State or Private Law Society? [Ron Paul endorsed author]

[A Son of Liberty]

In a world where a state is not a State

The term, "The state", as we're using it has been defined numerous times on this forum, and is commonly referred to by Ron Paul and many others when discussing political philosophy as, "an agency which enjoys a monopoly of force within a given geographic region". At this point, I'm not sure how one might confuse this concept with "A State", as in on of the 50 United States. This seems either disingenuous, or intentionally obtuse.

anarchy is not Anarchy

This obviously has been addressed as well. When discussing political philosophy, I wouldn't think that Merriam-Websters stands as the final arbiter on the definition of words. I understand your concern with what people frequently associate with "anarchy", but the definition being used here has been so thoroughly hashed out that only the most obstinate would associate those of us using it with it's common definiton.

extremism is not Extremism

This as well has been addressed. There isn't anything extreme about human liberty, and human liberty is most thoroughly achieved in the absence of coercive and physical force, which is essentially government, defined. Even Washington agreed with that definition. Of course while he sought to restrain it and not eliminate it as we do, there is no contention between how we're defining it and how he defined it.

and philosophy is not realism

Well, yeah. That's kind of why philosophy has it's own sub-forum.

[Travlyr]

I had seen your responses elsewhere, that wasn't my first 'encounter' with you. It was already crystal clear you weren't and are not intellectually honest. And I was right. How do I know?...

Luckyyyy no. 7?!

Bump!

I asked for a truce with you, but your insulting behavior is proof enough for me that I don't want to live in your world.

If you are a true anarchist ... Spooner syle ... then are you going to be shredding your property deed which is authorized under the constitutional republic (State) where you live in hopes of a free market solution, and encourage others to do the same? Or are you going to support the State and work to amend constitutions until a better solution comes along?

If you directly address those two questions and announce, "I Conza do own property (specifically a land deed) and I Conza, along other anarchists, will give 30 days public notice and publicly shred our property deeds on the steps of our county courthouses" as a protest of the State in hopes of a better solution, then I will make a list of everything I have ever read as comprehensively as I can and submit it to you.

[Travlyr]

The term, "The state", as we're using it has been defined numerous times on this forum, and is commonly referred to by Ron Paul and many others when discussing political philosophy as, "an agency which enjoys a monopoly of force within a given geographic region". At this point, I'm not sure how one might confuse this concept with "A State", as in on of the 50 United States. This seems either disingenuous, or intentionally obtuse.

Bump!

You don't understand what is a State to millions and millions of TV watching VOTERS who will be VOTING next November without reading Rothbard first.

Do no harm to Ron Paul's campaign. Let Ron Paul speak for Ron Paul. Let Ron Paul promote Ron Paul.

Promote your agenda as you see fit, and take ownership of it. Don't connect Ron Paul to your agenda. If your agenda matches Ron Paul's agenda then he will be promoting his agenda ... and we all win.

Well, yeah. That's kind of why philosophy has it's own sub-forum.

It is also why the philosophy sub-forum is not searchable and all these discussions are buried for intellectual discussion not promotion. Do no harm to Ron Paul's campaign this election cycle.

Ron Paul 2012 - "Defender of Liberty"

[Wesker1982]

Travlyr,

You should read Living in a State-Run World and May a Libertarian Take Money From the Government?

[osan]

State or Private-Law Society - Transcript text .

• The Problem of Social Order
• The Solution: The Idea of Private Property
• The Fundamental Error of "Statism"
• The Error Compounded: The Democratic State
• The Solution: Private-Law Society instead of State

Essentially, if you are to only read one article/short text on politics - it should be this. You'll be more correct than nearly every political philosopher of the past, and academic of the present. This is the one lecture/text you have to read.

Ron Paul recommends you read Democracy: The God that Failed by Hans-Hermann Hoppe.

I must preface this response by stating that I have not seen the video as I am on a dial up line

It is my observation that both sides of the state/private debate have valid points, as well as shortcomings. In order to sort out the issues of how to live with each other in a sane and proper manner, it is essential that we identify and understand the base principles and the questions that they raise. This is something that is rarely addressed, yet without such knowledge in hand the best we can expect to accomplish are shots in the twilight.

The first thing we need to have in hand is the proper understanding of our places in this world and amongst our fellows. This is the most fundamental issue we face and it is the one that people understand the least and most frequently mistake.

Building on what I take as the proper understanding of the status of the individual, we come to the notion of "governance". Free men are, by my definition, self governing and therefore cannot be legitimately subjected to external governing force, which is reserved strictly for the criminal. I confess to not yet having worked out a practical approach to conflicting interests where one party claims another has violated their rights in some non-criminal way (e.g. playing music loudly at 2 AM on a Tuesday morning, or perhaps a neighbor's dog crapping on one's lawn, etc.).

It is relatively easy to come to an acceptance of this notion that third-party governance is legitimately applicable in cases of criminal acts and where non-criminal conflicts of interest arise. What appears to be more difficult for people to grasp is the seemingly obvious logical complement of this concept: free men are NEVER subject to third party governing interference precisely because they govern themselves. Criminality is, therefore and in part by definition, a failure to govern oneself properly with respect to his moral obligation to respect the rights of his fellows.

Because people at times fail to properly govern themselves, they must be governed by others. This directly implies that someone must discharge such functions - another intuitively obvious intermediate result in the chain of synthesis. It is at this point that the sticky wickets begin to make their presence felt:

• Who discharges those duties?
• How are the governors chosen?
• By what moral authority are they chosen?
• What is the standard to which they govern?
• Who governs the governors and how are they governed?
• What are the hazards faced by governors who violate the rights of free men?
• What are the hazards faced by those who make false accusations against a free man such that his free status is unjustly impinged upon?

This list is by no means complete, but it gives a reasonable taste of the nature of the questions that arise when we accept the idea that governance is, in principle, a morally legitimate function.

Conversely, we may reject the notion of governance, but it seems to me that it raises serious problems such as states of general chaos, particularly when circumstances including severe economic trouble and natural disaster arise. I am open to corrective opinions if anyone feels otherwise.

The wickets are very sticky, not because of any problems inherent to the principles in question but because of the poor choices humans all too often make. Given honest and competent discharge of duties, I see no problem with even a "state" instituted system of governance, for a proper definition of "state", all else equal.

I can equally accept, in principle, so-called "private" governance, given the right definitions and honest and adept administration. The problem, the stickiest wicket of them all, lies in the minds and hearts of men. People are not always competent and honest.

Finally, I would like to point out that there is no fundamental difference between "public" and "private" here, both of which are nothing more than slightly differing conceptual frameworks. At the bottom of all of this is the individual, either choosing or being forced to operate within such frameworks.

In my view, the goal should always be to gain voluntary acceptance of governance. Given this and the wildly multivariate nature of human populations, reason and necessity clearly dictate that the specifications of a framework for governance must be simple, small, and must strongly appeal to the most basic human senses of freedom and justice.

The real problems arise when such systems become overly complex and arbitrary such that they violate those basic sensibilities. This, in a nutshell, summarizes the perennial problem of human coexistence within the context of the empire mentality vis-a-vis that of the tribe where the individual is afforded his full respect and autonomy.

Is the empire mentality an unavoidable result of populations grown past some threshold, or is it possible to retain the respect of the individual we tend to find in smaller populations?

There are several more fundamental questions that should be addressed, but I will show mercy.

[A Son of Liberty]

Bump!

You don't understand what is a State to millions and millions of TV watching VOTERS who will be VOTING next November without reading Rothbard first.

Do no harm to Ron Paul's campaign. Let Ron Paul speak for Ron Paul. Let Ron Paul promote Ron Paul.

Promote your agenda as you see fit, and take ownership of it. Don't connect Ron Paul to your agenda. If your agenda matches Ron Paul's agenda then he will be promoting his agenda ... and we all win.


It is also why the philosophy sub-forum is not searchable and all these discussions are buried for intellectual discussion not promotion. Do no harm to Ron Paul's campaign this election cycle.

Ron Paul 2012 - "Defender of Liberty"

Doesn't the second part kind of take care of the first part?

We're having a philosophical discussion here in this subforum. If some portion are such wilting violets that just the mere appearance of the word "anarchy, -ism, -ist" - without any regard for the discussion taking place around it - is enough to cause them to run for the hills, there's precious little hope in that person voting for Ron Paul, anyway. And there are discussions going on in the General Forum far more damaging to the campaign than "the A word" is, I'm quite sure.

[A Son of Liberty]

Bump!

I asked for a truce with you, but your insulting behavior is proof enough for me that I don't want to live in your world.

If you are a true anarchist ... Spooner syle ... then are you going to be shredding your property deed which is authorized under the constitutional republic (State) where you live in hopes of a free market solution, and encourage others to do the same? Or are you going to support the State and work to amend constitutions until a better solution comes along?

If you directly address those two questions and announce, "I Conza do own property (specifically a land deed) and I Conza, along other anarchists, will give 30 days public notice and publicly shred our property deeds on the steps of our county courthouses" as a protest of the State in hopes of a better solution, then I will make a list of everything I have ever read as comprehensively as I can and submit it to you.

You're not giving him a choice at all. In our society, the state demands a monopoly on deed-recording.

We're highlighting the fact that this is fundamentally unjust.

[Travlyr]

Travlyr,

You should read Living in a State-Run World and May a Libertarian Take Money From the Government?

Bump!

More good reading assignments for those who are interested... I'm NOT interested in philosophy! I live in the real world.

I have some fun things to do while I live my life as freely as I can under the lawless tyrants who rule behind the curtain of the State.

Ron Paul 2012! - "Defender of Liberty"

[Travlyr]

I must preface this response by stating that I have not seen the video as I am on a dial up line

It is my observation that both sides of the state/private debate have valid points, as well as shortcomings. In order to sort out the issues of how to live with each other in a sane and proper manner, it is essential that we identify and understand the base principles and the questions that they raise. This is something that is rarely addressed, yet without such knowledge in hand the best we can expect to accomplish are shots in the twilight.

The first thing we need to have in hand is the proper understanding of our places in this world and amongst our fellows. This is the most fundamental issue we face and it is the one that people understand the least and most frequently mistake.

Building on what I take as the proper understanding of the status of the individual, we come to the notion of "governance". Free men are, by my definition, self governing and therefore cannot be legitimately subjected to external governing force, which is reserved strictly for the criminal. I confess to not yet having worked out a practical approach to conflicting interests where one party claims another has violated their rights in some non-criminal way (e.g. playing music loudly at 2 AM on a Tuesday morning, or perhaps a neighbor's dog crapping on one's lawn, etc.).

It is relatively easy to come to an acceptance of this notion that third-party governance is legitimately applicable in cases of criminal acts and where non-criminal conflicts of interest arise. What appears to be more difficult for people to grasp is the seemingly obvious logical complement of this concept: free men are NEVER subject to third party governing interference precisely because they govern themselves. Criminality is, therefore and in part by definition, a failure to govern oneself properly with respect to his moral obligation to respect the rights of his fellows.

Because people at times fail to properly govern themselves, they must be governed by others. This directly implies that someone must discharge such functions - another intuitively obvious intermediate result in the chain of synthesis. It is at this point that the sticky wickets begin to make their presence felt:

• Who discharges those duties?
• How are the governors chosen?
• By what moral authority are they chosen?
• What is the standard to which they govern?
• Who governs the governors and how are they governed?
• What are the hazards faced by governors who violate the rights of free men?
• What are the hazards faced by those who make false accusations against a free man such that his free status is unjustly impinged upon?

This list is by no means complete, but it gives a reasonable taste of the nature of the questions that arise when we accept the idea that governance is, in principle, a morally legitimate function.

Conversely, we may reject the notion of governance, but it seems to me that it raises serious problems such as states of general chaos, particularly when circumstances including severe economic trouble and natural disaster arise. I am open to corrective opinions if anyone feels otherwise.

The wickets are very sticky, not because of any problems inherent to the principles in question but because of the poor choices humans all too often make. Given honest and competent discharge of duties, I see no problem with even a "state" instituted system of governance, for a proper definition of "state", all else equal.

I can equally accept, in principle, so-called "private" governance, given the right definitions and honest and adept administration. The problem, the stickiest wicket of them all, lies in the minds and hearts of men. People are not always competent and honest.

Finally, I would like to point out that there is no fundamental difference between "public" and "private" here, both of which are nothing more than slightly differing conceptual frameworks. At the bottom of all of this is the individual, either choosing or being forced to operate within such frameworks.

In my view, the goal should always be to gain voluntary acceptance of governance. Given this and the wildly multivariate nature of human populations, reason and necessity clearly dictate that the specifications of a framework for governance must be simple, small, and must strongly appeal to the most basic human senses of freedom and justice.

The real problems arise when such systems become overly complex and arbitrary such that they violate those basic sensibilities. This, in a nutshell, summarizes the perennial problem of human coexistence within the context of the empire mentality vis-a-vis that of the tribe where the individual is afforded his full respect and autonomy.

Is the empire mentality an unavoidable result of populations grown past some threshold, or is it possible to retain the respect of the individual we tend to find in smaller populations?

There are several more fundamental questions that should be addressed, but I will show mercy.

+ rep

[heavenlyboy34]

In my opinion, I would not argue that making our society more voluntary isn't desireable, it definitely is. I would just argue that defenses of a completely voluntary society from natural law, utilitarianism, or totally denying prescriptions are not internally consistent and begin on logical flaws.

Furthermore, I truly believe that every armchair voluntaryist here would be happy with an arrangement like the Articles Of Confederation.

My argument is not against all civil government, rather it is against centralization. I think a decentralized government is consistent with liberty.

Since we all lack perfect knowledge, a certain amount of that will be found in every system except the most utopian/theoretical. This should not deter us from striving for an ideal, though. Voluntaryism, by its nature is the most logically consistent system available to us at this time. If we are ever able to tap into perfect knowledge, that will change. I would agree with your last comment-the AoC would be a far better system than what now exists.

[Conza88]

I must preface this response by stating that I have not seen the video as I am on a dial up line

Hello good sir,
There is a text / article supplied which is the same as the video. I'd suggesting reading it all; but the last section directly addresses your concern. I'd recommend reading it, then re-submitting your questions if you still have them .

[Wesker1982]

I confess to not yet having worked out a practical approach to conflicting interests where one party claims another has violated their rights in some non-criminal way (e.g. 1.playing music loudly at 2 AM on a Tuesday morning, or 2. perhaps a neighbor's dog crapping on one's lawn, etc.)

1. This could be easily solved with homeowner association type contracts. Most people don't want loud music at 2am, it would not be hard to find a neighborhood where people would be willing to make voluntary contractual agreements to be quiet during certain hours. (Rothbard also argues that noise pollution is a violation of property rights, so it could be debated that it is criminal.)

2. This is trespassing, definitely criminal.

• Who discharges those duties?
• How are the governors chosen?
• By what moral authority are they chosen?
• What is the standard to which they govern?
• Who governs the governors and how are they governed?
• What are the hazards faced by governors who violate the rights of free men?
• What are the hazards faced by those who make false accusations against a free man such that his free status is unjustly impinged upon?

1. Voluntary defense agencies
2. The market. Whoever provides the best service at the best price will be chosen.
3. The non-aggression principle. Since no one's rights are violated by me paying a 3rd party for security, I don't see how anyone could reasonably conclude that this is somehow immoral.
4. The same standards as everyone else lives by.
5. The consumers. They are governed by the ability of the consumer to stop paying them if they become outlaw, inefficient, etc.
6. The same hazards that are faced by everyone else. Unlike what we have now, there would be no special immunities for law enforcement who aggress against a non-criminal.
7. If someone is unjustly taken against their will, then the kidnappers are criminals. See #6.

but it seems to me that it raises serious problems such as states of general chaos, particularly when circumstances including severe economic trouble and natural disaster arise.

The State has historically been the cause of economic crisis, not any sort of cure. Natural disasters would be dealt with by private insurance (Both points Ron Paul agrees with). (I could not take any minarchist here seriously if they disagree with these 2 points because they are not positions held exclusively by voluntaryists but also held by minarchists.)

The wickets are very sticky, not because of any problems inherent to the principles in question but because of the poor choices humans all too often make.

The problem, the stickiest wicket of them all, lies in the minds and hearts of men. People are not always competent and honest.

If people are too immoral and ignorant to govern themselves, it would be explicit doublethink to simultaneously believe people are sane and educated enough to elect mentally sound and wise leaders. What you have presented here is actually a strong argument against centralized authority because any poor choices made are amplified greatly and are not subjected to the inherent checks and balances of the market.

[Wesker1982]

More good reading assignments for those who are interested... I'm NOT interested in philosophy! I live in the real world.

Cliffs: It is not necessary to be a martyr in order to be a libertarian.

[Conza88]

Cliffs: It is not necessary to be a martyr in order to be a libertarian.

Additional cliffs: philosophy describes the real world. Ergo, Trav isn't interested in reality. Got anymore 'bombshells' for us Trav? lol...

[heavenlyboy34]

Additional cliffs: philosophy describes the real world.

This ^^ Philosophy shapes and describes our respective worldviews, which in turn describes the real world.

[A Son of Liberty]

You guys beat me to it: philosophy underlies and describes the order of our society. Philosophy doesn't care if you're not interested in it; its interested in you!

[Seraphim]

Bump!

More good reading assignments for those who are interested... I'm NOT interested in philosophy! I live in the real world.
I have some fun things to do while I live my life as freely as I can under the lawless tyrants who rule behind the curtain of the State.

Ron Paul 2012! - "Defender of Liberty"

To be fair, philosophy is based on objective reasoning, research science and logic as observed IN THE REAL WORLD and it's PRACTICAL implications.

[Wesker1982]

I'm NOT interested in philosophy!

This is like posting in General: "I'm NOT interested in political news and discussion!"

FYI this is the Philosophy forum, in case you didn't notice.

To be fair, philosophy is based on objective reasoning, research science and logic as observed IN THE REAL WORLD and it's PRACTICAL implications.

Ron Paul agrees:

"Healing Our World bridges the gap between conservatives and liberals, Christians and New Agers, special interests and the common good, with practical solutions to our economic and societal woes." - Ron Paul

[josh b]

philosophy is not realism

Ayn Rand is glaring at you from the grave. That death stare must suck.

[Conza88]

And.. wtf is with every person who 'responds' to this thread in a negative light... having NOT ACTUALLY READ THE OP MATERIAL, or watched the video...

Can you actually refer to said source and try refute it? Or make the effort to actually understand the position -> before you write your EQUALLY long & equivalent wasted time response, that would have been far better used if you actually read said text instead.

Talk about intellectually dishonest / trollish behaviour.. where they go on the automatic "war path" to deny reality. Such a joke.

[osan]

Hello good sir,
There is a text / article supplied which is the same as the video. I'd suggesting reading it all; but the last section directly addresses your concern. I'd recommend reading it, then re-submitting your questions if you still have them .

I didn't see the link - my error - thank you for notifying me. I read the article. What he is describing is very similar toa model I have been working on which I call "Nonarchy".

On the whole I am in strong agreement with the author's analysis and solutions. He makes a few minor-ish errors in his precise modes of expression that may be innocuous enough, but should IMO nevertheless be corrected because in these sorts of philosophical discussions precision in one's messages is ultimately important. It is precisely in such small and seemingly insignificant details that the tyrant and usurper find the footholds by which they trespass upon the rights of others.

The author, however, alerts us to one area where the issue of concern is decidedly non-trivial:

It would be presumptuous to predict the precise shape and form of the security industry emerging within the framework of a private-law society.

It is precisely here that our concerns should stubbornly rest until such time that they are answered completely, satisfactorily, and without equivocation. We are talking about organizations with guns that, when the body becomes large enough, constitute a de-facto army and which, if they gain sufficient power and position by whatever means, may become perched to take over where "the state" left off. A tyrant by any other name...

To effectively shrug off an issue with one rather weak sentence is perplexing and calls into question the author's appreciation of the specters this concern raises. It is precisely the threat of force that such organizations represent whichshould have his full attention and for which complete and compelling practical solutions should be offered. I find such a lapse to be of great concern.

Good stuff on the whole, but I think there are a few loose ends that need treatment.

Just my worthless opinion, of course.

Thanks again.

[LibertyEagle]

This is like posting in General: "I'm NOT interested in political news and discussion!"

FYI this is the Philosophy forum, in case you didn't notice.

The thread was not started in the Philosophy subforum, in case you didn't notice.
http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthr...=1#post3423187

[Wesker1982]

The thread was not started in the Philosophy subforum, in case you didn't notice.
http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthr...=1#post3423187

I know, and it has no effect on what I said.

[Travlyr]

I know, and it has no effect on what I said.

BS. That's the whole point, Wesker. A lot of us have devoted not only our time and resources trying to spread the message, but many of us have devoted much of our savings in order to get the word out ... only to be undermined by you and your ilk. If you spend $25k on a project, then it sort of ticks you off to have some irresponsible punks blowing it up. The forum owners have been quite patient in my opinion out of compassion, but people are going hungry on the streets because we have not yet been successful in critical mass ... and you don't seem to care.

[Wesker1982]

only to be undermined by you and your ilk.

it sort of ticks you off to have some irresponsible punks blowing it up.

Care to explain? This claim has no basis in reality, but I am willing to listen to your attempt to justify it.

[osan]

1. This could be easily solved with homeowner association type contracts.

And what about those who are not interested in such associations and will not enter into such agreements?

What about those at the boundaries of two widely varying communities? Let us say community A disallows the accumulation of derelict vehicles on the front lawn but community B has no such restriction? What happens when Harry in community A and next door neighbor to Johnny in community B, takes exception to Johnny's collection of rusting 1950s vintage cars he has on display out front? Before you declare this example as silly, consider the deeper aspects of the relationships and the questions that arise.

Suggestions such as this are OK insofar as they go. The problem is they fail to cover a particularly broad range of potential conflicts.

Most people don't want loud music at 2am, it would not be hard to find a neighborhood where people would be willing to make voluntary contractual agreements to be quiet during certain hours. (Rothbard also argues that noise pollution is a violation of property rights, so it could be debated that it is criminal.)

Fair enough - I can accept this. Do you have cite for Rothbard's position? I would be very interested in the structure of his reasoning as I can see strong similarities between this and many other flavors of conflicting interest.

2. This is trespassing, definitely criminal.

Dog crapping on neighbor's yard.... OK, yes, so long as the notion of "degree" remains prominently conspicuous in terms of adjudicating such a "crime".

1. Voluntary defense agencies

Completely agree as far as your statement goes. We can let it rest here... for now.

2. The market. Whoever provides the best service at the best price will be chosen.

Almost a non-answer. I cannot accept "the market" as a valid response to questions, the answers for which impinge upon the freedoms of every breathing soul. There need be more. A lot more, both in terms of the overarching strategic current of thought and, most importantly, in terms of the practical procedures by which people would be called to live. This is ultimately important and needs to be worked out in some painfully sufficient detail.

3. The non-aggression principle. Since no one's rights are violated by me paying a 3rd party for security, I don't see how anyone could reasonably conclude that this is somehow immoral.

NAP is necessary but not sufficient. There are other, more fundamental truths that underpin the NAP and from which it derives. From that small body of core principles we derive the immutable law and from that law we contrive our operating procedures by which we function on a daily basis. The basic principles are well in hand. The body of law and the procedures by which justice under the law is discharged and maintained is what is missing. It is within the body of these details that the devil lurks in wait. This is where the rubber meets the road. This is where the quality of our lives are most directly allowed to be what we are able to make them or are forced to be something with which we may not be terribly pleased.

4. The same standards as everyone else lives by.

And that standard would be...

5. The consumers. They are governed by the ability of the consumer to stop paying them if they become outlaw, inefficient, etc.

This response makes no sense to me. A stranger murders my child. I go to my paid governing body and they screw the pooch. Now what? Fire them? OK. Now what? Hire a new one? Why? Unless the concept of immunity from double jeopardy has no place in this world, in which case I suppose you are then free to pursue your suspect for as long as your money holds out, you get a "conviction", you die, or you simply give up.

A question that arises with this market-driven (vis-a-vis principle driven?) method is what is to prevent justice from becoming an auction? Once again the question of who governs the governors remains unanswered. When a governor screws the pooch, how are they called to account? To say the authority rest with "consumers" fails to settle the practical issues of execution.

6. The same hazards that are faced by everyone else. Unlike what we have now, there would be no special immunities for law enforcement who aggress against a non-criminal.

I feel there should be particularly harsh hazards faced by any agent of the public trust who violates his obligations to truth, justice, and the rights of his fellows. There must exist an inordinately strong influencing factor in all cases where a governor's resolve may come into some question. The costs of tyranny must be so high as to preclude it in all cases. The mechanisms to readily enable the average citizen to call a governor to account for his official actions must be available all.

7. If someone is unjustly taken against their will, then the kidnappers are criminals. See #6.

We agree in full.

The State has historically been the cause of economic crisis, not any sort of cure.

"The state" as we know it has been, agreed. But as I wrote previously, the distinction between "state" and "private" are essentially meaningless when "private" falls into tyranny. Likewise, "state" can be as good as "private" for the correct definitions of the term. Beware the spoken word, for it can be a devilish creature. What counts is not the word we use. What counts is the standard to which people are to be held and the manner in which they are so held.

Natural disasters would be dealt with by private insurance

Methinks you missed my point. I was speaking to chaos such that people are out killing each other out of fear, desperation, anger, what have you. Who handles it and how are less of a concern to me than is the question of holding those people accountable for what they do. This is the central question that is at issue in all of these discussions of just governance. Proper standards of behavior mean nothing if those who are charged with upholding those standards in the cases of criminal activity do not uphold their duties as they should.

If people are too immoral and ignorant to govern themselves, it would be explicit doublethink to simultaneously believe people are sane and educated enough to elect mentally sound and wise leaders.

Agreed, but it is not unreasonable to think that a group of presumably honest, morally sound, and highly cause-driven individuals might decide to take control of the madhouse in an effort to preserve themselves. I will add that one cannot reasonably treat populations as blocs in the way you imply here because at the bottom of all things lie the individuals. If in a nation of a million there is but one sane, honest, and moral man who refuses to be consumed in a furious tempest of unsound behavior, would it not be that man's moral right to do what he could to preserve himself? If a nation on the whole chooses to go nuts, those who retain their sanity are well within their right to defend against the inarticulate mob.

What you have presented here is actually a strong argument against centralized authority because any poor choices made are amplified greatly and are not subjected to the inherent checks and balances of the market.

I have made no argument in favor of centralized government. I have, however, raised the perennially important questions that most people fail to answer. For the third time I will cite the question of governing the governors as the single greatest practical concern that arises in these discussions. IT speaks directly to a population's ability to control government.

[osan]

2. This is trespassing, definitely criminal.

I've been thinking about this and it seems that one must be very careful with the "criminal" label. I am thinking that primarily a "crime" should be an act that damages someone directly. Neighbor's dog craps on my lawn.... crime? Not sure... I'd have to have this demonstrated so I can understand. Murder, assault and battery, theft... clearly all crimes. But destruction of property appears to hold an element of degree, the one extreme clearly being a crime (burning down someone's house, keying their car, and so on). On the other end, I am not so sure. I don't see dog crap on my lawn being a crime. An issue of equity, to be sure. Perhaps a repeated refusal to control one's dog might constitute a crime of sorts, but some small set of occurrances... My reticence to accept this stems from the effect that that label "criminal" tends to have on one's life in the aftermath. We need to be very careful not to over react. Consequence should always be proportional to the nature and degree of the offense and certain offenses I do not at this time see as "crimes", even though they are nevertheless violations of the rights of others.

[Wesker1982]

And what about those who are not interested in such associations and will not enter into such agreements?

What about those at the boundaries of two widely varying communities?

Then they are taking the risk that an avoidable conflict may occur in the future. The conflict would be dealt with by private courts and arbitration. If there is a conflict between two people who have not made any prior agreements, or even one of the persons made no prior agreement, it will be dealt with by private arbitration. (private arbitrators coming to different decisions etc. has been addressed extensively so I won't go into it here if I don't need to.)

I think most people will voluntarily enter in to homeowner type associations to decrease the likelihood of conflict, though. There would be many incentives to make prior agreements (to prove to people you are trustworthy) and disincentives if you refuse to make such agreements. People will be more hesitant to interact with someone who refuses to decrease the chance of any possible future conflict, etc.

A dispute between two different communities would be dealt with by private courts and arbitration (like how people from the USA can settle disputes peacefully with citizens of Canada, etc.).

Do you have cite for Rothbard's position?

http://mises.org/rothbard/newlibertywhole.asp chapter 13, under pollution.

Dog crapping on neighbor's yard.... OK, yes, so long as the notion of "degree" remains prominently conspicuous in terms of adjudicating such a "crime".

Yes, proportionality is important. It is not a crime to the degree that killing the trespasser is justified. Prior agreements between neighbors are likely (see above).

Almost a non-answer. I cannot accept "the market" as a valid response to questions, the answers for which impinge upon the freedoms of every breathing soul.

The consumers will ultimately decide (via the market) which arbitration, defense agencies, etc. are the most efficient and desirable. Questions like these overlook an important detail, which is how we got to this voluntaryist society in the first place. What I mean is: To bring about radical and permanent change in any society, our primary focus must be on the conversion of minds through education. - Ron Paul. If we ever achieve a voluntaryist (or even minarchist society), it will only be through most people already having a strong respect for life and property rights. At this point, it would be an economic impossibility for the bulk of the consumers, who respect life and property, to fund tyrannical institutions. Again though, this is no more of a problem for voluntaryism than it is of minarchism (that is, most problems faced with achieving a voluntaryist society are shared with achieving a minarchist society, i.e. educating the masses ).

NAP is necessary but not sufficient.

Maybe I don't understand what you are asking. If no one's rights have been violated through the process of law X, what grounds are there for an objection to law process X?

And that standard would be...

Whatever standard the consumers demand. Like I said above, this would be (proven by the fact that this society was achieved in the first place) a respect for life and property.

A stranger murders my child. I go to my paid governing body and they screw the pooch. Now what? Fire them? OK. Now what? Hire a new one? Why? Unless the concept of immunity from double jeopardy has no place in this world, in which case I suppose you are then free to pursue your suspect for as long as your money holds out, you get a "conviction", you die, or you simply give up.

It would be utopian to believe it is possible for any entity to have a 100% success rate. What I argue is that assuming that violent crimes will always exist to some degree, voluntary solutions (because of real incentives) will be more efficient (not perfect) at dealing with them.

At least if you are not satisfied with their performance, you are not forced to pay them. Contrast this with what would happen under the current system if someone murders your child and they are found innocent. You are still forced pay for the inefficient courts, etc.

A question that arises with this market-driven (vis-a-vis principle driven?) method is what is to prevent justice from becoming an auction?

What if courts are biased towards wealthy clients?

I feel there should be particularly harsh hazards faced by any agent of the public trust who violates his obligations to truth, justice, and the rights of his fellows.

First, he would be subject to the same punishments (because of no special immunities) as everyone else. Whether it be murder, theft, fraud, assault, etc. Second, I think his (a judge, security officer, etc.) reputation would suffer worse than someone who was not trusted with these particular responsibilities. But any punishment still must not exceed proportionality.

I was speaking to chaos such that people are out killing each other out of fear, desperation, anger, what have you.

Who handles it and how are less of a concern to me than is the question of holding those people accountable for what they do.

I don't know of any theory that proposes a solution to everyone simultaneously losing their minds, doomsday scenarios, etc. How could we hold every guilty party accountable during a mass riot where rights are violated on a massive scale? Sounds impossible. Maybe I misunderstood your question, but even if so, I don't see how what you said is an argument for a coercive monopoly.

If in a nation of a million there is but one sane, honest, and moral man who refuses to be consumed in a furious tempest of unsound behavior, would it not be that man's moral right to do what he could to preserve himself? If a nation on the whole chooses to go nuts, those who retain their sanity are well within their right to defend against the inarticulate mob.

I have no problem with self-defense. A problem only arises when a non-criminal is aggressed against.

[osan]

And what about those who are not interested in such associations and will not enter into such agreements?

What about those at the boundaries of two widely varying communities?
Then they are taking the risk that an avoidable conflict may occur in the future. The conflict would be dealt with by private courts and arbitration. If there is a conflict between two people who have not made any prior agreements, or even one of the persons made no prior agreement, it will be dealt with by private arbitration. (private arbitrators coming to different decisions etc. has been addressed extensively so I won't go into it here if I don't need to.)

I

think most people will voluntarily enter in to homeowner type associations to decrease the likelihood of conflict, though.

Perhaps, but most people I know seem to dislike them. I am no fan of such things.

There would be many incentives to make prior agreements (to prove to people you are trustworthy)

In what sense? I'm not trying to be obtuse - I just cannot think whey anyone would want to go out of their way to explicitly prove they are trustworthy to their neighbors. I have never done such a thing, nor has the thought ever crossed my mind.

and disincentives if you refuse to make such agreements. People will be more hesitant to interact with someone who refuses to decrease the chance of any possible future conflict, etc.

This could become very sticky. Not saying that it would, but that it could.

A dispute between two different communities would be dealt with by private courts and arbitration (like how people from the USA can settle disputes peacefully with citizens of Canada, etc.).

Whose courts? Which ones? What about when two parties cannot agree on whose jurisdiction shall prevail? At that point we are left with a choice: leave the issue unresolved (probably not acceptable), go to physical war (probably not very profitable), or employ force to make each party accept a given jurisdiction. If you have another alternative, please list it because I seem to be at a loss.

[QUOTE-osan]Do you have cite for Rothbard's position?[/QUOTE]

http://mises.org/rothbard/newlibertywhole.asp chapter 13, under pollution.

Many thanks. I will read it and perhaps get back to you.

Yes, proportionality is important. It is not a crime to the degree that killing the trespasser is justified. Prior agreements between neighbors are likely (see above).

And when a given court fails to exercise such proportionality, what then? Tell them to screw off? If so, what is to stop everyone from giving the bird to "authority". It seems to me, and I may be wrong, that at the bottom of everything lies the threat of force, private law or public - at that level it is all the same and the real question is not whether we are a public or private "government", but whether that government discharges its duties such that it holds moral authority. Even with such authority, the threat of force must always be present or such authority holds no teeth. Murderers would murder and when called upon to account for their actions, present their middle fingers prominently to any "authority" unwilling or incapable of backing up their claims to such authority with physical force. Governance always implies the threat of force because those requiring external governing are most likely not interested in the opinions of others, nor the stated claims of authority of them. Unless they can back those assertions up with sufficient material power, they amount to nothing.

The consumers will ultimately decide (via the market) which arbitration, defense agencies, etc. are the most efficient and desirable.

And once again, what about those who accept no such authority? The rest face the choice of letting them do as they please or employing force. I can accept that most might do so in a morally authoritative manner, but what about those that do not?

Questions like these overlook an important detail, which is how we got to this voluntaryist society in the first place. What I mean is: To bring about radical and permanent change in any society, our primary focus must be on the conversion of minds through education. - Ron Paul. If we ever achieve a voluntaryist (or even minarchist society), it will only be through most people already having a strong respect for life and property rights.

Ageed. I would add that we are not likely to do a flash cut to this sort of an arrangement, but rather it will be a slow transition. Your point is very well taken.

At this point, it would be an economic impossibility for the bulk of the consumers, who respect life and property, to fund tyrannical institutions.

But that does not preclude the rise of one or more such organizations. The question then becomes how they one deals with them. For me, the bunnies and light aspects of an agorist culture are not problematic. It is the failures that concern me. I am nto saying they cannot be handled - I fully believe that they can, but this is much like handling hurricanes: you must plan for it ahead of time. Winging it as the situation arises is not a very good way to proceed. So what I am trying to do here is elicit thought on how people would proceed when things go wrong along a range from "slighty" to "catastrophically". $#@! happens and those who prepare themselves for it are most likely to weather it. Those who have not are likely to suffer far more greatly.

Again though, this is no more of a problem for voluntaryism than it is of minarchism (that is, most problems faced with achieving a voluntaryist society are shared with achieving a minarchist society, i.e. educating the masses ).

It is a problem of preparedness - of having the answers a priori.

NAP is necessary but not sufficient.

Maybe I don't understand what you are asking. If no one's rights have been violated through the process of law X, what grounds are there for an objection to law process X?

I am speaking precisely to when there has been a violation. If I am tried for murder, but am innocent, the evidence having been contrived or most unfortunately circumstantial, I am under no obligation to accept such a court's ruling. But what then? Will such a court just let me go? I doubt it, people being what they are. Do I and my homeys shoot it out with that court? Is there a mechanism of appeal? What if the appeals court concurs with the other one?

Once again the question arises: what do you do in those instances where people choose not to recognize authority other than themselves, ESPECIALLY when they are right not to? It comes down to the decision whether to use force and how to know when it is morally justifiable to use it. This is the ultimate sticky wicket. I see no reason whatsoever for any innocent person to obey the dictates of a court. The notion flies in the face of the notion of individual sovereignty and justice and is precisely the manner by which tyranny creeps into our lives as it has here.

And that standard would be...

Whatever standard the consumers demand. Like I said above, this would be (proven by the fact that this society was achieved in the first place) a respect for life and property.

Here I would say you are a bit off the rails. This cannot be the case if we are to be free. There are two kinds of law: immutable and arbitrary. That necessarily limits the choices that people can make for others. I fully agree that like-minded people can choose anything they want. They may choose tyranny if that pleases them, but only so long as they leave all out who have no interest. This raises a few questions about boundaries, as we have discussed previously; questions that as yet have not been answered in a satisfactory manner.

A stranger murders my child. I go to my paid governing body and they screw the pooch. Now what? Fire them? OK. Now what? Hire a new one? Why? Unless the concept of immunity from double jeopardy has no place in this world, in which case I suppose you are then free to pursue your suspect for as long as your money holds out, you get a "conviction", you die, or you simply give up.

It would be utopian to believe it is possible for any entity to have a 100% success rate.

Perhaps, but when it is YOUR child has been butchered or YOUR eye that has been put out in a vicious attack, this answer rings particularly hollow. What will you say then? Accidents will happen? I surely would not. If I cannot get justice from a court, I will find it elsewhere. This is human nature.

What I argue is that assuming that violent crimes will always exist to some degree, voluntary solutions (because of real incentives) will be more efficient (not perfect) at dealing with them.

Fair enough, and you may be right. But only time and experience will tell for sure.

At least if you are not satisfied with their performance, you are not forced to pay them.

You presume. That aside, there are many issues that far outstrip money as considerations. Murder my child and money will be that last thing on my mind. Seeing the killer's head in a noose would be my first and perhaps only concern. Again, human nature must be taken into account in this new system of governance. If it rides against the grain of the human animal it will fail through collapse upon itself or through having become just another low-rent tyranny.

Contrast this with what would happen under the current system if someone murders your child and they are found innocent. You are still forced pay for the inefficient courts, etc.

Good point. My counter point is that you do not want to to replace one failure with another.

A question that arises with this market-driven (vis-a-vis principle driven?) method is what is to prevent justice from becoming an auction?
What if courts are biased towards wealthy clients?

I feel there should be particularly harsh hazards faced by any agent of the public trust who violates his obligations to truth, justice, and the rights of his fellows.

First, he would be subject to the same punishments (because of no special immunities) as everyone else. Whether it be murder, theft, fraud, assault, etc. Second, I think his (a judge, security officer, etc.) reputation would suffer worse than someone who was not trusted with these particular responsibilities. But any punishment still must not exceed proportionality.

Agreed, but I submit that violation of the trust of office is in fact an offense far greater than that of murder, thereby justifying particularly harsh consequences. I see no avenue of exception for this. Human history is rotten with the results of those who have abused their status and power and those results have been woeful to make one's head explode if contemplated too deeply. This $#@! has got to stop and the only way to stop them is to hold the sword over their heads for every minute of tenure as holders of an office whereby the rights of others may theoretically be violated.

If the prospect of draconian results for one's willful violations of the right of others under coloration of law is too much, then one is free to not pursue office.

A key feature of Nonarchy is the limitation to one term in any given public office. Once you have served, for example, a term as sheriff you can never be sheriff again in that jurisdiction at the very least... if anywhere ever again (not sure about that last bit). I feel this is key because one of the broadest and smoothest avenues to tyranny has been the presence of career politicians. Nonarchy would eliminate direct forms of this and would make indirect action through influence very difficult. Terms would be short and brutally tough on office holders. I would consider them being forced to waive the right to privacy prior to taking office. IMO this is necessary to achieve utter transparency in governing affairs because it is precisely in the lcoister of private environs that corruption lives and breeds.

I was speaking to chaos such that people are out killing each other out of fear, desperation, anger, what have you.

Who handles it and how are less of a concern to me than is the question of holding those people accountable for what they do.

The two are intimately intertwined. We agree completely.

I don't know of any theory that proposes a solution to everyone simultaneously losing their minds, doomsday scenarios, etc. How could we hold every guilty party accountable during a mass riot where rights are violated on a massive scale?

I doubt it can be done, but you want the strongest ability in place that is possible to achieve while still holding individual sovereignty above all other considerations.

[Wesker1982]

Perhaps, but most people I know seem to dislike them. I am no fan of such things.

In what sense? I'm not trying to be obtuse - I just cannot think whey anyone would want to go out of their way to explicitly prove they are trustworthy to their neighbors. I have never done such a thing, nor has the thought ever crossed my mind.

This is under vastly different circumstances, though. People now rely on city ordinance for things like loud music at 2am. Without a coercive central authority forcing their will on everyone arbitrarily, people will seek peaceful ways to interact.

I suspect that, without city ordinance laws (which are non-consensual), people would either voluntarily enter into agreements before moving in next door to someone (homeowners associations would be different under a voluntary society so comparing them to the current situation doesn't really tell us much, and if contracts are the norm, few people will move in next door or build a house next to someone who refuses to make peace agreements), or I think private defense agencies and private insurance etc. would have conditions in their contracts that would discourage situations that are likely to provoke conflict (loud noise at 2am, dog turds, etc.). They could either refuse to cover someone who will not make agreements, or significantly raise their rates (because this person is a higher risk).

Whose courts? Which ones? What about when two parties cannot agree on whose jurisdiction shall prevail? At that point we are left with a choice: leave the issue unresolved (probably not acceptable), go to physical war (probably not very profitable), or employ force to make each party accept a given jurisdiction. If you have another alternative, please list it because I seem to be at a loss.

The courts representing each person. If the two courts cannot come to a mutual decision, it will go to an arbitrator. No one would ever subscribe to courts that are not willing to submit to 3rd party arbitrators because this would be evidence that they are not interested in peacefully solving conflicts. Any court who does not include agreements to 3rd party arbitration in their contracts would not have their decisions respected by any reputable court.

And when a given court fails to exercise such proportionality, what then? Tell them to screw off?

It would be a criminal court and the individuals that it is composed of would be subject to the consequences of their actions.

It seems to me, and I may be wrong, that at the bottom of everything lies the threat of force, private law or public - at that level it is all the same and the real question is not whether we are a public or private "government", but whether that government discharges its duties such that it holds moral authority. Even with such authority, the threat of force must always be present or such authority holds no teeth. Murderers would murder and when called upon to account for their actions, present their middle fingers prominently to any "authority" unwilling or incapable of backing up their claims to such authority with physical force.

And once again, what about those who accept no such authority? The rest face the choice of letting them do as they please or employing force. I can accept that most might do so in a morally authoritative manner, but what about those that do not?

I agree with this. I don't know what I said for you to get the impression that a murderer would only be asked nicely to hold themselves accountable, but (proportional) force is justified against criminals.

But that does not preclude the rise of one or more such organizations. The question then becomes how they one deals with them.

They would be dealt the same as any other criminal gang. First, they would lose all their funding because people don't want to pay for a criminal gang, and rates would become very high once they became violent because their customers would have to pay for the violence (it would take a vast majority of the population willing to pay for a criminal gang in order for them conquer, and if people are so disposed, nothing could stop the inevitable destruction). They would lose their clients to more efficient and non-criminal agencies. Second, in the best interest of their clients, the non-criminal defense agencies would physically stop any organization engaging in criminal acts.

Also, all reputable insurance agencies would stop giving coverage to PDA's that became criminal. This is also a reason for a loss of business because the costs of the rogue PDA's actions would have to be absorbed by the consumer instead of the PDA's insurance.

If I am tried for murder, but am innocent, the evidence having been contrived or most unfortunately circumstantial, I am under no obligation to accept such a court's ruling. But what then? Will such a court just let me go?

Is there a mechanism of appeal? What if the appeals court concurs with the other one?

Force must not be used against a non-criminal. So if you are charged with murder, you do not have to defend yourself in court. It would be in your best interest to do so, but until you are convicted, force cannot legitimately used against you. Even without a defense, it is still in the court's best interest to reach as fair of a verdict as possible.

There would be an appeals court. Rothbard talks about this in For a New Liberty. If the appeals court concurs with the original decision, then the decision would be respected by virtually everyone (citizens and other courts).

Once again the question arises: what do you do in those instances where people choose not to recognize authority other than themselves, ESPECIALLY when they are right not to?

They are taking the risk that they may be found guilty and will be considered an outlaw by society. It is logical for them to defend themselves in court, but force cannot be used on non-criminals. If they are found guilty, they will be outlaws, and people will justify using force against them. Again, though, no one is advocating a utopia where an innocent man will never be convicted of a crime (and it is entirely up to the accused if they want to lower their risk of a false conviction by showing up). My claim is that voluntary solutions will be more efficient and less likely to make mistakes.

Here I would say you are a bit off the rails. This cannot be the case if we are to be free.

How else would a minarchist or voluntaryist society arise without people in general understanding the philosophy and economics of liberty? I am all ears.

Perhaps

What do you mean, perhaps? Do you suggest it is possible for any system of law to have 100% success rate in finding and convicting criminals?

but when it is YOUR child has been butchered or YOUR eye that has been put out in a vicious attack, this answer rings particularly hollow. What will you say then? Accidents will happen? I surely would not. If I cannot get justice from a court, I will find it elsewhere. This is human nature.

This isn't really an argument for or against anything I have proposed as a solution to situation X Y or Z. Sure, someone could be falsely found innocent, but this is true for any system. What I would personally do in this situation is not at all relevant.

Murder my child and money will be that last thing on my mind. Seeing the killer's head in a noose would be my first and perhaps only concern. Again, human nature must be taken into account in this new system of governance. If it rides against the grain of the human animal it will fail through collapse upon itself or through having become just another low-rent tyranny.

Some people will disagree with a verdict and choose to inflict punishment. There is no disagreement here. But this is true for any system.

In contrast to such Utopians as Marxists or left-wing anarchists (anarcho-communists or anarcho-syndicalists), libertarians do not assume that the ushering in of the purely free society of their dreams will also bring with it a new, magically transformed Libertarian Man. We do not assume that the lion will lie down with the lamb, or that no one will have criminal or fraudulent designs upon his neighbor. The "better" that people will be, of course, the better any social system will work, in particular the less work any police or courts will have to do. But no such assumption is made by libertarians. What we assert is that, given any particular degree of "goodness" or "badness" among men, the purely libertarian society will be at once the most moral and the most efficient, the least criminal and the most secure of person or property. - Rothbard

I submit that violation of the trust of office is in fact an offense far greater than that of murder, thereby justifying particularly harsh consequences.

If a judge is found taking bribes etc. , he would be responsible for restitution and repayment for any and all other damages caused as a result of his actions. What exactly this entails depends on the particular circumstances.