Ron Paul and Private Courts

[Cabal]

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.

http://www.fitroads.com/

[Travlyr]

It is clear that assassinations of citizens are not allowed by Amendment V & VI of the Constitution for the United States of America. The Constitution is the Supreme Law of the Land which means that lesser law which violate the supreme law is null and void of law. There are other natural rights guaranteed by the Bill of Rights.

It is also clear that our current ruling class of elite corporatist oligarchs ignore the Supreme Law of the Land with oppressive doctrines, such as, the Patriot Act, NDAA, The Federal Reserve Act, wars of aggression, and numerous other offenses. They have the most money, the most sophisticated military the world has ever known, and they are tyrants on our soil and around the world. How are we to stop them peacefully? Do you think they give a damn about estoppel?

We are trying to win peacefully by voting for legitimate government. Ron Paul, The Champion of the Constitution, and defender of liberty. Do you think they will let us vote them out of office when they don't even respect the current laws?

The law says we have a right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. The people, in charge, who do not respect the law say we don't have those rights.

Does anybody suppose that the rulers in charge today are going to peacefully acquiesce to demands of liberty, peace, and prosperity? Personally, I do not. I believe the people will have to use force to hunt them down, stop their shenanigans, and force them to obey the supreme laws of the land.

[Sam I am]

http://www.fitroads.com/

What does that have to do with who's at fault in an unexpected dispute?

[Wesker1982]

How does your gambit work then if I refuse to sign anything. You gonna force me?<snicker>.

Rev9

People would not make exchanges with you.

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

*YAWN*. You are either dense or trolling. Which is it? I have been clear many times that what we oppose is monopolized law that is funded through coercion.

So yeah. You are either totally dense, or trolling because what I described is not monopolistic and is non-coercive.

BS. I have hired my friends and their pals a bunch of times and never did background checks or anything.

Rev9

This is because people rely on the current system. In absence of the current system, the demand for peaceful interactions will not disappear.

I went by sense of smell as it were.

So you admit you don't even rely on the current system. Bravo.

[Sam I am]

It is clear that assassinations of citizens are not allowed by Amendment V & VI of the Constitution for the United States of America. The Constitution is the Supreme Law of the Land which means that lesser law which violate the supreme law is null and void of law. There are other natural rights guaranteed by the Bill of Rights.

It is also clear that our current ruling class of elite corporatist oligarchs ignore the Supreme Law of the Land with oppressive doctrines, such as, the Patriot Act, NDAA, The Federal Reserve Act, wars of aggression, and numerous other offenses. They have the most money, the most sophisticated military the world has ever known, and they are tyrants on our soil and around the world. How are we to stop them peacefully? Do you think they give a damn about estoppel?

We are trying to win peacefully by voting for legitimate government. Ron Paul, The Champion of the Constitution, and defender of liberty. Do you think they will let us vote them out of office when they don't even respect the current laws?

The law says we have a right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. The people, in charge, who do not respect the law say we don't have those rights.

Does anybody suppose that the rulers in charge today are going to peacefully acquiesce to demands of liberty, peace, and prosperity? Personally, I do not. I believe the people will have to use force to hunt them down, stop their shenanigans, and force them to obey the supreme laws of the land.

You say that as though you believe that all the major actors in government actually co-operate with each-other.

[Wesker1982]

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.

Right, but people will still have incentives to be insured. If you are insured then this means you already have agreed to certain conditions.

If you get into a collision with someone, you don't need a specific contract with them.

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.

This wouldn't change.

[Sam I am]

People would not make exchanges with you.



*YAWN*. You are either dense or trolling. Which is it? I have been clear many times that what we oppose is monopolized law that is funded through coercion.

So yeah. You are either totally dense, or trolling because what I described is not monopolistic and is non-coercive.



This is because people rely on the current system. In absence of the current system, the demand for peaceful interactions will not disappear.



So you admit you don't even rely on the current system. Bravo.

When you try to make your case for why your system isn't coercive, you conveniently forget about how your laws will be enforced.

When you try to make your case for how your system can enforce it's laws, you conveniently forget about how your system isn't supposed to be coercive.

[Travlyr]

You say that as though you believe that all the major actors in government actually co-operate with each-other.

Since they do not obey their oaths of office, then I do not view the current rulers as legitimate government. My point is that lawlessness is more tyrannical than forcing everyone to obey the Supreme Law.

[Wesker1982]

When you try to make your case for why your system isn't coercive, you conveniently forget about how your laws will be enforced.

It doesn't initiate coercion to fund itself. I thought you knew what I meant since I have told you before.

Using force to remove people from your property is how laws would be enforced.

[Wesker1982]

I guess you missed it, again:

I have been clear many times that what we oppose is monopolized law that is funded through coercion.

[Sam I am]

Right, but people will still have incentives to be insured. If you are insured then this means you already have agreed to certain conditions.
If you get into a collision with someone, you don't need a specific contract with them.

That's not a contract between the disputing parties, that's a contract between 2 parties on the same side of a dispute.

Not everybody buys Insurance anyway. It's not uncommon for people to believe "well it won't happen to me" how do you suggest disputes between uninsured people get settled.

[Cabal]

What does that have to do with who's at fault in an unexpected dispute?

It wasn't posted with regard to that particular question. Just sharing some interesting information.

Also, I'd point out that this discussion is beginning to tangent off into other areas which are primarily dependent on other topics; this is often what happens when you depart from principle and begin to argue specific hypothetical anecdote. As an example, we're starting to talk about traffic law, lack of insurance, and so on. Well this would require getting thoroughly into road privatization, and the economics behind insurance in its current state to fully discuss.

[Wesker1982]

That's not a contract between the disputing parties, that's a contract between 2 parties on the same side of a dispute.

You make a contract with your insurance, other people will make a contract with their insurance. These contracts will include provisions dealing with accidents. When an accident happens the insurance agencies will settle it.

Not everybody buys Insurance anyway. It's not uncommon for people to believe "well it won't happen to me" how do you suggest disputes between uninsured people get settled.

Road owners themselves would probably require drivers to be insured.


“What about someone who has no insurance?"

If an individual didn’t carry insurance, other people would have no guaranteed recourse should the individual damage or steal their property. Such an individual would therefore be viewed with suspicion, and people would be reluctant to deal with him except for single transactions involving small sums. He would probably be unable to get a full-time job, a bank loan, or a credit card. Many residential and commercial areas would probably require that all visitors carried valid policies before allowing them to even enter.

So we see that those without insurance would have their options, including their freedom of movement, greatly restricted. At the same time, the premiums for basic contract insurance, at least for people without a criminal history, would be quite low. So there wouldn’t be very many people walking around without this type of insurance. It’s true, some people would still commit crimes and would have no insurance company to pay damages, but such cases are going to occur under any legal system. http://mises.org/books/chaostheory.pdf

how do you suggest disputes between uninsured people get settled.

Arbitration. It would just be more inconvenient and probably more expensive.

[Sam I am]

It wasn't posted with regard to that particular question. Just sharing some interesting information.

Also, I'd point out that this discussion is beginning to tangent off into other areas which are primarily dependent on other topics; this is often what happens when you depart from principle and begin to argue specific hypothetical anecdote. As an example, we're starting to talk about traffic law, lack of insurance, and so on. Well this would require getting thoroughly into road privatization, and the economics behind insurance in its current state to fully discuss.

What the specific example is, is not important. What's important is how private (non-universal) courts would handle unexpected disputes, where there was no contract between the disputing parties, which is very much on topic.

[Sam I am]

You make a contract with your insurance, other people will make a contract with their insurance. These contracts will include provisions dealing with accidents. When an accident happens the insurance agencies will settle it.



Road owners themselves would probably require drivers to be insured.


“What about someone who has no insurance?"

If an individual didn’t carry insurance, other people would have no guaranteed recourse should the individual damage or steal their property. Such an individual would therefore be viewed with suspicion, and people would be reluctant to deal with him except for single transactions involving small sums. He would probably be unable to get a full-time job, a bank loan, or a credit card. Many residential and commercial areas would probably require that all visitors carried valid policies before allowing them to even enter.

So we see that those without insurance would have their options, including their freedom of movement, greatly restricted. At the same time, the premiums for basic contract insurance, at least for people without a criminal history, would be quite low. So there wouldn’t be very many people walking around without this type of insurance. It’s true, some people would still commit crimes and would have no insurance company to pay damages, but such cases are going to occur under any legal system. http://mises.org/books/chaostheory.pdf



Arbitration. It would just be more inconvenient and probably more expensive.

you're making an awfully large number of assumptions here.

You assume that competing and disputing insurance companies will do anything but hold on to their own money if the other demands money from them.

You're assuming that a significantly large majority of people will behave in exactly the way you expect.

You're assuming that everyone is always willing to go to arbitration, or it's even in their interest to go to arbitration, no matter how frivolous it is.

[Cabal]

I was referring to the different possible ways privatized roads and the free market would deal with such issues in congruity with privatized arbitration and dispute resolution; but this thread is more about arbitration, and more specifically Ron Paul's views on privatized arbitration.

[Wesker1982]

You're assuming that a significantly large majority of people will behave in exactly the way you expect.

Most people want to avoid conflict. And when conflict occurs, most people want to settle it peacefully. If you could disprove this, it would only be a strong argument against coercive monopolies.

You're assuming that everyone is always willing to go to arbitration, or it's even in their interest to go to arbitration, no matter how frivolous it is.

No. What I am saying is that people who refuse to take measures to avoid and peacefully settle conflicts will have more difficulty making exchanges, being hired, etc. They will have incentives to be insured.

[Sam I am]

Most people want to avoid conflict. And when conflict occurs, most people want to settle it peacefully. If you could disprove this, it would only be a strong argument against coercive monopolies.


No. What I am saying is that people who refuse to take measures to avoid and peacefully settle conflicts will have more difficulty making exchanges, being hired, etc. They will have incentives to be insured.

You propose the exact opposite of Murphy's law. "If it can go wrong... nah, it won't go wrong."

you depend on how other people will behave in order for your theory to stand. In reality, people rarely behave how you want or expect them to.

[otherone]

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.

The beauty of an 'anarchist collective' is that you are free to leave....

[Sam I am]

The beauty of an 'anarchist collective' is that you are free to leave....

You're free to leave the United States if you so desire. The hard part is getting some other nation to accept you as a citizen.

[otherone]

You're free to leave the United States if you so desire. The hard part is getting some other nation to accept you as a citizen.

That wasn't my point, but actually, it isn't free to renounce your citizenship...it costs $450.

[noneedtoaggress]

How would your private courts handle the mercantilists in charge today?

Funny, I think he meant, "How would Ron Paul's private courts handle the mercantilists in charge today?"

It is clear that assassinations of citizens are not allowed by Amendment V & VI of the Constitution for the United States of America. The Constitution is the Supreme Law of the Land which means that lesser law which violate the supreme law is null and void of law. There are other natural rights guaranteed by the Bill of Rights.

It is also clear that our current ruling class of elite corporatist oligarchs ignore the Supreme Law of the Land with oppressive doctrines, such as, the Patriot Act, NDAA, The Federal Reserve Act, wars of aggression, and numerous other offenses. They have the most money, the most sophisticated military the world has ever known, and they are tyrants on our soil and around the world. How are we to stop them peacefully? Do you think they give a damn about estoppel?

We are trying to win peacefully by voting for legitimate government. Ron Paul, The Champion of the Constitution, and defender of liberty. Do you think they will let us vote them out of office when they don't even respect the current laws?

The law says we have a right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. The people, in charge, who do not respect the law say we don't have those rights.

Does anybody suppose that the rulers in charge today are going to peacefully acquiesce to demands of liberty, peace, and prosperity? Personally, I do not. I believe the people will have to use force to hunt them down, stop their shenanigans, and force them to obey the supreme laws of the land.

And of course, again it turns into a rant about how the current monopolistic legal structure has failed us by perverting the law in favor of certain groups of people, which apparently somehow means private courts are a failure.

He also seems to be calling for violent revolution, which is about as surprising as it is a far cry from what Ron promotes (he even mentions "protest against the tax code and unconstitutional monetary system"), which is Civil Disobedience.

Ron: Well, I tell you what... I don't critisize Lysander....
but... and his point is very well taken.
Maybe someday we'll mature to that point.

"In reality, the Constitution itself is incapable of achieving what we would like in limiting government power, no matter how well written." Ron Paul, End the Fed

"Governments by their very nature, notoriously compete with liberty, even when the stated purpose for establishing a particular government is to protect liberty." - Ron Paul, Introduction to Liberty Defined

MHD: "What do you say to people who advocate for self-government rather than a return to the Constitution? Just like ..."

Ron Paul: "Great. Fine. And I think that's really what my goal is."

Of course, we'd gone over the whole constitutionalist part before, but he has his own personal "anti-anarchist" vendetta to push which he has admitted is not about honest discourse but about him seeing himself as Ron's guardian against association with voluntaryism.

[Sam I am]

That wasn't my point, but actually, it isn't free to renounce your citizenship...it costs $450.

You can relinquish your citizenship without formally renouncing it, and there are any number of things that you can do that can cause you to lose your citizenship, such as obtaining citizenship in a different Nation.


http://isaacbrocksociety.com/2011/12...ce-if-you-can/

[Wesker1982]

You propose the exact opposite of Murphy's law. "If it can go wrong... nah, it won't go wrong."

Strawman.

you depend on how other people will behave in order for your theory to stand.

In a profound sense, no social system, whether anarchist or statist, can work at all unless most people are "good" in the sense that they are not all hell-bent upon assaulting and robbing their neighbors. If everyone were so disposed, no amount of protection, whether state or private, could succeed in staving off chaos. - Murray Rothbard

All of your objections apply to Statism, except even more so.

[Travlyr]

Funny, I think he meant, "How would Ron Paul's private courts handle the mercantilists in charge today?"



And of course, again it turns into a rant about how the current monopolistic legal structure has failed us by perverting the law in favor of certain groups of people, which apparently somehow means private courts are a failure.

He also seems to be calling for violent revolution, which is about as surprising as it is a far cry from what Ron promotes (he even mentions "protest against the tax code and unconstitutional monetary system"), which is Civil Disobedience.

What is your problem? Quit replying to my posts. That post was for reasonable people to answer. Just put me on ignore. My question was an honest question that no one has tried to answer, yet.

"How would private courts handle the situation we find ourselves in today?"

You don't know how to read. I never called for violent revolution, and it is out of line for you to make that claim. The point I was making was that when an aggressor has multiple nuclear weapons, then people who adopt the NAP are very unlikely to beat them. People who base their society on the NAP will always succumb to powerful people with weapons who take their freedoms.

[Wesker1982]

Trav,

What are you talking about?

[Wesker1982]

Oh, look... we have been here already with Sam

In a world where some people are good to each-other, and others are mostly selfish, and when sometimes, even the good people will have disputes between each-other, the good people will group up and they will force out the bad.

No one is denying this. What we maintain is that it is dangerous to have one single supplier of defense (and immoral since funded through violence), for if the single supplier becomes corrupt, it is more difficult to resist them. What you are saying here is a good reason to advocate non-monopolistic law (polycentric law, etc).

Oh, wow, instead of responding to that you gave up and changed the subject in that thread.

Trying to troll this thread into another 30 pages?

lol wow, page 30 and you are still stuck on how defense agencies would get along? That has been addressed and solved pages ago ITT, and decades ago by various people.

Since you have no response to their reply and replies ITT, and keep ignoring them, it is pretty obvious you are trollin'.

[Sam I am]

In a profound sense, no social system, whether anarchist or statist, can work at all unless most people are "good" in the sense that they are not all hell-bent upon assaulting and robbing their neighbors. If everyone were so disposed, no amount of protection, whether state or private, could succeed in staving off chaos. - Murray Rothbard

Just because a person behaves in a way that you don't necessarily agree with doesn't make them not "good".

Is a person who doesn't bother to vet every single stranger whom they do business with not "good"?
Is a person who forgives others for their past misdeeds, or merely overlooks the misdeeds of others, not "good"?

All of your objections apply to Statism, except even more so.

I'm not saying that your model is worse than statism. I'm saying that your model IS statism.

[noneedtoaggress]

What is your problem? Quit replying to my posts. That post was for reasonable people to answer. Just put me on ignore. My question was an honest question that no one has tried to answer, yet.

"How would private courts handle the situation we find ourselves in today?"

You don't know how to read. I never called for violent revolution, and it is out of line for you to make that claim. The point I was making was that when an aggressor has multiple nuclear weapons, then people who adopt the NAP are very unlikely to beat them. People who base their society on the NAP will always succumb to powerful people with weapons who take their freedoms.

Hmmm...

We are trying to win peacefully by voting for legitimate government. Ron Paul, The Champion of the Constitution, and defender of liberty. Do you think they will let us vote them out of office when they don't even respect the current laws?

The law says we have a right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. The people, in charge, who do not respect the law say we don't have those rights.

Does anybody suppose that the rulers in charge today are going to peacefully acquiesce to demands of liberty, peace, and prosperity? Personally, I do not. I believe the people will have to use force to hunt them down, stop their shenanigans, and force them to obey the supreme laws of the land.

Sure sounds like the recipe for a New Constitutionalist coup d'etat to me.


Also:

[Travlyr]

Hmmm...
Sure sounds like a New Constitutionalist coup d'etat to me.

That's because you're not all that bright.

The current government is not obeying the constitution. Like Ron Paul says, "Obey the US Constitution." That's what I'm sayin.