, do not INITIATE violence. They trade, they produce, they homestead property.

From Natural Law flows -> Natural Rights -> Natural Justice.

You are pissed off people will naturally protect their property, their homes, their family, their bodies etc.

It's the natural order... you seek to subvert it. You will fail.

[torchbearer]

This is incorrect. Without a large centralized government, each community's court system will reflect the subjective value sets, as manifested through market demand, of the community.

So, different communities may have different laws, because the people in different communities will demand different protections and norms.

Sounds like Jeffersonian ideas- minarchy.
An-caps, if it makes you feel better to say your government is a private business, then let's call it that. But its still a government, with laws and courts. It requires funding- user taxes and voluntary taxes. Wait- let's not call them taxes, will just call them fees or payments.
Semantics.

[Conza88]

Sounds like Jeffersonian ideas- minarchy.
An-caps, if it makes you feel better to say your government is a private business, then let's call it that. But its still a government, with laws and courts. It requires funding- user taxes and voluntary taxes. Wait- let's not call them taxes, will just call them fees or payments.
Semantics.

Voluntary or coercion.

Yeah, semantics! :rolleyes:

Freedom or Tyranny... yeah it's just semantics!

A monopoly on what is to be called justice. A monopoly on the use of violence over a given territory. Yeaaaah, we all know how good government imposed monopolies are. :rolleyes:

[torchbearer]

Voluntary or coercion.

Yeah, semantics! :rolleyes:

Freedom or Tyranny... yeah it's just semantics!

A monopoly on what is to be called justice. A monopoly on the use of violence over a given territory. Yeaaaah, we all know how good government imposed monopolies are. :rolleyes:

Jeffersonian Minarchy- Voluntary. Don't like your local government and courts, find a different town that fits to your liking.
An-Cap Private Government - Voluntary. Don't like the local "private law system", find a different area with a different choice.
:rolleyes:
Semantics.

If I don't show up to your an-cap court, what are you going to do about it? Force me to show up?
I scam you out of your savings Maddow style, wtf are you going to do about?
I'm not showing up to your private court. Are you going to use force against me?
Do you own the monopoly on force? Does your "private courts?"

In the wild west, the tradition was for family's to feud until they were all dead but one. I guess we can go back to laws of the jungle.
That way the monopoly on violence will go to whoever wants to use it for whatever reason.

[Conza88]

You can't stop a government from forming, you can only hope to be the one to create it and guard it.

Wrong.

YouTube - 609 Would Anarchy Create Governments? (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WIgHO8SZJdI)

[Conza88]

Jeffersonian Minarchy- Voluntary. Don't like your local government and courts, find a different town that fits to your liking.

Wrong. Your premise is flawed, the state / government doesn't actually own that land. Why should I move? Why don't "they" move? And go find someone to be parasitic off. It ain't voluntary... I never consented to being robbed... Sorry, it is coercive.


An-Cap Private Government - Voluntary. Don't like the local "private law system", find a different area with a different choice.
:rolleyes:
Semantics.

Why are you going to court? A dispute. Arbitration. There are ways international organizations do it. They compromise, say they will hold the case in one companies country, but based on the other's laws. (not Natural Law) but you see the point. More below.


If I don't show up to your an-cap court, what are you going to do about it? Force me to show up?
I scam you out of your savings Maddow style, wtf are you going to do about?
I'm not showing up to your private court. Are you going to use force against me?
Do you own the monopoly on force? Does your "private courts?"

The Courts (http://mises.org/rothbard/newlibertywhole.asp#p201)

Suppose, then, that the judge or arbitrator decides Smith was in the wrong in a dispute, and that he aggressed against Jones. If Smith accepts the verdict, then, whatever damages or punishment is levied, there is no problem for the theory of libertarian protection. But what if he does not accept it? Or suppose another example: Jones is robbed. He sets his police company to do detective work in trying to track down the criminal. The company decides that a certain Brown is the criminal. Then what? If Brown acknowledges his guilt, then again there is no problem and judicial punishment proceeds, centering on forcing the criminal to make restitution to the victim. But, again, what if Brown denies his guilt?

These cases take us out of the realm of police protection and into another vital area of protection: judicial service, i.e., the provision, in accordance with generally accepted procedures, of a method of trying as best as one can to determine who is the criminal, or who is the breaker of contracts, in any sort of crime or dispute. Many people, even those who acknowledge that there could be privately competitive police service supplied on a free market, balk at the idea of totally private courts. How in the world could courts be private? How would courts employ force in a world without government? Wouldn't eternal conflicts and "anarchy" then ensue?

In the first place, the monopoly courts of government are subject to the same grievous problems, inefficiencies, and contempt for the consumer as any other government operation. We all know that judges, for example, are not selected according to their wisdom, probity, or efficiency in serving the consumer, but are political hacks chosen by [p. 223] the political process. Furthermore, the courts are monopolies; if, for example, the courts in some town or city should become corrupt, venal, oppressive, or inefficient, the citizen at present has no recourse. The aggrieved citizen of Deep Falls, Wyoming, must be governed by the local Wyoming court or not at all. In a libertarian society, there would be many courts, many judges to whom he could turn. Again, there is no reason to assume a "natural monopoly" of judicial wisdom. The Deep Falls citizen could, for example, call upon the local branch of the Prudential Judicial Company.

How would courts be financed in a free society? There are many possibilities. Possibly, each individual would subscribe to a court service, paying a monthly premium, and then calling upon the court if he is in need. Or, since courts will probably be needed much less frequently than policemen, he may pay a fee whenever he chooses to use the court, with the criminal or contract-breaker eventually recompensing the victim or plaintiff. Or, in still a third possibility, the courts may be hired by the police agencies to settle disputes, or there may even be "vertically integrated" firms supplying both police and judicial service: the Prudential Judicial Company might have a police and a judicial division. Only the market will be able to decide which of these methods will be most appropriate.

We should all be more familiar with the increasing use of private arbitration, even in our present society. The government courts have become so clogged, inefficient, and wasteful that more and more parties to disputes are turning to private arbitrators as a cheaper and far less time-consuming way of settling their disputes. In recent years, private arbitration has become a growing and highly successful profession. Being voluntary, furthermore, the rules of arbitration can be decided rapidly by the parties themselves, without the need for a ponderous, complex legal framework applicable to all citizens. Arbitration therefore permits judgments to be made by people expert in the trade or occupation concerned. Currently, the American Arbitration Association, whose motto is "The Handclasp is Mightier than the Fist," has 25 regional offices throughout the country, with 23,000 arbitrators. In 1969, the Association conducted over 22,000 arbitrations. In addition, the insurance companies adjust over 50,000 claims a year through voluntary arbitration. There is also a growing and successful use of private arbitrators in automobile accident claim cases.

It might be protested that, while performing an ever greater proportion of judicial functions, the private arbitrators' decisions are still enforced by the courts, so that once the disputing parties agree on an [p. 224] arbitrator, his decision becomes legally binding. This is true, but it was not the case before 1920, and the arbitration profession grew at as rapid a rate from 1900 to 1920 as it has since. In fact, the modern arbitration movement began in full force in England during the time of the American Civil War, with merchants increasingly using the "private courts" provided by voluntary arbitrators, even though the decisions were not legally binding. By 1900, voluntary arbitration began to take hold in the United States. In fact, in medieval England, the entire structure of merchant law, which was handled clumsily and inefficiently by the government's courts, grew up in private merchants' courts. The merchants' courts were purely voluntary arbitrators, and the decisions were not legally binding. How, then, were they successful?

The answer is that the merchants, in the Middle Ages and down to 1920, relied solely on ostracism and boycott by the other merchants in the area. In other words, should a merchant refuse to submit to arbitration or ignore a decision, the other merchants would publish this fact in the trade, and would refuse to deal with the recalcitrant merchant, bringing him quickly to heel. Wooldridge mentions one medieval example:


Merchants made their courts work simply by agreeing to abide by the results. The merchant who broke the understanding would not be sent to jail, to be sure, but neither would he long continue to be a merchant, for the compliance exacted by his fellows, and their power over his goods, proved if anything more effective than physical coercion. Take John of Homing, who made his living marketing wholesale quantities of fish. When John sold a lot of herring on the representation that it conformed to a three-barrel sample, but which, his fellow merchants found, was actually mixed with "sticklebacks and putrid herring," he made good the deficiency on pain of economic ostracism.1

In modern times, ostracism became even more effective, and it included the knowledge that anyone who ignored an arbitrator's award could never again avail himself of an arbitrator's services. Industrialist Owen D. Young, head of General Electric, concluded that the moral censure of other businessmen was a far more effective sanction than legal enforcement. Nowadays, modern technology, computers, and credit ratings would make such nationwide ostracism even more effective than it has ever been in the past.

Even if purely voluntary arbitration is sufficient for commercial disputes, however, what of frankly criminal activities: the mugger, the rapist, the bank robber? In these cases, it must be admitted that ostracism would probably not be sufficient — even though it would also include, [p. 225] we must remember, refusal of private street owners to allow such criminals in their areas. For the criminal cases, then, courts and legal enforcement become necessary.

How, then, would the courts operate in the libertarian society? In particular, how could they enforce their decisions? In all their operations, furthermore, they must observe the critical libertarian rule that no physical force may be used against anyone who has not been convicted as a criminal — otherwise, the users of such force, whether police or courts, would be themselves liable to be convicted as aggressors if it turned out that the person they had used force against was innocent of crime. In contrast to statist systems, no policeman or judge could be granted special immunity to use coercion beyond what anyone else in society could use.

Let us now take the case we mentioned before. Mr. Jones is robbed, his hired detective agency decides that one Brown committed the crime, and Brown refuses to concede his guilt. What then? In the first place, we must recognize that there is at present no overall world court or world government enforcing its decrees; yet while we live in a state of "international anarchy" there is little or no problem in disputes between private citizens of two countries. Suppose that right now, for example, a citizen of Uruguay claims that he has been swindled by a citizen of Argentina. Which court does he go to? He goes to his own, i.e., the victim's or the plaintiff's court. The case proceeds in the Uruguayan court, and its decision is honored by the Argentinian court. The same is true if an American feels he has been swindled by a Canadian, and so on. In Europe after the Roman Empire, when German tribes lived side by side and in the same areas, if a Visigoth felt that he had been injured by a Frank, he took the case to his own court, and the decision was generally accepted by the Franks. Going to the plaintiff's court is the rational libertarian procedure as well, since the victim or plaintiff is the one who is aggrieved, and who naturally takes the case to his own court. So, in our case, Jones would go to the Prudential Court Company to charge Brown with theft.

It is possible, of course, that Brown is also a client of the Prudential Court, in which case there is no problem. The Prudential's decision covers both parties, and becomes binding. But one important stipulation is that no coercive subpoena power can be used against Brown, because he must be considered innocent until he is convicted. But Brown would be served with a voluntary subpoena, a notice that he is being tried on such and such a charge and inviting him or his legal representative to appear. If he does not appear, then he will be tried in absentia, and [p. 226] this will obviously be less favorable for Brown since his side of the case will not be pleaded in court. If Brown is declared guilty, then the court and its marshals will employ force to seize Brown and exact whatever punishment is decided upon — a punishment which obviously will focus first on restitution to the victim.

What, however, if Brown does not recognize the Prudential Court? What if he is a client of the Metropolitan Court Company? Here the case becomes more difficult. What will happen then? First, victim Jones pleads his case in the Prudential Court. If Brown is found innocent, this ends the controversy. Suppose, however, that defendant Brown is found guilty. If he does nothing, the court's judgment proceeds against him. Suppose, however, Brown then takes the case to the Metropolitan Court Company, pleading inefficiency or venality by Prudential. The case will then be heard by Metropolitan. If Metropolitan also finds Brown guilty, this too ends the controversy and Prudential will proceed against Brown with dispatch. Suppose, however, that Metropolitan finds Brown innocent of the charge. Then what? Will the two courts and their arms-wielding marshals shoot it out in the streets?

Once again, this would clearly be irrational and self-destructive behavior on the part of the courts. An essential part of their judicial service to their clients is the provision of just, objective, and peacefully functioning decisions — the best and most objective way of arriving at the truth of who committed the crime. Arriving at a decision and then allowing chaotic gunplay would scarcely be considered valuable judicial service by their customers. Thus, an essential part of any court's service to its clients would be an appeals procedure. In short, every court would agree to abide by an appeals trial, as decided by a voluntary arbitrator to whom Metropolitan and Prudential would now turn. The appeals judge would make his decision, and the result of this third trial would be treated as binding on the guilty. The Prudential court would then proceed to enforcement.

An appeals court! But isn't this setting up a compulsory monopoly government once again? No, because there is nothing in the system that requires any one person or court to be the court of appeal. In short, in the United States at present the Supreme Court is established as the court of final appeal, so the Supreme Court judges become the final arbiters regardless of the wishes of plaintiff or defendant alike. In contrast, in the libertarian society the various competing private courts could go to any appeals judge they think fair, expert, and objective. No single appeals judge or set of judges would be foisted upon society by coercion. [p. 227]

How would the appeals judges be financed? There are many possible ways, but the most likely is that they will be paid by the various original courts who would charge their customers for appeals services in their premiums or fees.

But suppose Brown insists on another appeals judge, and yet another? Couldn't he escape judgment by appealing ad infinitum? Obviously, in any society legal proceedings cannot continue indefinitely; there must be some cutoff point. In the present statist society, where government monopolizes the judicial function, the Supreme Court is arbitrarily designated as the cutoff point. In the libertarian society, there would also have to be an agreed-upon cutoff point, and since there are only two parties to any crime or dispute — the plaintiff and the defendant — it seems most sensible for the legal code to declare that a decision arrived at by any two courts shall be binding. This will cover the situation when both the plaintiff's and the defendant's courts come to the same decision, as well as the situation when an appeals court decides on a disagreement between the two original courts.


In the wild west, the tradition was for family's to feud until they were all dead but one. I guess we can go back to laws of the jungle.
That way the monopoly on violence will go to whoever wants to use it for whatever reason.

http://mises.org/journals/jls/3_1/3_1_2.pdf

An American Experiment in Anarcho-Capitalism: The - Not So Wild, Wild West* by Terry L. Anderson and P. J. Hill

[Kludge]

Those who follow natural law, do not INITIATE violence. They trade, they produce, they homestead property.

From Natural Law flows -> Natural Rights -> Natural Justice.

You are pissed off people will naturally protect their property, their homes, their family, their bodies etc.

It's the natural order... you seek to subvert it. You will fail.

I follow natural law... naturally, though I struggle with taxes. There's no basis for smearing me out of belief that I'm a thug as you tried to paint Josh. The difference between you and I is that you want to hold people accountable to your morality. I see it as a waste of effort and a good way to piss people off with different beliefs about what is and isn't moral. So what if I'm murdered? No reason to harm the other person for it and waste even more persons' time. It's after-the-fact. I don't get any benefit out of it. If you'd like to imprison people because you think they're dangerous and want them off the street because of it, please come out and say it, but belief that you're upholding some divine natural order and are going to get anything out of it is silly.

An inalienable right to self-ownership cannot exist because securing rights requires liberty be lessened, even if the other person "deserves it". Again, you can play benevolent dictator and try to form contracts you'll hold people to and say "Well, I have to imprison you, because you agreed to. Sorry.", but you're still aggressing in the end.

[torchbearer]

Conza, I've actually lived in a place where justice was administered by the people themselves. It ends up the same as the wild west.

The private courts will have jurisdiction, the same as any other law body.
It doesn't take ownership of land to have jurisdiction.

You arguments are weak simply because you don't have one yourself.
I've read everything you've posted- the closer it gets to making sense, the closer it looks like minarchy.
That should tell you something.

[denison]

Conza, I've actually lived in a place where justice was administered by the people themselves. It ends up the same as the wild west.

The private courts will have jurisdiction, the same as any other law body.
It doesn't take ownership of land to have jurisdiction.

You arguments are weak simply because you don't have one yourself.
I've read everything you've posted- the closer it gets to making sense, the closer it looks like minarchy.
That should tell you something.

Do you have any e-book links that discuss minarchy?

[torchbearer]

Do you have any e-book links that discuss minarchy?

start with John Locke http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/locke-political/
- then move on to Thomas Jefferson.

I don't have any e-book links. But there are actually some really good books from CATO i've read on James Madison that gave some interesting insights.
Daniel Hannan also speaks of minarchy in his speeches.

I'd suggest also doing your own critical thinking.
Sociology helped me a lot with unintended consequences.

It is easy for a writer to frame their philosophy in a way that it doesn't account for those consequences.
For instance- Karl Marx.
His writings, without any thought, sounds great, but when you think about it- it can't work.
His assumption that people want to work is false. His economic vision was that of fantasy, where he controls all the pawns.

Then you have the philosophical debate of when is it just to use force?
Using a John Locke argument, it would only be just in defense of your property and self. Thus, the only powers you could bestow on a just government is the power to protect those things.
Then why do you need a combined protection force? Couldn't you defend yourself?
You could defend yourself against a few, but not many. That is the sole role of government in minarchy.

The question then is- how do you keep evil men from hijacking that government and using it to enslave people.
This was the debate our founders had... the constitution was to lay out competing branches that would keep each other in check.
This was written before the political parties and such. Thus the fault of the constitution was that it didn't foresee the problem of all the branches working together to enslave people.

The error can be corrected, but it will most likely require a lot of treasue, blood, and time.
As I mentioned before, enumerated punishments for those that break the contract of the constitution would go a long way.
The politicians should always be mindful of the contract, and their lives should be forfeited if they ever break it.
Political parties will need to be destroyed because they are now a quasi-government that undermines the constitution.
How this could be done would require a lot of thought.

[mtj458]

Seems to me like we'd just end up in a big prisoner's dilemma where everyone is benefited most individually by choosing the more socialist government but society is worse of because of it.

[Conza88]

I follow natural law... naturally, though I struggle with taxes.

Why did you quote me and replace my name with powerofreasons?


There's no basis for smearing me out of belief that I'm a thug as you tried to paint Josh.

He did that himself.




do you want ourselves to be more wealthy? we can either print money, or rob other countries, or kill them off.



In my society we kill scum because we don't need to deal with their BS. I don't believe anybody has the right to not be murdered



why bother dividing labor to benefit all when you can kill off some and be the sole happy survivors?



Anyway, like I said, The Venus Project is about three-steps-behind the real world and what we understand about it.




I don't mind if they admit they need to kill people to get there.




Nobody forced the killers to kill, they did it because it was OK to them.
Where's the coercion?


I fully agree, I don't believe in rights

exactly! talk is cheap!
just because you believe you have the right to life and freedom doesn't mean I have to respect it



Would you kill me if you could get away with it? :confused:



If by "getting away with it" you mean having fully guarantee from every power in the world that I'm free from punishment and unwanted consequences (it's nice to be a politician or soldier, aint it?), and if it benefits me yes.



The difference between you and I is that you want to hold people accountable to your morality.

The difference between you and I is, I am not a fraud. And you are. Remember? We established this previously. Your only into nihilism for the entertainment, said so yourself.

I don't care about morality, that is subjective. What is not subjective is ETHICS. When you learn the distinction, let us know. The link between economics and ethics is property. Free will is inalienable.

It is not MY morality, and it isn't Rothbard's, nor any mans. It's Natural Law. REASON determines it, not man. Man has a nature. Pity you've never read anything on natural law, nor present any kind of coherent rebuttal against it. You've only opined strawmen.


I see it as a waste of effort and a good way to piss people off with different beliefs about what is and isn't moral. So what if I'm murdered? No reason to harm the other person for it and waste even more persons' time. It's after-the-fact. I don't get any benefit out of it.

So what indeed. In a libertarian society, people would actually set out in their wills, the action to be taken if killed etc. The victims family etc, the next of kin.. you know those dad just died and have no bread winner / food provider for the family anymore... maybe they want some justice? Make the aggressor, work to compensate for their loss.

If you don't want to be avenged.. indeed, so what... write it in your will then. No action is to be taken upon your death. GREAT :rolleyes:

Furthermore, whose time is being wasted? eh? You don't get any benefit out of it.... what, no family kludge? no-one would care if you died tomorrow? you nihilists are pathetic.


If you'd like to imprison people because you think they're dangerous and want them off the street because of it, please come out and say it, but belief that you're upholding some divine natural order and are going to get anything out of it is silly.

That's the victims choice, you fool. Strawmanning - don't do that. See, in a Libertarian society - the victim can forgive. With the state - that ain't an option. They proceed regardless, no matter what.

What am I going to get out of it? Benefits from freedom for everyone. No harassment. No gun held to my head. Businesses would flourish.. no taxation.. invention and capital accumulation would spring forth... no business cycle... long term investment... no inflation... prices generally deflate...


An inalienable right to self-ownership cannot exist because securing rights requires liberty be lessened

WRONG. No, no, no. What is being lessened is power to violate other peoples liberty. Their free will. And that pisses you off I imagine. It sure pissed off Josh_La.

I'm on an island. I homestead a shelter. I make an axe, cut down the wood, make a shelter. It is my property. Justly acquired.

You and Optatron, since you don't respect property rights, want to come take my house for yourselves. YOU ARE THE ONES INITIATING AGGRESSION AND VIOLENCE. And YOU accuse me, of using force when I DEFEND MYSELF against your aggression?

Tsk tsk tsk... I haven't lessened your liberty to take what you want, when you want it. You are mis-equating liberty with POWER to do what you want, when you want.

Shameful.


even if the other person "deserves it". Again, you can play benevolent dictator and try to form contracts you'll hold people to and say "Well, I have to imprison you, because you agreed to. Sorry.", but you're still aggressing in the end.

Nope, again you fail. See: Property Rights and the Theory of Contracts (http://mises.org/story/2580). The only just theory of contracts involves PROPERTY TITLE TRANSFER.

You can't transfer your free will. :cool: Hahah.. :D

[Conza88]

Conza, I've actually lived in a place where justice was administered by the people themselves.

Where? And it was "administered by the people themselves"... haha, and what are the objects that move about in "government" buildings... "people" no?


It ends up the same as the wild west.

Why did you just ignore everything I just posted?

http://mises.org/journals/jls/3_1/3_1_2.pdf

An American Experiment in Anarcho-Capitalism: The - Not So Wild, Wild West* by Terry L. Anderson and P. J. Hill


The private courts will have jurisdiction, the same as any other law body.
It doesn't take ownership of land to have jurisdiction.

You arguments are weak simply because you don't have one yourself.
I've read everything you've posted- the closer it gets to making sense, the closer it looks like minarchy.
That should tell you something.

Oh wow, you just dismissed all of it and said you read it. You didn't address any of it though did you? Noooo.... wouldn't want to form an argument against what was presented? Nooooo... couldn't do that...

Minarchy is utopian, sorry champ. Anyone who thinks the state can be limited is living in a dream world.

[powerofreason]

Conza, I've actually lived in a place where justice was administered by the people themselves. It ends up the same as the wild west.

The private courts will have jurisdiction, the same as any other law body.
It doesn't take ownership of land to have jurisdiction.

You arguments are weak simply because you don't have one yourself.
I've read everything you've posted- the closer it gets to making sense, the closer it looks like minarchy.
That should tell you something.

The same as the wild west? Must have been pretty good then. See pdf link in sig.