What could -not- be privatized?

[Elwar]

A lot of things that people take for granted as things that can only be handled by the government could and have been privatized.

I have a private garbage service (that rocks, $10 a month with great bi-weekly service), I've had a private fire department, private ambulance service, private hospital. There are private schools, private roads, private security, private courts (arbitration or mediation agencies), private police (though they tend to be funded through HOAs or city taxes), private military (Blackwater).

What could not be privatized?

[LibertarianfromGermany]

Unbacked paper money; pretty sure that it needs a government for it to work.

[Elwar]

Unbacked paper money; pretty sure that it needs a government for it to work.

That's already run by a private business....

I would certainly be fine with starting such a company...come get your Elwar bucks...give me your gold for it...

[ChaosControl]

Anything I suppose could be, but I don't really want courts/police/roads privatized.

*Gets burned at the stake by the ancaps*

[jmdrake]

A lot of things that people take for granted as things that can only be handled by the government could and have been privatized.

I have a private garbage service (that rocks, $10 a month with great bi-weekly service), I've had a private fire department, private ambulance service, private hospital. There are private schools, private roads, private security, private courts (arbitration or mediation agencies), private police (though they tend to be funded through HOAs or city taxes), private military (Blackwater).

What could not be privatized?

You're using the murderous Blackwater thugs as an example of a success story?

[Pennsylvania]

I'd say certain areas of nature. I'm not really into having to pay people to have to go walk in "their" woods or swim at "their" beaches. But it's another story if someone has set up a wildlife reserve or something like that.

[BuddyRey]

IMHO, nothing should be "privatized" (i.e. run efficiently by a business entity given monopoly privilege over a good or service, but still operated for the benefit of the state). But I'd like to *marketize*, or open for competition among diverse individuals all areas of human social and economic enterprise, from protection services and roads to utilities and postal services.

Blackwater is a prime example of a corporatist public-private collusion that operates for profit but at the behest of the state, which is exactly the kind of privatization every libertarian should vehemently oppose.

[SLSteven]

IMHO, nothing should be "privatized" (i.e. run efficiently by a business entity given monopoly privilege over a good or service, but still operated for the benefit of the state). But I'd like to *marketize*, or open for competition among diverse individuals all areas of human social and economic enterprise, from protection services and roads to utilities and postal services.



Nice distinction! Reminded me of this...

A stimulus jobs program even a Republican could love

http://ca.finance.yahoo.com/personal-finance/article/cnnmoney/stimulus-jobs-program-even-republican-could-love-20100709

[Brett]

I've posted a thread on this before, but the public library system.

[Elwar]

You're using the murderous Blackwater thugs as an example of a success story?

Not pointing out success stories. Just looking for aspects of the government that could not be privatized.

ie. we find an otherwise unknown island and try to build a city with no government without losing the rights or conveniences that we now enjoy (such as garbage, fire station, police protection, etc). But not a utopia. People fight, lovers quarrel, people get drunk and do stupid things, people try scamming others, outsiders come in and disrupt things, try to take over, theft, murder, etc...

[SLSteven]

People fight, lovers quarrel, people get drunk and do stupid things, people try scamming others, outsiders come in and disrupt things, try to take over, theft, murder, etc...

Ahhh... the spice of life

[Elwar]

I've posted a thread on this before, but the public library system.

Good one, I forgot about that. I recall a Libertarian candidate running for city counsel and one of his planks was privatizing the public library. I've searched but have never found out how that was supposed to work. I assume charging memberships like Netflix, but I'd like to look into more research on it.

[MelissaWV]

Good one, I forgot about that. I recall a Libertarian candidate running for city counsel and one of his planks was privatizing the public library. I've searched but have never found out how that was supposed to work. I assume charging memberships like Netflix, but I'd like to look into more research on it.

There's no reason that a private library wouldn't work. Many people already have "private libraries," except they aren't open to borrowers ;) The question is whether or not anyone would loan out their books, and the answer seems to be a resounding "yes."

There are already a number of services whereby you swap your book in, and get another one out, and it keeps going around and around. You could also simply loan out your books to people as you said, like Netflix. You could finally also run an actual library, just as it currently stands. Your duties would be many, so there are ample opportunities to charge people money. As an archive, you can charge for people storing their items in your care. As an education center, you can charge for people to rent out a meeting/media room. There are always copies to be made and faxes to be sent, though that isn't necessarily something you'd incorporate. There are overdue fines, or lost book fines, which a private library might collect in the same ways public ones do.

[heavenlyboy34]

You're using the murderous Blackwater thugs as an example of a success story?

Were Blackwater guards murderous thugs before they were hired by the FedGov? ;) In my studies, Blackwater is more of an example of fascism than free market security.

[heavenlyboy34]

IMHO, nothing should be "privatized" (i.e. run efficiently by a business entity given monopoly privilege over a good or service, but still operated for the benefit of the state). But I'd like to *marketize*, or open for competition among diverse individuals all areas of human social and economic enterprise, from protection services and roads to utilities and postal services.

Blackwater is a prime example of a corporatist public-private collusion that operates for profit but at the behest of the state, which is exactly the kind of privatization every libertarian should vehemently oppose.

You put it quite well. :D

[fisharmor]

I'd say certain areas of nature. I'm not really into having to pay people to have to go walk in "their" woods or swim at "their" beaches. But it's another story if someone has set up a wildlife reserve or something like that.

I hear you, but there are a couple points to raise in objection to state parks.
The most obvious is that we already have to pay to walk in woods owned by the state, but the costs are concealed.
Less obvious is the fact that government intervention in transportation, RKBA, pedagogy, building codes and permits, zoning law, all among other things, have served to drive people out of cities over the last 60-70 years.
This is why nature is getting paved. I think we can't really jump to national parks as a given without examining the myriad other state controls which make them necessary.


To answer the OP, I didn't get where I am by reading any ancap literature. I got there by realizing that every state function I would have tolerated or even supported as a paleoconservative is either totally unnecessary or better done by the market.

[Pennsylvania]

^I guess I should clarify that I don't really mean keeping those natural areas in the hands of the gov't, I just mean they should be "designated public" areas. So taxes wouldn't be used to maintain them if maintenance is needed, only voluntary means, however the exclusivity normally associated with private property wouldn't apply. I guess it could be argued that is still "private property", just open to everybody.

[jmdrake]

Were Blackwater guards murderous thugs before they were hired by the FedGov? ;) In my studies, Blackwater is more of an example of fascism than free market security.

I don't know. How long did Blackwater exist before they got their first federal contract?

I agree with your point that BW (now XSE) is more of an example of fascism than free market. They were protected from the consequences of the wrong acts and that helped them spin more out of control. That's another reason why I say they shouldn't be held up as an example of privatization.

[noxagol]

Anything and everything can be run by non-government means.

[fisharmor]

^I guess I should clarify that I don't really mean keeping those natural areas in the hands of the gov't, I just mean they should be "designated public" areas. So taxes wouldn't be used to maintain them if maintenance is needed, only voluntary means, however the exclusivity normally associated with private property wouldn't apply. I guess it could be argued that is still "private property", just open to everybody.

I don't follow. If nobody owns it, nobody is charged with its upkeep.
Maintenance would be required at least in the form of security, to keep squatters, vandals, and poachers out.
I guess the main reason I don't understand is because I know the private model works quite well for what you are suggesting.

Case in point: Mount Vernon. It's privately owned, a hell of a lot of people cycle through it, and it requires a lot more upkeep than a nature area would.
Another case in point: the Izaak Walton League. Not crazy about their politics, but they do maintain nature areas across the country.

Both are corporate bodies, though, so I guess the real question is what sort of legal entity would own these things if we crazy ancaps got our way and corporations didn't exist either.

[Elwar]

Both are corporate bodies, though, so I guess the real question is what sort of legal entity would own these things if we crazy ancaps got our way and corporations didn't exist either.

The Washington monument was put up by such groups as fraternities, mens clubs, community clubs, etc. When you ride up the elevator it shows the various donors on the interior.

I could see the same being done for nature parks.

Doesn't the Audobon society do this? Subsidizing part of their land purchases through clean extraction of natural gas.

[Kotin]

IMHO, nothing should be "privatized" (i.e. run efficiently by a business entity given monopoly privilege over a good or service, but still operated for the benefit of the state). But I'd like to *marketize*, or open for competition among diverse individuals all areas of human social and economic enterprise, from protection services and roads to utilities and postal services.

Blackwater is a prime example of a corporatist public-private collusion that operates for profit but at the behest of the state, which is exactly the kind of privatization every libertarian should vehemently oppose.

Very good points.. I would be very interested to see this in action.. I know that it would yield some amazing results.. Though I do think that people need to be more educated for this to work.. but thats always true.

[TheBlackPeterSchiff]

I've posted a thread on this before, but the public library system.

Man, public librarys would be so much better if they were privatized. The system is sooooooo outdated.

Shucks, I rather go to a Barnes n Noble anyway, you can sit there in comfy chairs all day and read books.

[ClayTrainor]

imho, nothing should be "privatized" (i.e. Run efficiently by a business entity given monopoly privilege over a good or service, but still operated for the benefit of the state). But i'd like to *marketize*, or open for competition among diverse individuals all areas of human social and economic enterprise, from protection services and roads to utilities and postal services.

+10000000000

[Knightskye]

Anything I suppose could be, but I don't really want courts/police/roads privatized.

*Gets burned at the stake by the ancaps*

This.

[fisharmor]

This.

http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?t=252229
This.
Kinda surprised I've only seen one of these in the last week.

Like I said, it wasn't some crazy theorist who turned me so anti-government that I call for the immediate disbanding of all constabulary forces.

It was the government who made me that way.

[YumYum]

What could not be privatized?

Public restrooms. Especially when I have got to go real bad and I have no spare change.

[fisharmor]

Public restrooms. Especially when I have got to go real bad and I have no spare change.

Travel much?
Try hitting truck stops instead of rest stops.
After two or three, you'll be actively avoiding the rest stops for the rest of your life.

[MelissaWV]

Public restrooms. Especially when I have got to go real bad and I have no spare change.

I sincerely doubt that "pay toilets" would become popular here. Restaurants and retailers already have a good thing going with restrooms. Hell, there's an almost cult following of people who go around checking out restrooms and rating them, letting others know where the clean/big ones are.

[tremendoustie]

Anything I suppose could be, but I don't really want courts/police/roads privatized.

*Gets burned at the stake by the ancaps*

Lol, no burning at the stake needed ;).

I'd be thrilled if we could have a government that just does courts, police, and roads. Ultimately, though, I don't think letting a monopoly take control of a service improves it -- free choice generally makes things better.

But hey, anyone who wants to shrink government that small is certainly an ally of mine :)

[Sentient Void]

Public restrooms. Especially when I have got to go real bad and I have no spare change.

Apparently you've never been to a mall.

That's one of many examples of private bathrooms that are open to the public, and require no payment whatsoever.

[YumYum]

Apparently you've never been to a mall.

That's one of many examples of private bathrooms that are open to the public, and require no payment whatsoever.

Apparently, you've never been broke, and at a Rest Area on the Interstate with a bad case of diarrhea.

[robert68]

At least 90% of Blackwater's revenue comes from government contracts. It's "private" in order to get away with things it wouldn't be able to if it was public.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blackwater_Worldwide

[johnrocks]

Anything I suppose could be, but I don't really want courts/police/roads privatized.

*Gets burned at the stake by the ancaps*

:p

[Sentient Void]

Apparently, you've never been broke, and at a Rest Area on the Interstate with a bad case of diarrhea.

That's quite a precedent to be setting, there.

I guess then that the/a government must be there to take care of us for every inconvenient situation we're left with in life, then.

[Promontorium]

I've been working on a model for a government that would have minimal federal law, and as much private company control of services as possible. I haven't resolved police yet, and simply saying "private security" doesn't do it for me. You think police have special interests now, wait until 1 guy hires police to do his bidding, and 100 yards further another guy hires police to do his bidding, and 100 yards further another guy hires police to do his bidding, and well, so on. Corruption wouldn't even be a word anymore, because it would be a job requirement. The whole point of government is neutrality in private conflict. I would much rather propose voluntary taxes to fund a neutral police. But as I said, I haven't resolved this issue.

One thing I believe would alleviate many if not most issues is to have mandatory "free space" or public land in between private properties. This way any person can walk from a-b without needing to trespass. There's a lot more to it than that, I'll reveal my model on this website one of these days.

[teacherone]

national defense...

if you privatize everything you essentially phase out the government-- leaving the individuals, communities, tribes, and communes that develop to provide for their own defense.

privatizing everything will lead to the end of the nation state.

if that's your goal-- well there's your answer.

[Elwar]

While I agree that government monoplies of services that could be replaced by a private, market based system (ie AT&T's monopoly through most of the 1900s, garbage service, etc.) aren't great, I would argue that I would prefer private companies hired by the government over government agencies. I work as a defense contractor. My company has to compete with all sorts of other companies to win the contracts. Granted, it's abused like nobody's business with insider contracts and a good ol' boy system but at least you can fire a company or sue them for not fulfilling the contract a lot easier than you can fire a full slew of government employees and hire another set of them.

I think police, courts and military are about the hardest government provided entities to privatize. Mainly because of the revenue source and the reason for their existence. I think the military would be the hardest to privatize in a market sense. Everyone (in theory) is covered in the exact same way by the military. You couldn't have 3 different military companies protecting various houses throughout the US, only guarding the ones that are covered. Though I'm open to ideas on how that might work. I think I once read a suggestion that insurance companies would provide protection but I don't see how that would work.

For police, I suppose it could work like my fire department used to work. When you move into town you are given the choice, pay $20 a month to be covered or pay so much money if the fire department has to come out ($200 for basic kitchen fire, up to $2,000 for putting out a house fire). Everyone was covered. Though I could see some people not willing to call the police to report a crime because they wouldn't want to pay $2,000 (though I suspect you could always sue the criminal for the compensation).

For courts, there's the legal contracts and civil cases that can pay for the court proceedings but I believe that criminal courts would be difficult to have a market. A criminal couldn't choose and the prosecutor couldn't choose because both would choose the one that has the best track record for them.

The reason for this whole thread is that I'd like to go through my whole county charter and figure out the lowest amount of services that would be required. My town is unincorporated so we don't have local police, firefighters, etc...it's all county folks. I just wanted to make sure I wasn't missing something that could 'not' be eliminated.

[A Son of Liberty]

I'd say certain areas of nature. I'm not really into having to pay people to have to go walk in "their" woods or swim at "their" beaches. But it's another story if someone has set up a wildlife reserve or something like that.

"Pennsylvania", check out the Western Pennsylvania Conservancy. ;) It's a private entity that maintains natural and cultural resources such as Fallingwater, in Ohiopyle. Granted, you have to pay, but as has been pointed out, "public" areas are paid for as well. :)

[A Son of Liberty]

national defense...

if you privatize everything you essentially phase out the government-- leaving the individuals, communities, tribes, and communes that develop to provide for their own defense.

privatizing everything will lead to the end of the nation state.

if that's your goal-- well there's your answer.

And an admirable goal, at that. ;)

[Promontorium]

national defense...

if you privatize everything you essentially phase out the government-.

This is true. I agree national defense is one thing that implicitly can't be privatized without eliminating the government.

Voluntary taxes, and voluntary service. I believe that is the solution. If people think the military should be beefed up, they can send money or join. I believe this will naturally start or end wars by the interest of the people, not the state. The military will be entirely dependent on the people, as the people will be dependent on them.

I also don't agree with private courts. The entire legal system seems a bit awkward to me, but I have no special knowledge of it. Though I agree neutral private arbitration is a good idea, it doesn't resolve all issues. What about murder? One side of the table is empty, the other side is a friend of the victim, and the arbitrator is like "well if you can't find the guilty party, we can't talk it out." How does the victim's friend find the guilty party? Maybe he has his own police, or a public police, either way, they might have a suspect how do you put a suspect in the guilty party seat without a method of proving he's guilty? Seriously. arbitration doesn't determine guilt, ever. And it never will. You need to either just pick someone to be guilty, or have a method to determine guilt. We call them trials, and they require witnesses, evidence, experts, and judges, all of which would need to be neutral.


I also agree that certain circumstances should require payment, to fund police, courts etc. If you lose a case, pay up, if you need to be rescued, pay up. The voluntary payments will help subsidized the dirt poor.

[jmdrake]

Public restrooms. Especially when I have got to go real bad and I have no spare change.

Many restrooms today have stall advertising. Change for the bathroom is so 1970s. ;)

[tremendoustie]

This is true. I agree national defense is one thing that implicitly can't be privatized without eliminating the government.

Voluntary taxes, and voluntary service. I believe that is the solution. If people think the military should be beefed up, they can send money or join. I believe this will naturally start or end wars by the interest of the people, not the state. The military will be entirely dependent on the people, as the people will be dependent on them.

I agree completely with this ... and, alternately, people could choose to join militias as well ... but, what's the difference between this and marketization (I prefer that term to privatization), if I may ask?



I also don't agree with private courts. The entire legal system seems a bit awkward to me, but I have no special knowledge of it. Though I agree neutral private arbitration is a good idea, it doesn't resolve all issues. What about murder? One side of the table is empty, the other side is a friend of the victim, and the arbitrator is like "well if you can't find the guilty party, we can't talk it out." How does the victim's friend find the guilty party? Maybe he has his own police, or a public police, either way, they might have a suspect how do you put a suspect in the guilty party seat without a method of proving he's guilty? Seriously. arbitration doesn't determine guilt, ever. And it never will. You need to either just pick someone to be guilty, or have a method to determine guilt. We call them trials, and they require witnesses, evidence, experts, and judges, all of which would need to be neutral.

How about this: The protection agency of the victim picks up the suspect. The designated court of arbitration for disputes between the protection agencies of the suspect and victim is used for the trial (unless both perp and victim agree on an alternative).

The court of arbitration, by whatever means (judge, judge panel, jury), determines appropriate restitution for the victim (in the case of murder, probably a lifetime of labor, minus room and board), and whether the perpetrator is a continuing threat to others (in the case of murder, probably), in which case the restitution will be worked off in prison. There are also designated courts for appeal, but the appealing party must pay the fees.

If the defendant is found innocent, the protection agency who picked him up is liable for his lost time.

There's an interesting book, expounding on these ideas here: http://freekeene.com/files/marketforliberty.pdf

[libertybrewcity]

public libraries-the ones in san francisco are amazing, all have do it yourself checkout

parks, playgrounds, beaches- i would like to see these either on the state or local level

police

sidewalks, roads- if a lot of unnecessary, unproductive city services were cut there would be a lot money to repair these regulary, and half the country has a nice climate and doesn't even require much repair, i really don't want to pay a 5 dollar toll ever block either

[tremendoustie]

I've been working on a model for a government that would have minimal federal law, and as much private company control of services as possible. I haven't resolved police yet, and simply saying "private security" doesn't do it for me. You think police have special interests now, wait until 1 guy hires police to do his bidding, and 100 yards further another guy hires police to do his bidding, and 100 yards further another guy hires police to do his bidding, and well, so on. Corruption wouldn't even be a word anymore, because it would be a job requirement. The whole point of government is neutrality in private conflict. I would much rather propose voluntary taxes to fund a neutral police. But as I said, I haven't resolved this issue.

Don't you think there are a lot of people who just want basic police services -- to protect them from attackers? Given this, would not the most powerful and popular protection agencies behave in this way?

I mean, if people demand fairness and basic protection from government, would there not be a market demand for this as well?

I know I'd just want to find an inexpensive, efficient service, who will effectively protect me from thieves, killers, and the like.



One thing I believe would alleviate many if not most issues is to have mandatory "free space" or public land in between private properties. This way any person can walk from a-b without needing to trespass. There's a lot more to it than that, I'll reveal my model on this website one of these days.

Yeah, there's some precident for "right of ways" as I believe they're called. I'm not sure you necessarily need public land though -- what about just allowing people to walk on the border between properties?

[libertybrewcity]

i don't even want to think about how many tens of thousands of acres of trees would be destroyed if the government decided to sell the national parks to private companies.

im sure some conservation groups would get some acreage, but who would be able to outbid who, the multi billion dollar oil or housing company, or the voluntarily funded group of concerned citizens?

[libertybrewcity]

Don't you think there are a lot of people who just want basic police services -- to protect them from attackers? Given this, would not the most powerful and popular protection agencies behave in this way?

I mean, if people demand fairness and basic protection from government, would there not be a market demand for this as well?

I know I'd just want to find an inexpensive, efficient service, who will effectively protect me from thieves, killers, and the like.



Yeah, there's some precident for "right of ways" as I believe they're called. I'm not sure you necessarily need public land though -- what about just allowing people to walk on the border between properties?

allowing people to walk on borders would be troublesome.

first, who is going to allow who? the government that doesn't exist?

second, in regards to the free public space, we already have that in the form of sidewalk and roads.

[A Son of Liberty]

i really don't want to pay a 5 dollar toll ever block either

I don't either. Nor do most people. Therefore, if we're ever fortunate enough to live without government, but with roads, this fact we'll prevent us from paying a 5 dollar toll every block. :)

[Elwar]

i don't even want to think about how many tens of thousands of acres of trees would be destroyed if the government decided to sell the national parks to private companies.

im sure some conservation groups would get some acreage, but who would be able to outbid who, the multi billion dollar oil or housing company, or the voluntarily funded group of concerned citizens?

The government leases out land to wood companies who have no care of the value of the land once the lease runs out. They get the wood and move on to the next lease.

A private piece of land purchased for the wood would benefit the buyer to plant more trees and enjoy more profit. It has been found that younger trees suck up more CO2 than older trees so clearing a lot and planting new trees is beneficial.

[Elwar]

On private roads:

http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showpost.php?p=2187789&postcount=14


I've read up on a few solutions just to cover all libertarian arguments. For one thing, private roads would more than likely be open access. Meaning, you can't have a private road surround someone else's property with no way for them to get out, it would work like there being an easement on the road. Also, the whole idea of competing roads not allowing other roads to cross over. The easement thing could come into play there or do like some bridges where you have several layers and you can go over (or under) roads that don't allow for an easement.

The big argument...cost, how are they paid for? The obvious solution for highways is toll roads. I drive every day 35 miles to work. I am so glad that I have a toll road that I pay $6 a day for. I was able to buy a cheaper house further away from the big city because I can drive far away with little traffic, and the roads are well maintained.

Another solution would be mileage tracking. It would end up being similar to cell phone companies charging per minute, or monthly flat fee or lower "roaming charges" etc. It would all work out based on the market.

For in town, I thought of a solution of bidding on the stop lights to pay for downtown traffic. You have a little gadget in your car that you can pay money toward getting the light to turn green for you. When the light is red it has a set time before it'll go green (say 30 seconds)...at 30 seconds your bid would have to be really high to get that light to change and as it gets closer to 1 second, the bid wouldn't have to be that high. You put in your bid while the people on the other side of the light would put in their bid to make it green for them. Every car sitting there would be bidding toward the light change so if there are 50 cars waiting with only 5 cars on the other, the 5 cars would have to fork over a lot of change to affect the light. Of course, if nobody bids, the light changes at its regular interval. If you're a corporate bigwig and you want to spend $100 - $1,000 bucks to have green lights all the way to work in the morning, you can (while funding better roads).

My favorite idea is having the roads pay for themselves just through the mere fact that all houses have one thing in common in this country...they all have a road running right up to their driveway. What better way to get cable, electric, water, Internet, phone, etc. delivered to everyone in a community than having those wires run under the roadway? You get some engineers together, you figure out a solution that can have several large pipes, cable lines, etc running about 6-10 feet under the roadways and you charge companies a cost per foot to use the lines under your roadway (you could even have multiple lines and pipes for different companies running, leading to more competition among all utilities). Imagine being able to choose another water or electric company, imagine no more lines running along poles that get broken in wind or ice storms. You can even have solar panels going over the roadways to sell to the electric companies, or to run the fiber nodes for Internet services.

The key here is, I'm just one guy thinking up how private roads could work and came up with some decent solutions. Imagine someone who's lives revolve around it figuring out solutions on a daily basis getting creative and making our daily commute so much easier.

I read one example of a bridge that goes between the US and Canada that the governments of both sides ran at a deficit each year while charging drivers on both sides. Finally it was sold to a private company and not only did that private company have a profit, while paying the governments of both sides, they lowered the toll for the drivers and made things much more efficient.

And then there's this city http://www.cityofnorth-oaks.com/ that has private roads, maintained and paid for much like a neighborhood park or pool.

[Travlyr]

Laws, Sheriffs, and National Defense

[A Son of Liberty]

allowing people to walk on borders would be troublesome.

first, who is going to allow who? the government that doesn't exist?

The private owners who have an incentive to allow people near their property - free solicitation! :)


second, in regards to the free public space, we already have that in the form of sidewalk and roads.

They're not free.

[Austrian Econ Disciple]

Laws, Sheriffs, and National Defense

Wouldn't the Militia be considered private? Or would you outlaw all non-sanctioned Militia?

[libertybrewcity]

The government leases out land to wood companies who have no care of the value of the land once the lease runs out. They get the wood and move on to the next lease.

A private piece of land purchased for the wood would benefit the buyer to plant more trees and enjoy more profit. It has been found that younger trees suck up more CO2 than older trees so clearing a lot and planting new trees is beneficial.

i am not to worried about logging companies because i know they must bide by the market and be sure not to put too much lumber up for sale and what not. it is the myriad of other companies i am worried about. the oil companies, housing companies that would destroy a thousand acres to build a massive rural suburb, individual people cut down there forest build a massive house and plant a lawn and then pollute the rivers with pesticides, agribusiness, coal companies, mining companies. if this happens just imagine the boom towns and cities that would destroy the beautiful land.

[A Son of Liberty]

i am not to worried about logging companies because i know they must bide by the market and be sure not to put too much lumber up for sale and what not. it is the myriad of other companies i am worried about. the oil companies, housing companies that would destroy a thousand acres to build a massive rural suburb, individual people cut down there forest build a massive house and plant a lawn and then pollute the rivers with pesticides, agribusiness, coal companies, mining companies. if this happens just imagine the boom towns and cities that would destroy the beautiful land.

What incentive is there to produce more than what people can consume? Only in bubble-world does that incentive exist.

"We've" been encouraged to engage in sprawl for the last 4 decades because of a false incentive interposed into the market.

How different this world would look without government interference...

[Travlyr]

Wouldn't the Militia be considered private? Or would you outlaw all non-sanctioned Militia?

Private militia to back the sheriffs and defend the states would work well... professional navy, marines, air force, etc... for national defense... not for aggression.

[libertybrewcity]

The private owners who have an incentive to allow people near their property - free solicitation! :)



They're not free.

why would a private land owner care about solicitation? if i owned a house, i wouldn't want a thousand people a day walking on my lawn, dropping their trash

and the sidewalks and roads are relatively free. i would rather pay a small sum each year for public sidewalks and roads than have to pay 6 dollars to go down the street.

[A Son of Liberty]

why would a private land owner care about solicitation? if i owned a house, i wouldn't want a thousand people a day walking on my lawn, dropping their trash

And as the private land owner, you would certainly have that right that we all would have to abide, regardless of the perceived inconvenience of it. Our comfort in no way supersedes your property rights.

That said, I can tell you if I were engaged in commerce, and had the right to regulate who could walk/drive past my home, I'd take the opportunity to promote my business.

Even in this environment, I find opportunities to promote the business by which I'm employed - job security and all. :)

[libertybrewcity]

What incentive is there to produce more than what people can consume? Only in bubble-world does that incentive exist.

"We've" been encouraged to engage in sprawl for the last 4 decades because of a false incentive interposed into the market.

How different this world would look without government interference...

well, people can always use more natural resources. who knows what is buried in the rocky mountains. gold, silver, coal, oil, natural gas, the list could go on and on. and you can't tell me the consumer demand for these resources and the probably ten page list one could write up isn't there. there is one incentive for these people, it's money. people look for new business opportunities and a million acres of untouched land is prime domestic, commercial, and industrial real estate.

[A Son of Liberty]

and the sidewalks and roads are relatively free. i would rather pay a small sum each year for public sidewalks and roads than have to pay 6 dollars to go down the street.

Well - again - most would agree with you that 6 or even 5 dollars is a steep fee to pay for access to a thoroughfare, depending upon the amenities available by it.

Most municipalities -force- citizens to maintain the -public- ("publicly owned) sidewalks in front of their properties.

[Elwar]

a million acres of untouched land is prime domestic, commercial, and industrial real estate.

As Harry Browne once said...a solution to our huge debt.

[libertybrewcity]

And as the private land owner, you would certainly have that right that we all would have to abide, regardless of the perceived inconvenience of it. Our comfort in no way supersedes your property rights.

That said, I can tell you if I were engaged in commerce, and had the right to regulate who could walk/drive past my home, I'd take the opportunity to promote my business.

Even in this environment, I find opportunities to promote the business by which I'm employed - job security and all. :)

i see what you're saying but not everyone would want to do that. what you were saying is that we would allow people to walk on the borders, i assumed you meant some government or something would give people the right.

i just really think the transition state from public to private property would be a very complicated task because people are still stuck in the private/public sphere and mindset.

[A Son of Liberty]

well, people can always use more natural resources. who knows what is buried in the rocky mountains. gold, silver, coal, oil, natural gas, the list could go on and on. and you can't tell me the consumer demand for these resources and the probably ten page list one could write up isn't there. there is one incentive for these people, it's money. people look for new business opportunities and a million acres of untouched land is prime domestic, commercial, and industrial real estate.

If you're concerned with the preservation of pristine, untouched natural areas (an admirable concern I believe!), establish a concern to spread awareness, raise money to purchase the land, etc. You're apparently not incentivized by money... what says you can't convince others? Why insist upon the implementation of force? What makes you think the way you see things is superior to the way others look at things, such that you wish to employ an entity to force others to see it your way?

[libertybrewcity]

As Harry Browne once said...a solution to our huge debt.

mhm, at what expense to our natural environment. in one tree in the south american rainforest they found 700 species that were found no where else in the world. the north american forests are not as diverse obviously but how many unique species would die out never to be seen again.

why not let the bp oil spill continue? why even clean it up? the environmental effects of selling off the national parks would be similar if not worse.

[A Son of Liberty]

i just really think the transition state from public to private property would be a very complicated task because people are still stuck in the private/public sphere and mindset.

I quite agree! To the extent that I think at this point it's impossible. Too many fattened pigs too used to the trough, and too unfamiliar with fending for themselves. Thank the state for that. ;)

[Austrian Econ Disciple]

Private militia to back the sheriffs and defend the states would work well... professional navy, marines, air force, etc... for national defense... not for aggression.

This makes no sense. The Militia's primary role is defense, not policing.

[libertybrewcity]

If you're concerned with the preservation of pristine, untouched natural areas (an admirable concern I believe!), establish a concern to spread awareness, raise money to purchase the land, etc. You're apparently not incentivized by money... what says you can't convince others? Why insist upon the implementation of force? What makes you think the way you see things is superior to the way others look at things, such that you wish to employ an entity to force others to see it your way?

i think at this time with our corporatocracy culture and business environment, this specific time would not be the best idea. We have too many government-aided corporate monopolies/oligopolies that would surely be able to outspend any non-profit conservation organization.

[Elwar]

why not let the bp oil spill continue? why even clean it up? the environmental effects of selling off the national parks would be similar if not worse.

If the ocean were privatized, the bp oil spill would not have entrenched into the neighbor waters so easily.

[libertybrewcity]

I quite agree! To the extent that I think at this point it's impossible. Too many fattened pigs too used to the trough, and too unfamiliar with fending for themselves. Thank the state for that. ;)

yes, yes, in time we will prevail SoL!

[A Son of Liberty]

i think at this time with our corporatocracy culture and business environment, this specific time would not be the best idea. We have too many government-aided corporate monopolies/oligopolies that would surely be able to outspend any non-profit conservation organization.

:thumb: We must never give in to the urge to make use of government force to combat government force - even in this time and environment.

I'd rather die on my principles than live as a pragmatist (theoretically speaking. ;) ).

[A Son of Liberty]

yes, yes, in time we will prevail SoL!

We shall see... ;) All we can do is speak the truth. We cannot force others to see the truth of what we speak.

[tremendoustie]

allowing people to walk on borders would be troublesome.

first, who is going to allow who? the government that doesn't exist?

second, in regards to the free public space, we already have that in the form of sidewalk and roads.

In any society, government or no, appropriate behavior is going to be determined by consensus. If a bunch of people in an area pretty much all agree that walking along borders is a-ok behavior, that's what will be the norm.

I suppose there's room for both kinds of societies, and we can see which one works the best :)

[RonPaulGetsIt]

Hans Hoppe has some excellent free lectures over at mises.org discussing how you could privatize defense by having large insurance companies provide it. Walter Block has a great book out on privatizing roads. Arbitrators for a fee can provide a fast easy way to avoid courts settling disputes.

Everything could be run more efficiently by the private sector if you really analyze it, but it takes some time to assimilate this. The idea is to start with the easy examples like GM.

Lets see you lose 2k + per car....how about liquidating through bankruptcy laws and allowing someone more efficient to produce cars that can actually make money doing so.

[YumYum]

Costa Rica's parks are privately owned are in pristine condition.

I lived in Montana, next to Yellowstone Park, and a friend of the family, who works for the Park told us that him and his co-workers made an amazing discovery. While digging a trench for the Park with a backhoe, they hit a vein of solid gold that was one to two feet thick and a mile long. If he had taken a chunk of the gold he would be thrown in prison.

Since Yellowstone is sitting on a 37 square mile cauldron of molten lava, and is going to blow at anytime, I say "Get the gold out!!!"

[A Son of Liberty]

Costa Rica's parks are privately owned are in pristine condition.

I lived in Montana, next to Yellowstone Park, and a friend of the family, who works for the Park told us that him and his co-workers made an amazing discovery. While digging a trench for the Park with a backhoe, they hit a vein of solid gold that was one to two feet thick and a mile long. If he had taken a chunk of the gold he would be thrown in prison.

Since Yellowstone is sitting on a 37 square mile cauldron of molten lava, and is going to blow at anytime, I say "Get the gold out!!!"

*heads to Yellowstone*

:eek::D

[libertybrewcity]

Costa Rica's parks are privately owned are in pristine condition.
"

is Costa Rica known for its natural resources and gold like Yellowstone?

[libertybrewcity]

*heads to Yellowstone*

:eek::D

lol

[Elwar]

Hans Hoppe has some excellent free lectures over at mises.org discussing how you could privatize defense by having large insurance companies provide it. Walter Block has a great book out on privatizing roads. Arbitrators for a fee can provide a fast easy way to avoid courts settling disputes.


Thanks for the info.

[Travlyr]

This makes no sense. The Militia's primary role is defense, not policing.

Agreed. I never thought about the militia's role that deeply.

[Matt Collins]

I sincerely doubt that "pay toilets" would become popular here. Restaurants and retailers already have a good thing going with restrooms. Hell, there's an almost cult following of people who go around checking out restrooms and rating them, letting others know where the clean/big ones are.
As a business I think it is actually illegal to deny the use of your restroom to someone who needs to use it. But I could be wrong about that.

[YumYum]

is Costa Rica known for its natural resources and gold like Yellowstone?

I'm not sure, but a classmate gave a PowerPoint on Costa Rica and I was blown away at how beautiful their parks are. Costa Rica is proof that a delicate park can be privately owned and remain in perfect condition.

[nandnor]

say what you want about blackwater but they were a powerhouse in iraq. they cleared stuff up where the marines were blithering around their procedural and command line spider web

[Vessol]

A lot of things that people take for granted as things that can only be handled by the government could and have been privatized.

I have a private garbage service (that rocks, $10 a month with great bi-weekly service), I've had a private fire department, private ambulance service, private hospital. There are private schools, private roads, private security, private courts (arbitration or mediation agencies), private police (though they tend to be funded through HOAs or city taxes), private military (Blackwater).

What could not be privatized?

Who besides the State would need a private military? Security perhaps, but a military?

[libertybrewcity]

As a business I think it is actually illegal to deny the use of your restroom to someone who needs to use it. But I could be wrong about that.

I see signs all the time that say restroom for customer use only. maybe that's just for show.

[libertybrewcity]

Who besides the State would need a private military? Security perhaps, but a military?

i agree. i don't want to see the market determine who gets a military and who doesn't. i could see nike, walmart, and exxon trying to take over china. not good.

[tremendoustie]

i agree. i don't want to see the market determine who gets a military and who doesn't. i could see nike, walmart, and exxon trying to take over china. not good.

Why do you think the government is more powerful now -- powerful enough to stop them? Because they're supported by average people. The milita, and protection agencies, supported by average people, will blow away anything some rich dude might come up with.

And, I imagine many, like you, would be uncomfortable with the idea of Nike acquiring arms -- thus, everyone buys adidas, and nike gets the rug pulled from under them.

Good business, in a free economy, means making a large number of people happy (not making a politician happy).

[Reason]

You're using the murderous Blackwater thugs as an example of a success story?

jmdrake said it before I could.

[Vessol]

i agree. i don't want to see the market determine who gets a military and who doesn't. i could see nike, walmart, and exxon trying to take over china. not good.

I don't think you're understanding my question, why would there even be a need of a military without a State? The military is to keep the State in power and to support its interests.

Why would Wal Mart or Exxon want to try to take over China with a private military? What economic incentive would there be to do so? Oh sure, they could gain materials and labor, but is it really worth the cost that it would take to do so? Wars and militaries are massive expenditure, exceedingly more so then it would be for those companies to compromise and try to buy land in order to extract resources and to hire labor, that would be the cheaper solution. And buisinesses are in it for the money.

More simply put, war is not profitable unless the costs are subsidized by the State. And where does the State obtain its money? From the immoral and coercive practice of taxation.

[tremendoustie]

I don't think you're understanding my question, why would there even be a need of a military without a State?

I agree. Militia yes -- massive full time military no.

[libertybrewcity]

I don't think you're understanding my question, why would there even be a need of a military without a State? The military is to keep the State in power and to support its interests.

Why would Wal Mart or Exxon want to try to take over China with a private military? What economic incentive would there be to do so? Oh sure, they could gain materials and labor, but is it really worth the cost that it would take to do so? Wars and militaries are massive expenditure, exceedingly more so then it would be for those companies to compromise and try to buy land in order to extract resources and to hire labor, that would be the cheaper solution. And buisinesses are in it for the money.

More simply put, war is not profitable unless the costs are subsidized by the State. And where does the State obtain its money? From the immoral and coercive practice of taxation.

If there is no state then there are bound to be other states that do exist with militaries. And militaries don't have to be used to keep the state in power and support its interests. I believe in a very limited state that has rules to limit its power. With a non-military policy, for example, a balanced budget amendment keeps the federal government in check so it does not abuse its power. For foreign policy, we could have stricter laws that limit power or expand Congress considerably to have more representation. If we had 5,000 representatives in the house it would be much harder to go to war. It is easier for Obama to convince a few hundred legislators than it is for him to convince thousands.

I see what you're saying, but not everything has to be done for economic incentives. People seek money, but they also seek power. Instead of a corporation for an example, take the worlds wealthiest people as one. What is stopping people with lots of money from buying mercenaries to do horrible things such as killing and/or conquering?

[libertybrewcity]

Why do you think the government is more powerful now -- powerful enough to stop them? Because they're supported by average people. The milita, and protection agencies, supported by average people, will blow away anything some rich dude might come up with.

And, I imagine many, like you, would be uncomfortable with the idea of Nike acquiring arms -- thus, everyone buys adidas, and nike gets the rug pulled from under them.

Good business, in a free economy, means making a large number of people happy (not making a politician happy).

Well, right now we have a war in Afghanistan and Iraq that are both unnecessary and the majority of average people don't want to be there. Yet, we still remain and are likely to remain. Most average people are followers. They do not want to lead or make decisions for themselves.

[malkusm]

The one thing I would never advocate handing over to a free market is the justice system. Yes, I know how it would work, but in every discussion I've had on the matter has lead me to two discrepancies: (1) There would effectively be no baseline of law - one private court may uphold a different standard of what "aggression" is or what "immoral action" is, in what should be an objective arbitration of facts. (2) The party with more money would practically always win in such a system. Private courts, like any private business, are in business to turn profits; the party with the most money would be able to not only pay exotic amounts to secure the court's ruling, but also to the other party initially for his agreement to use the court of his choosing.

But my main issue is, there is no standard of value in such a system, which is essential if you want a society where people uphold any sort of standard at all.

[fisharmor]

(1) There would effectively be no baseline of law - one private court may uphold a different standard of what "aggression" is or what "immoral action" is, in what should be an objective arbitration of facts.

Yet this is exactly how common law evolved: by attempting to find standards by which cases might be tried. An objective analysis of anything anywhere anytime, no matter what the topic or venue, always starts with finding out what happened in identical situations in the past. Then one goes to the next question: does that answer apply to the current situation?

This is one reason why proponents of free market justice rail against our current system. It is precisely that there is no consistency where it should be (think reinterpreting the constitution to mean the opposite of what it says), and consistency is other times enforced in situations that clearly call for a break from it (think about the lady who sued McDonalds for selling her hot coffee).


(2) The party with more money would practically always win in such a system. Private courts, like any private business, are in business to turn profits; the party with the most money would be able to not only pay exotic amounts to secure the court's ruling, but also to the other party initially for his agreement to use the court of his choosing.

Yes, there are cases where businesses put the profit motive above everything else: but private courts, like any private business, are also accountable for their product.

If they make a shitty product, the market is eminently more capable and qualified to punish them for that. It's true that they might screw over some individuals, but this happens today with regularity - and there is no recourse. How many Kelos or Dred Scotts would a private judiciary need to hand down before the market responded and put them out of business? And how many like decisions has SCOTUS produced? How bunched do our panties get over a single appointment on that bench? How is an alternative where the whole system can be trashed overnight not preferable?


But my main issue is, there is no standard of value in such a system, which is essential if you want a society where people uphold any sort of standard at all.

The standard of value is society's standard of value. People uphold standards of value quite apart from state pronouncements on the matter. The idea that the state programs people with their values is fatuous. People program the state with their values. Different people have different values, so really only the politically connected are able to program the state. There is no way in the current system to represent the values of those who aren't politically connected.

So yeah, if your goal is to enforce the standard of a narrow slice of society, it's the way to go. If you want to approach justice as a universal concept that applies to everyone in society, then I'm afraid you need to look elsewhere.

[Elwar]

I wasn't asking what should not be privatized, I was asking what could not be privatized.

So often I hear people talking about the government and how there are obvious things the only the government can provide such as police, fire department, garbage service, etc...but I have seen two of those three services offered privately.

I'm not saying that there was no government. I'm saying that there were private alternatives offered and there was still some government involvement in those private market services. There was only one fire department so there was no competition (I would imagine it would be difficult to have competition in a small town with few fires). They required you to choose between paying a monthly fee or a fee for their service. For garbage service, it's not like you can just throw your garbage in the streets or put it in someone else's property.

There was a guy a few weeks ago here in Florida that got drunk on his raft and passed out, he drifted out about a mile and had to be rescued. The emergency services that came to his rescue should be compensated for their efforts. Not by the tax payers, but by the guy that used the service.

[fisharmor]

For garbage service, it's not like you can just throw your garbage in the streets or put it in someone else's property.

Actually, it mostly is sort of like that.
We have recycling service here, which means that 1/4 of our garbage goes somewhere other than a landfill. There's economic value in that garbage.
We started composting and were shocked to find out how much we generate. Say another 10-20% of your garbage there.
If we had a way to burn all the paper and cloth garbage (and I have been thinking about a wood stove), that'd be another 50%.
Almost all of what we generate as "garbage" can be dealt with without "garbage service".
If there was economic value in doing so, or if we didn't have garbage service, we would handle it.

I'm reminded of this article:
http://www.lewrockwell.com/orig3/mikkelsen8.1.1.html
A case study in how a perfectly functioning garbage collection system in Cairo was supplanted with a state-run scheme, and it has gone downhill ever since.

[Elwar]

Actually, it mostly is sort of like that.
We have recycling service here, which means that 1/4 of our garbage goes somewhere other than a landfill. There's economic value in that garbage.
We started composting and were shocked to find out how much we generate. Say another 10-20% of your garbage there.
If we had a way to burn all the paper and cloth garbage (and I have been thinking about a wood stove), that'd be another 50%.
Almost all of what we generate as "garbage" can be dealt with without "garbage service".
If there was economic value in doing so, or if we didn't have garbage service, we would handle it.

I'm reminded of this article:
http://www.lewrockwell.com/orig3/mikkelsen8.1.1.html
A case study in how a perfectly functioning garbage collection system in Cairo was supplanted with a state-run scheme, and it has gone downhill ever since.

Ya, my garbage gets turned into electricity through out private electric company.

Unfortunately they charge me to haul it off and then charge me for the power...

[Sentient Void]

Very well said, fisharmor - you got there first ;)

As an added side note, neutral private arbitrators are agreed upon, hired and contracted by both opposing parties, regardless of different values. Most probably, the arbitrators chosen would be ones that have shown not only the best value for their services, but also ones that are consistent, trustworthy, have a track record of actually being neutral, and come to judgements that are generally universally accepted as moral and right.

A very simplistic version of this idea in practice can actually be found in the (amazing) sci-fi novel 'The Moon is a Harsh Mistress' by Robert Heinlein, where a tourist from earth with very different values and not accustomed to culture on Luna (the moon) gets into a brutal tiff with a gang over a girl, who (the gang) threaten to 'eliminate him' (make him breathe vacuum) as a result.

And Elwar, I know where you're coming from... but the AnCap view is that everything *could* be privatized, and actually should be for both moral and economic reasons.

Throughout human history, the private sector has done anything and everything the govt has or is doing, and usually cheaper and more effectively.

[Pericles]

Very well said, fisharmor - you got there first ;)

As an added side note, neutral private arbitrators are agreed upon, hired and contracted by both opposing parties, regardless of different values. Most probably, the arbitrators chosen would be ones that have shown not only the best value for their services, but also ones that are consistent, trustworthy, have a track record of actually being neutral, and come to judgements that are generally universally accepted as moral and right.



And the reason why the biggest badest armed gang in the region would agree to such a thing, rather than steal whatever it wanted is ...............

[TortoiseDream]

A lot of things that people take for granted as things that can only be handled by the government could and have been privatized.

I have a private garbage service (that rocks, $10 a month with great bi-weekly service), I've had a private fire department, private ambulance service, private hospital. There are private schools, private roads, private security, private courts (arbitration or mediation agencies), private police (though they tend to be funded through HOAs or city taxes), private military (Blackwater).

What could not be privatized?

Essentially you're asking what requires the force of a state to work, as opposed to voluntary decisions of individuals in a community?

I would say that war is something that cannot be privatized, it is only possible through state power which aggrandizes violence as its sole purpose. There's no need for standing armies of hundreds of thousands of soldiers in private life, at least no sane society would ever adopt or support such a thing voluntarily.

I do agree, however, that mostly everything else is privatizable; roads, third parties to resolve disputes, mail, garbage, health service. In principle human beings provide all of these things, and when a government does these things the human beings involved in providing the services do not assume magical properties; understanding this is crucial. The only question one has to ask is if force is required.

[Sentient Void]

And the reason why the biggest badest armed gang in the region would agree to such a thing, rather than steal whatever it wanted is ...............

We're talking about resolving disputes between opposing parties.

As for your question about straight-up theft - this issue has been covered in another thread by tremendoustie and myself and will only serve to derail this one as well if we get into it again. Feel free to check it out:

http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?t=252325&page=3


Essentially you're asking what requires the force of a state to work, as opposed to voluntary decisions of individuals in a community?

I would say that war is something that cannot be privatized, it is only possible through state power which aggrandizes violence as its sole purpose. There's no need for standing armies of hundreds of thousands of soldiers in private life, at least no sane society would ever adopt or support such a thing voluntarily.

Good call, didn't even think of that - nice job thinking outside the box :)

[fisharmor]

And the reason why the biggest badest armed gang in the region would agree to such a thing, rather than steal whatever it wanted is ...............

Actually, the biggest baddest armed gang in the region doesn't agree to such a thing, because it can steal whatever it wants.
Your perception might be colored by the fact that we already live in this situation.

In a situation where other gangs have a chance to exist, and no gang is explicitly blessed by society as the one true gang, the gangs would take on an altogether different character. History shows that when the one gang can't call on reinforcements from the entire nation, and doesn't have a legion of sycophants supporting its wanton murder, and can't plunder unlimited resources, then it tends not to go down the way you describe.

I don't have an answer for how to get there, because the entire nation has Stockholm Syndrome.

[malkusm]

Yet this is exactly how common law evolved: by attempting to find standards by which cases might be tried. An objective analysis of anything anywhere anytime, no matter what the topic or venue, always starts with finding out what happened in identical situations in the past. Then one goes to the next question: does that answer apply to the current situation?

This is one reason why proponents of free market justice rail against our current system. It is precisely that there is no consistency where it should be (think reinterpreting the constitution to mean the opposite of what it says), and consistency is other times enforced in situations that clearly call for a break from it (think about the lady who sued McDonalds for selling her hot coffee).

I agree with most of this, and I agree that our current system is broken in cases involving Constitutional law and civil suits. I also think that a lot of criminal cases are not criminal at all (think drug possession cases). However, the criminal justice system works fairly well because the laws (right or wrong) are laid out.


The standard of value is society's standard of value. People uphold standards of value quite apart from state pronouncements on the matter.

What is society's standard of value? If a majority in society believe that smoking dope is immoral, does that become the standard of value? What if I disagree with the standard of value? (I understand that these are all issues of our present system, of course.)

Let's say we have private, competing courts. Furthermore, let's say that I drive drunk and wreck my car into a fence on private property. Naturally, I will seek out an arbitrator with a past history of upholding property rights (make me pay for the fence) without punishing me further for driving under the influence. However, most people in society would deem my actions reckless and punishable by jail time or an additional fine, perhaps. The property owner would likely seek out an arbitrator who can achieve this result.

Who gets to decide which arbitrator will hear the case? Well, either you have a hard rule in place (the party seeking damages always gets to decide, which requires a government mandate to enforce, and also heavily biases the outcome in most cases), or you allow the "free market" to work it out. The "free market" would likely involve each of the private arbitration services bidding for the job.

Let's say there are three courts:
-Court A has a history which favors my position that the property rights should be enforced, but that morality (driving drunk) should not be enforced. Court A charges $1000 per side to hear the case.
-Court B has a history which favors the angry property owner's position that I acted recklessly and must be punished above and beyond simply paying for fence repairs. Court B also charges $1000 per side to hear the case.
-Court C is a new entrant into the marketplace, and has no history regarding such a case. In order to attract business, Court C charges $800 per side to hear the case, undercutting the more established Courts A and B.

What are my incentives? Well, I certainly wouldn't choose Court B. I could save $200 by choosing Court C, but this involves the risk that they will come to the same conclusion that Court B would, and would jail or fine me additionally. This risk is much greater than the $200 I save. So I choose Court A. The property owner follows a similar logical process and chooses Court B.

Do you see what has happened here? First of all, I'm never going to agree to use Court B, and the property owner will never agree to use Court A. We are at a stalemate. Any resolution to this problem is necessarily based on the use of force. Secondly, the entire notion of this private system indicates that natural rights can be FOR SALE so long as one of the parties seeks compensation above and beyond what they are entitled to. Although I am naturally free to act and am responsible for the consequences of my actions, my freedom to act can be implicitly restricted because of the threat that any person I might harm can seek undue compensation. (If you think that most people wouldn't seek undue compensation, look at the number of people who file civil suits for millions in damages over "emotional distress.")

My conclusion has been that there has to be an objective set of rules which all people in a jurisdiction must follow, regardless of whether or not it goes against their own personal moral code. Voluntaryists would argue that such a system uses force, and that an individual, being sovereign, should be able to opt out of such moral codes that they disagree with. Ok - so what prevents a murderer from simply saying that killing Person X does not go against his own moral code, and that he does not subscribe to the society which upholds that standard? Should he be exempt from being bound to the rules of society? Force is the only way to accomplish the punishment that is obviously warranted for his action. The arbitrator of cases must be objective (I agree that it is not at present, but it certainly is not in a system of competition) and universal.

[fisharmor]

...

The only reason courts are even involved in your situation - even in today's environment - is the drinking.
If you separate the drinking from the event, the insurance companies take care of everything. Unless you don't have insurance. We'll get to that in a second.
If you plow into someone's fence and the cops somehow don't get involved, your insurance company is going to try to find out if you were drinking - and if you were, you're out.
They currently have no motivation for finding this out for themselves, because there is no anal probe the cops aren't willing to use to get another DUI. But if that wasn't the case, they'd do their own investigations.

If you don't have insurance, there are still free market ways to punish people who do things like this.
Which government act created credit bureaus? Your irresponsible actions can already get you banned from buying cars and houses and even holding certain jobs.
Why does that sort of justice not work? Of course, the driver could hit it and drive away, but there's no recourse for that in the current situation, either.

If justice was privatized, there would absolutely be a way to discourage being a drunk who crashes into fences. Punishing risk taking would not be part of that system in the same way that credit bureaus do not punish people for taking out high interest short term loans. The credit bureaus only help to punish people that fail when they take the risk, and this is far more just than simply punishing for taking risk.

[Sentient Void]

Let's say we have private, competing courts. Furthermore, let's say that I drive drunk and wreck my car into a fence on private property. Naturally, I will seek out an arbitrator with a past history of upholding property rights (make me pay for the fence) without punishing me further for driving under the influence. However, most people in society would deem my actions reckless and punishable by jail time or an additional fine, perhaps. The property owner would likely seek out an arbitrator who can achieve this result.

Who gets to decide which arbitrator will hear the case? Well, either you have a hard rule in place (the party seeking damages always gets to decide, which requires a government mandate to enforce, and also heavily biases the outcome in most cases), or you allow the "free market" to work it out. The "free market" would likely involve each of the private arbitration services bidding for the job.

Let's say there are three courts:
-Court A has a history which favors my position that the property rights should be enforced, but that morality (driving drunk) should not be enforced. Court A charges $1000 per side to hear the case.
-Court B has a history which favors the angry property owner's position that I acted recklessly and must be punished above and beyond simply paying for fence repairs. Court B also charges $1000 per side to hear the case.
-Court C is a new entrant into the marketplace, and has no history regarding such a case. In order to attract business, Court C charges $800 per side to hear the case, undercutting the more established Courts A and B.

What are my incentives? Well, I certainly wouldn't choose Court B. I could save $200 by choosing Court C, but this involves the risk that they will come to the same conclusion that Court B would, and would jail or fine me additionally. This risk is much greater than the $200 I save. So I choose Court A. The property owner follows a similar logical process and chooses Court B.

Do you see what has happened here? First of all, I'm never going to agree to use Court B, and the property owner will never agree to use Court A. We are at a stalemate. Any resolution to this problem is necessarily based on the use of force. Secondly, the entire notion of this private system indicates that natural rights can be FOR SALE so long as one of the parties seeks compensation above and beyond what they are entitled to. Although I am naturally free to act and am responsible for the consequences of my actions, my freedom to act can be implicitly restricted because of the threat that any person I might harm can seek undue compensation. (If you think that most people wouldn't seek undue compensation, look at the number of people who file civil suits for millions in damages over "emotional distress.")

My conclusion has been that there has to be an objective set of rules which all people in a jurisdiction must follow, regardless of whether or not it goes against their own personal moral code. Voluntaryists would argue that such a system uses force, and that an individual, being sovereign, should be able to opt out of such moral codes that they disagree with. Ok - so what prevents a murderer from simply saying that killing Person X does not go against his own moral code, and that he does not subscribe to the society which upholds that standard? Should he be exempt from being bound to the rules of society? Force is the only way to accomplish the punishment that is obviously warranted for his action. The arbitrator of cases must be objective (I agree that it is not at present, but it certainly is not in a system of competition) and universal.

Ah, but you've forgotten another voluntary option. It sounds like you already understand and agree that you should pay for your damages to the fence (not much dispute here). If you were willing to pay an additional $1,000 for 'Court A' anyways (which would probably not punish you further than requiring you to pay damages), you could forego the whole arbitration process altogether and settle the 'dispute' directly with the property owner by agreeing to pay an additional $1,000 to the property owner for his troubles, while agreeing you screwed up big time.

You should be able to easily convince the property owner of this, since this will save him lots of time and hassle, save him the otherwise $1,000 for his side of payment required for arbitration, damage repair costs, admitting you're an ass and screwed up bigtime, and an additional $1,000 in his pocket. Hell, you may even be able to get away just offering him the $800 (or even less) for the cheapest court.

I'd also be willing to bet you'll also be a lot more careful in making sure you don't drive drunk in the future - no matter what decision gets made through courts or settling the dispute directly. Hell - it may even be possible that you go out and get a beer with this property owner after all of this - I know I probably would! :D

Everyone wins :)

[malkusm]

Ah, but you've forgotten another voluntary option. It sounds like you already understand and agree that you should pay for your damages to the fence (not much dispute here). If you were willing to pay an additional $1,000 for 'Court A' anyways (which would probably not punish you further than requiring you to pay damages), you could forego the whole arbitration process altogether and settle the 'dispute' directly with the property owner by agreeing to pay an additional $1,000 to the property owner for his troubles, while agreeing you screwed up big time.

You should be able to easily convince the property owner of this, since this will save him lots of time and hassle, save him the otherwise $1,000 for his side of payment required for arbitration, damage repair costs, admitting you're an ass and screwed up bigtime, and an additional $1,000 in his pocket. Hell, you may even be able to get away just offering him the $800 (or even less) for the cheapest court.

I'd also be willing to bet you'll also be a lot more careful in making sure you don't drive drunk in the future - no matter what decision gets made through courts or settling the dispute directly. Hell - it may even be possible that you go out and get a beer with this property owner after all of this - I know I probably would! :D

Everyone wins :)

Sure, but let's say he doesn't accept my offer - maybe I also accidentally killed his dog in the process, and he now has a deep-seeded emotional drive for vengeance. Then what? Like I said, we're at a stalemate.

Again, I'm not saying our system now is perfect - A LOT of flaws exist that need to be corrected. I don't think that abolishing the entire system of courts achieves some sort of utopia, though - in fact, I feel that it creates a lot of ambiguous areas where legitimate criminals can free themselves from the responsibilities of their actions.

Edit to add: Out of about 4 million things that I'm concerned about, this is near the bottom of the list. This sort of philosophical debate really doesn't become meaningful until well down the road, after we've abolished DHS, ended the wars, killed the Patriot Act, killed the Federal Reserve, ....

[Sentient Void]

Sure, but let's say he doesn't accept my offer - maybe I also accidentally killed his dog in the process, and he now has a deep-seeded emotional drive for vengeance. Then what? Like I said, we're at a stalemate.

Again, I'm not saying our system now is perfect - A LOT of flaws exist that need to be corrected. I don't think that abolishing the entire system of courts achieves some sort of utopia, though - in fact, I feel that it creates a lot of ambiguous areas where legitimate criminals can free themselves from the responsibilities of their actions.

Edit to add: Out of about 4 million things that I'm concerned about, this is near the bottom of the list. This sort of philosophical debate really doesn't become meaningful until well down the road, after we've abolished DHS, ended the wars, killed the Patriot Act, killed the Federal Reserve, ....


If he was really so passionately and emotionally distressed by such a situation, this just shows that he may need a little time before you guys come to an agreement. 'Never' is a really long time, and I really don't think he wouldn't eventually calm down at least a little to consider either Court A or more probably, direct resolution. Even if you killed his doggy. You won't be at a stalemate forever - because people eventually recognize that it's unproductive, and only serves to make life harder, not easier. Eventually, IMO, you guys would be able to work something out amongst your options.

It's just not in the property owner's best interests to drag it on forever - and if, let's say for the sake of argument, he really was willing to drag his emotional desire for vengeance forever - against all rationality, then you would be the one that would end up winning out - having paid for all damages to his property (fence+dog) and offering additional moneys to pay for the hassle and not having to pay and go to court... I'm pretty sure society and businesses as a whole wouldn't find you unreasonable to deny doing business or associating with you for those reasons at least - but having a DUI might affect things for you regardless (and as fisharmor mentioned, either significantly increase your insurance rates, or have you dropped altogether).

Sounds to me like this crazy lonely old coot just needs someone to talk to - Maybe you should become his friend, instead? ;)

The end idea is that such a system is *much* more preferable to the current one (although no one says it's perfect, since humanity is imperfect), which is dominated by rampant corruption, plunder, fraud, force, murder, etc. No one says this system would lead to a utopia - but it would be a much more prosperous and dignified one based in liberty, maximizing prosperity and minimizing all the ills mentioned as much as can be. And if you think through them enough, they really aren't ambiguous and let criminals get away with things at all, justice can be served in a fully privatized system, and more effectively so - and again, as you know and mentioned, our current system is really fucked up and creates a lot more legal criminals and much more easily gets more connected criminals 'off the hook'.

Of course, I agree with you about the philosophical debate part... but it is what it is - for the meantime spinning our wheels in place until we get to such a point where this kind of debate is meaningful and practical.

Remember, we're just a few individuals here trying to think about how such a situation could play out, not an entire market at work. All of our core beliefs revolve around the idea and belief that markets and tons of individual interactions can solve society's ails better than any increasingly centralized power. If not, and if you or I or anyone could answer all society's problems perfectly - we'd all be hypocrites because that'd make for a pretty damned good case for a dictatorship.

[tremendoustie]

I agree with most of this, and I agree that our current system is broken in cases involving Constitutional law and civil suits. I also think that a lot of criminal cases are not criminal at all (think drug possession cases). However, the criminal justice system works fairly well because the laws (right or wrong) are laid out.

What is society's standard of value? If a majority in society believe that smoking dope is immoral, does that become the standard of value? What if I disagree with the standard of value? (I understand that these are all issues of our present system, of course.)


If the strong majority thinks its right to use violence against someone for smoking pot, you're SOL. A strong majority has the power, in any society.



Let's say we have private, competing courts. Furthermore, let's say that I drive drunk and wreck my car into a fence on private property. Naturally, I will seek out an arbitrator with a past history of upholding property rights (make me pay for the fence) without punishing me further for driving under the influence. However, most people in society would deem my actions reckless and punishable by jail time or an additional fine, perhaps. The property owner would likely seek out an arbitrator who can achieve this result.

Who gets to decide which arbitrator will hear the case?


If you can't agree on an arbiter, the arbiter (or series of arbiters) designated for disputes between your protection agencies will be used. This is likely how it would work much of the time.

Alternately, you could have each of your chosen arbitors work with each other to select a third, which would be used to resolve the dispute.

Also, in a free society, I disagree that most people would say you deserve extra punishment. Restitution is what's needed, nothing more -- now, if you're an imminent danger to others, perhaps you do need to be stopped. In a case of a serial murderer, he should probably be in jail for the rest of his life working to make restitution to his victims -- in this case, I'd wager you'd just be banned from most roads, at least for a period of time.



Well, either you have a hard rule in place (the party seeking damages always gets to decide, which requires a government mandate to enforce, and also heavily biases the outcome in most cases), or you allow the "free market" to work it out. The "free market" would likely involve each of the private arbitration services bidding for the job.

Huh? The only way arbitration services bidding would occur in the market is if both you and your opponent agreed to choose the lowest cost option.



Let's say there are three courts:
-Court A has a history which favors my position that the property rights should be enforced, but that morality (driving drunk) should not be enforced. Court A charges $1000 per side to hear the case.
-Court B has a history which favors the angry property owner's position that I acted recklessly and must be punished above and beyond simply paying for fence repairs. Court B also charges $1000 per side to hear the case.
-Court C is a new entrant into the marketplace, and has no history regarding such a case. In order to attract business, Court C charges $800 per side to hear the case, undercutting the more established Courts A and B.

What are my incentives? Well, I certainly wouldn't choose Court B. I could save $200 by choosing Court C, but this involves the risk that they will come to the same conclusion that Court B would, and would jail or fine me additionally. This risk is much greater than the $200 I save. So I choose Court A. The property owner follows a similar logical process and chooses Court B.

Do you see what has happened here? First of all, I'm never going to agree to use Court B, and the property owner will never agree to use Court A. We are at a stalemate. Any resolution to this problem is necessarily based on the use of force.


Not true. As I say, you'd have a protection agency, as does he (similar to police). Effectively, it's a lot like choosing to be under that jurisdiction. Any well established PA would have designated courts of arbitration between them. This would be the court you'd use in the event you can't agree.

Alternately, although it'd be a little more expensive, court B and A could work together to select a third option -- a middle ground between them.

In addition, there's a strong reputation/ostracism effect at play. If either of you tries to act underhandedly or abusively, people are going to be far less likely to work with you in the future.

Again, check this out (skip ahead to at least the third chapter, I'd say, or just skip to what you're interested in):
http://freekeene.com/files/marketforliberty.pdf



Secondly, the entire notion of this private system indicates that natural rights can be FOR SALE so long as one of the parties seeks compensation above and beyond what they are entitled to.


Absolutely not ... I'm not sure where you get this.



Although I am naturally free to act and am responsible for the consequences of my actions, my freedom to act can be implicitly restricted because of the threat that any person I might harm can seek undue compensation. (If you think that most people wouldn't seek undue compensation, look at the number of people who file civil suits for millions in damages over "emotional distress.")


The courts are screwed up today, no doubt.

Assuming the populace actually believes in fair restitution for damages, and not further punishments, the major courts will reflect that.

Fundamentally, what the strong majority of people want is what will happen. If the people want freedom and reasonable restitution, it's what we'll have. If they want tyranny ... well, look around.



My conclusion has been that there has to be an objective set of rules which all people in a jurisdiction must follow, regardless of whether or not it goes against their own personal moral code.

Voluntaryists would argue that such a system uses force, and that an individual, being sovereign, should be able to opt out of such moral codes that they disagree with.


Not at all. It depends what the "objective set of rules" are. If they're the NAP -- you're not allowed to steal, murder, harm other people's property, etc, that's fine.

If it's "you must ask XYZ bureaucrat before you add an addition on your house", that would be immoral.

Basically, what a large majority of people want, is what will happen. There's no way around that. If that large majority supports the NAP, we'll have the kind of society voluntaryists support. If they don't, we won't.

Also, there's nothing wrong with defensive force -- it's aggressive force that's the problem. Using force to stop those who would harm you or innocents is absolutely appropriate.



Ok - so what prevents a murderer from simply saying that killing Person X does not go against his own moral code, and that he does not subscribe to the society which upholds that standard? Should he be exempt from being bound to the rules of society? Force is the only way to accomplish the punishment that is obviously warranted for his action.


Definitely -- and such force would be defensive -- either to stop the murderer, or to obtain fair restitution for the damages he has caused.

It's when you start initiating force against someone who hasn't harmed anyone that we have a problem.



The arbitrator of cases must be objective (I agree that it is not at present, but it certainly is not in a system of competition) and universal.

Here's the line: If a well respected arbiter intervenes in cases where he believes there's clear abuse or injustice, there's nothing inherently wrong with that.

If he prohibits alternative arbitration, simply because it's not him, that's wrong -- he's prohibiting competition by threat of force.

In the former case, he may be stepping in to stop someone from being unjustly harmed. In the latter case, he's stepping in in situations where nobody is being harmed -- he's only protecting his monopoly.

If that makes sense ;).

Look at gandhi's idea of swaraj. I think that matches the kind of system of justice I'd like to see pretty closely.

[nandnor]

I see what you're saying, but not everything has to be done for economic incentives. People seek money, but they also seek power. Instead of a corporation for an example, take the worlds wealthiest people as one. What is stopping people with lots of money from buying mercenaries to do horrible things such as killing and/or conquering?Guns. The great equalizer.

[libertybrewcity]

There was a guy a few weeks ago here in Florida that got drunk on his raft and passed out, he drifted out about a mile and had to be rescued. The emergency services that came to his rescue should be compensated for their efforts. Not by the tax payers, but by the guy that used the service.

What if the guy didn't ask for the service?