Ron Paul and Private Courts

[torchbearer]

I have thought about this and decided that if he didn't want people to know, he would not have published it. He must have known people would connect the dots. It is not like he is mysterious about it.

Anyways, I think the media is more likely to pick up Liberty Defined and read what he says about private defense before they ever stumble across this hidden thread. Or watch the Adam Kokesh youtube video, or a youtube video where he says all taxation is theft. If the media wanted to attack this point, I think they would have already.

but with ron, he is using a gentle brush and not a hammer to people's face.

[Wesker1982]

but with ron, he is using a gentle brush and not a hammer to people's face.

I agree. But by making all of this public, he must have accepted that some people will do exactly what I am doing.

[torchbearer]

I agree. But by making all of this public, he must have accepted that some people will do exactly what I am doing.

more brush and less hammer.
after all, i'd rather live in the wild west and not modern day amerika.
I would rather contend with the inconveniences of too much liberty than contend with the inconveniences of not enough...

[noneedtoaggress]

Great post, OP!

[Cabal]

I love how much liberty 'scares' supposed advocates of liberty. It's quite entertaining.

[Revolution9]

Heheh. The day a private court expects me to show up is the day entropy kicks in hard and hell freezes over. And that, my friends, is precisely why the pile of yitter yattering and misdirection in the first post will not happen on the ground. I don't pay attention to security guards either. Just another blowhard with a badge and a gun. No jurisdiction. Tell me how a private court claims jurisdiction over me, the living and breathing individual of a divine nature? If I can be directed down a line of thought experiment that will get me to court or Bubba the psychotic sociopath, I am all ears and ready to convert. None of this morality and ethics crap either. That is not realistic on the ground on this planet in this millenium.

Rev9

[heavenlyboy34]

Heheh. The day a private court expects me to show up is the day entropy kicks in hard and hell freezes over. And that, my friends, is precisely why the pile of yitter yattering and misdirection in the first post will not happen on the ground. I don't pay attention to security guards either. Just another blowhard with a badge and a gun. No jurisdiction. Tell me how a private court claims jurisdiction over me, the living and breathing individual of a divine nature? If I can be directed down a line of thought experiment that will get me to court or Bubba the psychotic sociopath, I am all ears and ready to convert. None of this morality and ethics crap either. That is not realistic on the ground on this planet in this millenium.

Rev9

Okay, but why should I answer to your government courts? Their authority is no more arbitrary than anyone else's-plus, they have no real incentive to actually be "just". The government judge is as much a politician as the congressman-except many times less accountable. (Google "Dred Scott")

I have a middle ground that many of my colleagues aren't offering-let me micro-secede from your government. I think you'll find this reasonable and practical.

[LibertasPraesidium]

Meh to this post, while I see a correlation, anyone can take any book and logically connect dots until anything is true. This is why thus far I advocate for minarchist type society very close to voluntaryist but with a tiny speck of government. To get to any of these, and even anarcist society we have a very very very very long path to follow.Anarchists, to me, see Ron Paul as a stepping stone to reduce the size of government and exposure of ideas of participation within society.

[Cabal]

This is a topic that has been extensively discussed by many; there are articles, books, videos, and podcasts all over the internet regarding this topic--and most (if not all) of them are freely available.

You can start here, if you really care to learn about it.

Dispute Resolution Organization
A Society Without a State
Caging the Devils: The Stateless Society and Violent Crime
These Cages Are Only For Beasts

Are you for free markets? Then why don't you trust the free market to handle dispute resolution and/or security?
Are you for smaller government, especially in terms of domestic affairs? Then why do you trust the government to handle domestic arbitration and security?
Are you for individual liberty? Then why do you not trust in following the concept of individual liberty through to its logically consistent end?

Nothing will ever be perfect, so if perfection is what you're expecting and requiring, then I'd suggest you re-evaluate your expectations. Nevertheless, alternative, reasonable answers have been developed for these issues. You may find fault in them, but I guarantee you there is 10x more fault to be found in their Statist iterations.

[Wesker1982]

Meh to this post, while I see a correlation, anyone can take any book and logically connect dots until anything is true.

lol, I did not have to connect any dots, he is very clear in what he is saying.

This is why thus far I advocate for minarchist type society very close to voluntaryist but with a tiny speck of government.

If it is very close to pure Voluntaryism, it doesn't make sense to say... "well, we should stop here, even though people have had enough of a revelation to make it this far..."

The burden is on the Minarchists to justify why they advocate the minimal state, given that once their goal is achieved, any practical objections to a completely voluntary society are already refuted by their own achievement. Voluntaryism would be the natural next step anyways, so why not become Voluntaryists and advocate Minarchism as a stepping stone rather than an end goal?

[Xerographica]

Are you for free markets? Then why don't you trust the free market to handle dispute resolution and/or security?
Are you for smaller government, especially in terms of domestic affairs? Then why do you trust the government to handle domestic arbitration and security?
Are you for individual liberty? Then why do you not trust in following the concept of individual liberty through to its logically consistent end?

If the private sector truly can handle dispute resolution and/or security better than the public sector can then why would any taxpayers allocate their taxes to the public provision of those goods? Perhaps you might want to read up on how the invisible hand works.

[Cabal]

Perhaps you might want to read up on how the invisible hand works.

No thanks. And stop trying to hijack every thread you come across. You already have like a hundred threads of your own dedicated to your 'pragmatarian' agenda.

[Xerographica]

Are you for free markets? Then why don't you trust the free market to handle dispute resolution and/or security?

If the private sector truly can handle dispute resolution and/or security better than the public sector can then why would any taxpayers allocate their taxes to the public provision of those goods?

[Wesker1982]

If the private sector truly can handle dispute resolution and/or security better than the public sector can then why would any taxpayers allocate their taxes to the public provision of those goods?

This thread is about Ron Paul and discussing his views. Please stop hijacking.

[Cabal]

Insufferable.

[Xerographica]

This thread is about Ron Paul and discussing his views. Please stop hijacking.

Was it hijacking when Cabal asked the following questions?

"Are you for free markets? Then why don't you trust the free market to handle dispute resolution and/or security?

[A Son of Liberty]

Heheh. The day a private court expects me to show up is the day entropy kicks in hard and hell freezes over. And that, my friends, is precisely why the pile of yitter yattering and misdirection in the first post will not happen on the ground. I don't pay attention to security guards either. Just another blowhard with a badge and a gun. No jurisdiction. Tell me how a private court claims jurisdiction over me, the living and breathing individual of a divine nature? If I can be directed down a line of thought experiment that will get me to court or Bubba the psychotic sociopath, I am all ears and ready to convert. None of this morality and ethics crap either. That is not realistic on the ground on this planet in this millenium.

Rev9

I understand the point you're making Sam, and I think there's some validity to it; but just HB said, why should we answer to government courts? Or, more importantly, why would you? Answer: the threat of coercive/physical force. So, are you saying that you would not give sanction to a voluntarily organized society of rules, but do give sanction and prefer a society built upon brute force?

[A Son of Liberty]

Heheh. The day a private court expects me to show up is the day entropy kicks in hard and hell freezes over. And that, my friends, is precisely why the pile of yitter yattering and misdirection in the first post will not happen on the ground. I don't pay attention to security guards either. Just another blowhard with a badge and a gun. No jurisdiction. Tell me how a private court claims jurisdiction over me, the living and breathing individual of a divine nature? If I can be directed down a line of thought experiment that will get me to court or Bubba the psychotic sociopath, I am all ears and ready to convert. None of this morality and ethics crap either. That is not realistic on the ground on this planet in this millenium.

Rev9

Re-reading your post, this sentence stood out to me a little more and I have to say it's lovely... yet I don't understand why you consider a government court has legitimate jurisdiction over you an individual of a divine nature? At least a private court will ask your permission, which is suitable and respectful of our nature as soveriegn individuals of a divine creation, right?

[Travlyr]

Human nature. Private law & courts work fine for civil law, but criminal law may require legitimate jurisdiction and the use of force to apprehend criminals. Those who are willing to use coercion to control others or profit will do it. The Loomis Gang is an excellent example.

[Sam I am]

I personally prefer to know the Rules and policies of the Courts that i might be disputing in BEFORE I find myself in a dispute.

[Cabal]

I personally prefer to know the Rules and policies of the Courts that i might be disputing in BEFORE I find myself in a dispute.

Property rights, NAP, contracts

That's pretty much all you'd need to know.

[Conza88]

Human nature. Private law & courts work fine for civil law, but criminal law may require legitimate jurisdiction and the use of force to apprehend criminals. Those who are willing to use coercion to control others or profit will do it. The Loomis Gang is an excellent example.

When you aggress, you lose all ability to estoppel others from doing so against you. You give up your 'jurisdiction'.

[Wesker1982]

Human nature.

Is a good reason to oppose monopolistic law.

but criminal law may require legitimate jurisdiction and the use of force to apprehend criminals.

People would either give their consent through contract, or they would effectively ostracize themselves from society. No one is going to hire or rent to someone who is not vouched for by a reputable agency.

Those who are willing to use coercion to control others or profit will do it.

This is true of any society. It is also still a great argument for a non-monopolistic legal order. The government legally violates rights. No such channel of legitimized coercion would exist in a free society.

[Wesker1982]

I personally prefer to know the Rules and policies of the Courts that i might be disputing in BEFORE I find myself in a dispute.

You and pretty much everyone else. Which is why people will enter into voluntary contracts. For normal day to day interactions, standardized contracts will be the norm.

At the same time, a tendency toward the standardization and unification of property and contract law would be set in motion. Protection contracts with standardized property and product descriptions would come into existence; and out of the steady cooperation between different insurers in mutual arbitration proceedings, a tendency toward the standardization and unification of the rules of procedure, evidence, and conflict resolution (including compensation, restitution, punishment, and retribution), and steadily increasing legal certainty would result. The Private Production of Defense

This doesn't mean that you have to sign a contract to buy a piece of bubble gum. I think what would happen is that insurance agencies who vouch for you would give you membership cards which would effectively say "person A has agreed to the standardized conditions under contract X", which you would present to people like a club membership card that could be electronically scanned etc. You could also tie this into credit cards. If you have a credit card from provider X, this means you agreed to the conditions set by them which would be their vouch for you.

That is just one idea I came up with. I am sure the market would come up with something even better.

[Revolution9]

Re-reading your post, this sentence stood out to me a little more and I have to say it's lovely... yet I don't understand why you consider a government court has legitimate jurisdiction over you an individual of a divine nature? At least a private court will ask your permission, which is suitable and respectful of our nature as soveriegn individuals of a divine creation, right?

If it takes force to bring a common law violator to the bench of justice then fine. I have had to knock a few heads about in my day to get compliance to things like..get yer frikkin' hands off me or I want my property back. This private court thing ain't gonna cut it. It is not common law and can make up any rules it wants. I refuse to participate. If Bubba the psychotic sociopath hurt somebody just how are you gonna make him show up for his sentencing without threat of force? Or what if this private court says they are making hemp illegal but I grow it. What does the private court do to enforce their edict?..It is not law.,.it is mere edict. Mind you the DEA and other agencies work off edict and color of law. But to have private courts doing the same thing is even more heinous. In international law, which is not going to be overturned, there needs to be jurisdiction prior to any attempt to coerce an appearance before any bench. Why would I pay attention to the edict of a private court i would hold in contempt for issuing orders for me they expect me to obey?

rev9

[Revolution9]

You and pretty much everyone else. Which is why people will enter into voluntary contracts. For normal day to day interactions, standardized contracts will be the norm.

At the same time, a tendency toward the standardization and unification of property and contract law would be set in motion. Protection contracts with standardized property and product descriptions would come into existence; and out of the steady cooperation between different insurers in mutual arbitration proceedings, a tendency toward the standardization and unification of the rules of procedure, evidence, and conflict resolution (including compensation, restitution, punishment, and retribution), and steadily increasing legal certainty would result. The Private Production of Defense

This doesn't mean that you have to sign a contract to buy a piece of bubble gum. I think what would happen is that insurance agencies who vouch for you would give you membership cards which would effectively say "person A has agreed to the standardized conditions under contract X", which you would present to people like a club membership card that could be electronically scanned etc. You could also tie this into credit cards. If you have a credit card from provider X, this means you agreed to the conditions set by them which would be their vouch for you.

That is just one idea I came up with. I am sure the market would come up with something even better.

I don't enter contracts to enforce jurisdiction over me by private entities. That would be foolhardy and idiotic in the supreme.. How does your gambit work then if I refuse to sign anything. You gonna force me?<snicker>.

Rev9

[Revolution9]

You and pretty much everyone else. Which is why people will enter into voluntary contracts. For normal day to day interactions, standardized contracts will be the norm.

At the same time, a tendency toward the standardization and unification of property and contract law would be set in motion. Protection contracts with standardized property and product descriptions would come into existence; and out of the steady cooperation between different insurers in mutual arbitration proceedings, a tendency toward the standardization and unification of the rules of procedure, evidence, and conflict resolution (including compensation, restitution, punishment, and retribution), and steadily increasing legal certainty would result. The Private Production of Defense

This doesn't mean that you have to sign a contract to buy a piece of bubble gum. I think what would happen is that insurance agencies who vouch for you would give you membership cards which would effectively say "person A has agreed to the standardized conditions under contract X", which you would present to people like a club membership card that could be electronically scanned etc. You could also tie this into credit cards. If you have a credit card from provider X, this means you agreed to the conditions set by them which would be their vouch for you.

That is just one idea I came up with. I am sure the market would come up with something even better.

So basically you would be setting up a government, although for the sake of your argument you will not call it that, but that is precisely what you recommend.

Rev9

[Cabal]

So I take it you decided not to read the preliminary literature provided for your educational benefit.

[Sam I am]

You and pretty much everyone else. Which is why people will enter into voluntary contracts. For normal day to day interactions, standardized contracts will be the norm.

At the same time, a tendency toward the standardization and unification of property and contract law would be set in motion. Protection contracts with standardized property and product descriptions would come into existence; and out of the steady cooperation between different insurers in mutual arbitration proceedings, a tendency toward the standardization and unification of the rules of procedure, evidence, and conflict resolution (including compensation, restitution, punishment, and retribution), and steadily increasing legal certainty would result. The Private Production of Defense

This doesn't mean that you have to sign a contract to buy a piece of bubble gum. I think what would happen is that insurance agencies who vouch for you would give you membership cards which would effectively say "person A has agreed to the standardized conditions under contract X", which you would present to people like a club membership card that could be electronically scanned etc. You could also tie this into credit cards. If you have a credit card from provider X, this means you agreed to the conditions set by them which would be their vouch for you.

That is just one idea I came up with. I am sure the market would come up with something even better.

Not all disputes involve contracts. Many disputes involving property damage(like say a vehicle collision) involve no contract between the two parties before the incident occurs.

Today, You have things like traffic lights, stop signs, and other procedures which not only reduce the number of car collisions, but they also define who's at fault when a collision does occur.

[Revolution9]

I. No one is going to hire or rent to someone who is not vouched for by a reputable agency.

BS. I have hired my friends and their pals a bunch of times and never did background checks or anything. I went by sense of smell as it were. For your system to work as even a thought experiment there are a great deal of mental gymnastics and misdirection and repurposing of words to mean something they don't, just to have an illusion of workability on the ground in reality..

Rev9