Page 11 of 25 FirstFirst ... 91011121321 ... LastLast
Results 301 to 330 of 733

Thread: Should Libertarians support anarcho-capitalism?

  1. #301
    Quote Originally Posted by Natural Citizen View Post
    Wait, you lost me here. Granted, the State is not the true authority, but you're saying that you reject the idea that government is a legitimate instrument of the sovereign people? If that's your position, then I must ask what is your thought on Rom 13?
    No, that's not what I'm saying. Unlike some here, I'm not anti-government, I'm just anti-corrupt government. And as you know, our government right now is more corrupt than most people realize. I meant I'm not opposed to the idea of a society without government… As I pointed out in my previous post, it doesn't mean that there is no authority whatsoever, it just goes to private companies instead of the State.

    I shouldn't have said "I'm all for it." I guess what I meant was I wouldn't be opposed to trying it, because how much worse could it be than what we have now? That said, I also realize it is completely unrealistic, it's never going to happen.
    “I have no doubt that it is a part of the destiny of the human race, in its gradual improvement, to leave off eating animals, as surely as the savage tribes have left off eating each other.”

    ― Henry David Thoreau



  2. Remove this section of ads by registering.
  3. #302
    Quote Originally Posted by lilymc View Post
    No, that's not what I'm saying. Unlike some here, I'm not anti-government, I'm just anti-corrupt government. And as you know, our government right now is more corrupt than most people realize. I meant I'm not opposed to the idea of a society without government… As I pointed out in my previous post, it doesn't mean that there is no authority whatsoever, it just goes to private companies instead of the State.

    I shouldn't have said "I'm all for it." I guess what I meant was I wouldn't be opposed to trying it, because how much worse could it be than what we have now? That said, I also realize it is completely unrealistic, it's never going to happen.
    Okay. Hm. Then, how do I limit the just powers of a corportion from violating my rights? What means do I have? Is a private corporation obligated to protect my Individual rights? If so, then, why? If not, then, why not?

    Additionally, can a private corporation repent? What moral duty does a private corporation have to protect my rights? Does a private corporation have a moral duty to adhere to God's Law? The Natural Law? If so, then, how so? If not, then, why not? As you may know, what is legal is seldom Lawful. Do you know what I mean when I say this?
    Last edited by Natural Citizen; 10-15-2017 at 03:59 PM.

  4. #303
    Quote Originally Posted by Natural Citizen View Post
    Very good, lil.

    Any authority is a hierarchy. So to that extent one must either redefine freedom or redefine a hierarchy.

    Hierarchy=State.

    Hierarchy=Classes

    With hierarchy, consent is limited.

    And thank you for clarifying the historical definition of anarchy.

    Too often, people want to change definitions to suit their whims. Or change change the words around and add an ism to it to create a different way they want it to be defined according to their own indulgences.

    And you're right. Rights come from God. They are not arbitrated by worldly entities.

    The very fact that it is said that worldly entities are the arbitrators of one's rights should signal the want for a tyrannical rule like we have never witnessed. Traditionally, these are people whom are overly full of their own self-importance. The are people who define moral code by their worldly whim and not by the Natural Law.
    Thanks. I missed this post before. And yeah, I think that is what happened… people have changed the definition of anarchy, and there are different varieties of it. And that is what I wanted to get clarified, because as you know I usually don't even read these anarchy threads let alone post on them.
    “I have no doubt that it is a part of the destiny of the human race, in its gradual improvement, to leave off eating animals, as surely as the savage tribes have left off eating each other.”

    ― Henry David Thoreau

  5. #304
    And you didn't answer my question on your thought on Rom 13, lil.



  6. Remove this section of ads by registering.
  7. #305
    Quote Originally Posted by Natural Citizen View Post
    Okay. Hm. Then, how do I limit the just powers of a corportion from violating my rights? What means do I have?

    Additionally, can a private corporation repent? What moral duty does a private corporation have to protect my rights? Does a private corporation have a moral duty to adhere to God's Law? The Natural Law? If so, then, how so? If not, then, why not? As you may know, what is legal is seldom Lawful. Do you know what I mean when I say this?
    Good questions, and I'd be interested in hearing what the anarchists here have to say about this. Especially those who believe in God.
    “I have no doubt that it is a part of the destiny of the human race, in its gradual improvement, to leave off eating animals, as surely as the savage tribes have left off eating each other.”

    ― Henry David Thoreau

  8. #306
    Quote Originally Posted by lilymc View Post
    Good questions, and I'd be interested in hearing what the anarchists here have to say about this. Especially those who believe in God.
    Me, too. But since you agee with them and you're here, I was wondering what you had to say about it. If you feel so led to offer your justification. Is a private corporation obligated to protect my Individual, God-given, rights? If so, then, why? If not, then, why not?

    Thanks
    Last edited by Natural Citizen; 10-15-2017 at 04:03 PM.

  9. #307
    Quote Originally Posted by Natural Citizen View Post
    And you didn't answer my question on your thought on Rom 13, lil.
    What about it in particular? I do believe we are supposed to obey the law, and authorities, but not if they contradict divine law.

    In other words, if it comes down to choosing between man-made laws and God's law, as a believer I put God's law first.

    Or were you asking something else in regard to the Romans 13?
    “I have no doubt that it is a part of the destiny of the human race, in its gradual improvement, to leave off eating animals, as surely as the savage tribes have left off eating each other.”

    ― Henry David Thoreau

  10. #308
    Quote Originally Posted by lilymc View Post
    What about it in particular? I do believe we are supposed to obey the law, and authorities, but not if they contradict divine law.

    In other words, if it comes down to choosing between man-made laws and God's law, as a believer I put God's law first.

    Or were you asking something else in regard to the Romans 13?
    Well, wait a minute. Since when is your right to offer or decline consent secured under a stateless society? The private entity has no moral duty to protect your right so what makes you think you have the right to decline? You're a customer. Nothing else. No only that, but they, as property owners, decide your rights.

    Ask them and see what they tell you.

  11. #309
    Quote Originally Posted by Natural Citizen View Post
    You act worldly. And you act religious. Are you challenging me to prove it, HB? Say you are. Do it.

    And you didn't answer my question.

    You reject the constitution, the founders, the very nature of the founding of our great nation, right? I'll cut you a break on the declaration, butI'm not too sure about that in its entirety. I'm, sure you find fault in it as well.

    So, am I right, HB? You reject these people and things, right? Answer my question, please, so that we may discover your interest in the thread.
    I reject the constitution, some of the founders, and WRT "the very nature of the founding of our great nation"-depends on how you define that. If you actually read the founders you'd know they all had differing opinions on pretty much everything.
    Quote Originally Posted by Torchbearer
    what works can never be discussed online. there is only one language the government understands, and until the people start speaking it by the magazine full... things will remain the same.
    Hear/buy my music here "government is the enemy of liberty"-RP Support me on Patreon here Ephesians 6:12

  12. #310
    Quote Originally Posted by heavenlyboy34 View Post
    I reject the constitution, some of the founders, and WRT "the very nature of the founding of our great nation"-depends on how you define that. If you actually read the founders you'd know they all had differing opinions on pretty much everything.
    Yes, I know. I just wanted to see you admit to it so that we know your stake in this debate.

    Thank You.

  13. #311
    Quote Originally Posted by Natural Citizen View Post
    Me, too. But since you agee with them and you're here, I was wondering what you had to say about it. If you feel so led to offer your justification. Is a private corporation obligated to protect my Individual, God-given, rights? If so, then, why? If not, then, why not?

    Thanks
    First, I don't agree with them. Again, what I meant was that I wouldn't be opposed to trying that, simply because what we have now is completely corrupt and getting worse as time goes on.

    That said, you do bring up a very good point. No, a private corporation is not obligated to protect our inalienable God-given rights. I guess it's possible that the public would support an "arbitration group" that does recognize natural law and the idea that our rights are inalienable. As a son of liberty put it, the good groups would "rise to the top." But, if the people do not understand the true nature of our rights, then that's a different story.

    Again, I want to hear what the anarchists here have to say about that.


    Quote Originally Posted by Natural Citizen View Post
    Well, wait a minute. Since when is your right to offer or decline consent secured under a stateless society? The private entity has no moral duty to protect your right so what makes you think you have the right to decline? You're a customer. Nothing else. No only that, but they, as property owners, decide your rights.

    Ask them and see what they tell you.
    I get what you're saying, but I'm just saying that I will always put God first, in the event that it comes down to choosing an unjust man-made law or divine law.
    “I have no doubt that it is a part of the destiny of the human race, in its gradual improvement, to leave off eating animals, as surely as the savage tribes have left off eating each other.”

    ― Henry David Thoreau

  14. #312
    Supporting Member
    North Korea



    Blog Entries
    2
    Posts
    2,919
    Join Date
    Nov 2016
    Bid thy cousin/ sus domesticus/ friends with benefits the kais'r himself hath said good morrow. Tis fine Cletus Billy Bob Jr. The 3rd? Tis fine. Thee big loveable inbr'd hill of lard thou. F'r thou hast gone out of the way to stalk mine own threads and be'est an insuff'rable fudgepack'r who doth have no life.

    Last edited by Lamp; 10-15-2017 at 04:41 PM.



  15. Remove this section of ads by registering.
  16. #313
    Quote Originally Posted by Natural Citizen View Post
    Yes, I know. I just wanted to see you admit to it so that we know your stake in this debate.

    Thank You.
    y/w Patrick Henry, et al have my back on this one too, bro.
    Quote Originally Posted by Torchbearer
    what works can never be discussed online. there is only one language the government understands, and until the people start speaking it by the magazine full... things will remain the same.
    Hear/buy my music here "government is the enemy of liberty"-RP Support me on Patreon here Ephesians 6:12

  17. #314
    Quote Originally Posted by lilymc View Post

    Again, I want to hear what the anarchists here have to say about that.

    They're not anarchists.

    Anarchists reject coercion. Anarchists reject private property rights. Anarchists reject capitalism.

  18. #315
    Quote Originally Posted by Natural Citizen View Post
    They're not anarchists.

    Anarchists reject coercion. Anarchists reject private property rights. Anarchists reject capitalism.
    Not to change the topic and open up a whole new can of worms, but another contradiction that I see is people who claim to be against "might makes right" yet daily support slaughtering innocent, vulnerable animals simply because they want to satisfy their tastebuds.

    Unless it's necessary, I think that's a clear-cut example of "might makes right."


    *Puts on flame suit*
    “I have no doubt that it is a part of the destiny of the human race, in its gradual improvement, to leave off eating animals, as surely as the savage tribes have left off eating each other.”

    ― Henry David Thoreau

  19. #316
    Quote Originally Posted by lilymc View Post
    Not to change the topic and open up a whole new can of worms, but another contradiction that I see is people who claim to be against "might makes right" yet daily support slaughtering innocent, vulnerable animals simply because they want to satisfy their tastebuds.

    Unless it's necessary, I think that's a clear-cut example of "might makes right."


    *Puts on flame suit*
    Well. it's interesting to note that our confused friends who think they're anarchists tend to try to separate the means from the end, now isn't it?

    It's very convenient to try to run with the principles and ditch the primary foundation for moral code that defines said principles, isnt it?

    All on has to do is reject God as the giver of rights and deem oneself his own foundation for moral code.

    Of course, this is how we've ended up with people like Hitler throughout history.

    Then, again, Hitler was destroyed. As was his government.

    Really, this is the main thing to worry about when peope want to play cowboy. The biggest fear is another government who doesn't agree with you. They will come with guns, gernades, tanks, soldiers, drones and bubble gum and they will mop the streets with the blood of those whom they disagree with.
    Last edited by Natural Citizen; 10-15-2017 at 05:39 PM.

  20. #317
    Quote Originally Posted by Natural Citizen View Post
    Well. it's interesting to note that our confused friends who think they're anarchists tend to try to separate the means from the end, now isn't it?

    It's very convenient to try to run with the principles and ditch the primary foundation for moral code that defines said principles, isnt it?

    All on has to do is reject God as the giver of rights and deem oneself his own foundation for moral code.

    Of course, this is how we've ended up with people like Hitler throughout history.

    Then, again, Hitler was destroyed. As was his government.

    Really, this is the main thing to worry about when peope want to play cowboy. The biggest fear is another government who doesn't agree with you. They will come with guns, gernades, tanks, soldiers, drones and bubble gum and they will mop the streets with the blood of those whom they disagree with.
    Meh, statists are the ones who have rejected God from the beginning. 1 Kings 8:6. They continue to do so as they make the Godless secular State master of their lives.
    Last edited by heavenlyboy34; 10-15-2017 at 05:54 PM.
    Quote Originally Posted by Torchbearer
    what works can never be discussed online. there is only one language the government understands, and until the people start speaking it by the magazine full... things will remain the same.
    Hear/buy my music here "government is the enemy of liberty"-RP Support me on Patreon here Ephesians 6:12

  21. #318
    Quote Originally Posted by heavenlyboy34 View Post
    Meh, statists are the ones who have rejected God from the beginning. 1 Kings 8:6
    Exactly. Thank You.

  22. #319
    Anyway. This thread is boring now. And you people are pretty much defeated since you haven't offered any reason why coercion cannot exist in an anarcho-capitalist society.

    End of the day, it's simple. If I, as an anarchist, do not pay you for your services, what are you going to do about it? Hm? What. Nothing? Ha. If you do nothing to coerce me into paying, then, I have no motivation to pay and your society crumbles under its own weight. Capitalism cannot work without a coercive act to secure payment for services whether it be private court or threat of a private bullet. Either way, it's coercion.

    The only thing you guys have demostrated is distaste for another government cutting into your share of the turf.
    Last edited by Natural Citizen; 10-15-2017 at 06:53 PM.

  23. #320
    Quote Originally Posted by heavenlyboy34 View Post
    Meh, statists are the ones who have rejected God from the beginning. 1 Kings 8:6
    Very true, but I think he's saying that if one rejects the foundation for our rights, then ultimately anything goes. You may not have a State, but you will have something that's just as bad as the State, if people disregard the true nature of our rights or believe that morals are subjective.
    “I have no doubt that it is a part of the destiny of the human race, in its gradual improvement, to leave off eating animals, as surely as the savage tribes have left off eating each other.”

    ― Henry David Thoreau



  24. Remove this section of ads by registering.
  25. #321
    Quote Originally Posted by lilymc View Post
    Very true, but I think he's saying that if one rejects the foundation for our rights, then ultimately anything goes.
    Precisely. Thanks, lily.


    You may not have a State, but you will have something that's just as bad as the State, if people disregard the true nature of our rights or believe that morals are subjective.

    Correct. A coercive factor is unavoidable in any society because any ideal, if it's to be made applicable must be secured. Period.

    If they can admit that, then, this conversation is over.
    Last edited by Natural Citizen; 10-15-2017 at 06:34 PM.

  26. #322
    Quote Originally Posted by Natural Citizen View Post
    Precisely. Thanks, lily.





    Correct. A coercive factor is unavoidable in any society because any ideal, if it's to be made applicable must be secured. Period.

    If they can admit that, then, this conversation is over
    .
    We've all (at least I and most other noteworthy anarchists and voluntaryists) not only admitted that long ago, we've expressed great interest in and spilled voluminous ink about means of private security and defense. ~hugs~
    Quote Originally Posted by Torchbearer
    what works can never be discussed online. there is only one language the government understands, and until the people start speaking it by the magazine full... things will remain the same.
    Hear/buy my music here "government is the enemy of liberty"-RP Support me on Patreon here Ephesians 6:12

  27. #323
    Quote Originally Posted by heavenlyboy34 View Post
    We've all (at least I and most other noteworthy anarchists and voluntaryists) not only admitted that long ago, we've expressed great interest in and spilled voluminous ink about means of private security and defense. ~hugs~
    Okay. Great. Can I opt out and start my own private mercenaries and my own private courts? Getting back to equality in legal justice versus equality by God's gift in sight of Law here. I'll await your reponse.

    In other words, going by your model, can I say, nope, fk you, I don't agree with your legality and I don't consent to your private police or your private court's thought on the matter, so I'm going to hire my own court to provide legal justification for me to send my mercenaries over to your house to police you instead?

    Am I allowed to do that by your model? It seems to me that if you're allowed to have a private army and a private court to enforce your whim, then, surely, so may I. Right?

    Additionally, what stake does your private police and your private court have in appeasing your will? What do they have to gain? Are they voluntarily policing your will or do you pay them for a send men with guns service? Do they send you a bill? If so, who pays the bill? Do they work for hugs? What.
    Last edited by Natural Citizen; 10-15-2017 at 07:48 PM.

  28. #324
    Quote Originally Posted by Natural Citizen View Post
    Okay. Great. Can I opt out and start my own private mercenaries and my own private courts? Getting back to equality in legal justice versus equality by God's gift in sight of Law here. I'll await your reponse.

    In other words, going by your model, can I say, nope, fk you, I don't agree with your legality and I don't consent to your private police or your private court, so I'm going to hire my own court to provide legal justification for me to send my mercenaries over to your mercenaries house to police them?

    Am I allowed to do that by your model, right? It seems to me that if you're allowed to have a private army and a private court to enforce your whim, then, surely, so may I. Right?

    Additionally, what stake does your private police and your private court have in appeasing your will? What do they have to gain? Are they voluntarily policing your will or do you pay them for a send men with guns service? Do they send you a bill? If so, who pays the bill? Do they work for hugs? What?
    Quote Originally Posted by Torchbearer
    what works can never be discussed online. there is only one language the government understands, and until the people start speaking it by the magazine full... things will remain the same.
    Hear/buy my music here "government is the enemy of liberty"-RP Support me on Patreon here Ephesians 6:12

  29. #325
    08/03/2005Robert P. MurphyIn a recent article, I discussed the possibility of private, competing security agencies. I took for granted the background rule of law (or lack thereof), and merely made the relative argument that a monopoly institution of violence (i.e. the State) would not aid the achievement of a working consensus on legal norms, and that in fact (as history shows) government-controlled societies are certainly susceptible to civil war. In the present piece, I will elaborate on how law itself could be efficiently and equitably produced in a private setting.
    PRIVATE JUDGES

    Whether society is in anarchy or under the domination of a State apparatus, individuals will always have disputes. Although most arguments are settled between the parties themselves, some disagreements are too serious for such resolution. In such cases, the disputants (in anarchy) can turn to a judge, who is simply a person who agrees to render an opinion on their dispute. Although many anarchist theorists link private judges with enforcement agencies in their expositions, we should keep in mind that the two are conceptually distinct. In its essence, a private judicial ruling is just that—one person’s opinion as to who is right, and what he or she is owed, in a given dispute.
    One major difference between private and State judges is that the former only entertain cases when both parties submit to the “jurisdiction” of the judge. (In contrast, one or both parties in a State court case may strongly object to the judge and/or jury who will decide the issue.) Cynics of private law may consider this proposal as ridiculous—the very idea that a rapist or bank robber would agree to plead his case before a third party, ha!
    However, this glib dismissal overlooks the fact that most disputes in modern commercial society are not between an “obvious” innocent and an “obvious” malefactor. Rather, it is often the case that both parties to a dispute genuinely believe themselves to be in the right, and would be happy to make their cases in front of a disinterested third party.
    Another consideration is that, without the government monopoly and selection of judges based on political pull and demagogic appeal, a crop of professional judges would arise who were, well, quite judicious. (Any unmarried female judges would quite truly be the fairest maidens in the land.) When reading their previous opinions on cases in which they had expertise, people would recognize their excellence, and say, “Wow, that was a great ruling! When I first heard the evidence, I thought the plaintiff was right, but after Judge Barnett explained it with his analogies, the defendant is obviously not guilty.”
    In anarchy, people would demand judicial services for all the reasons that people desire law itself: They would want to satisfy their desire for abstract justice, but they would also want to foster predictable business relationships, as well as enjoy a good reputation among their neighbors.
    Let’s consider a concrete example. Suppose Mark Johnson owns a store and he breaks the arm of Gary Owens, a customer. Owens proceeds to tell all his friends (and anyone else who will listen) that he was minding his own business when Johnson attacked him. Now in the standard view (and even to some extent that promoted by anarcho-capitalist writers), unless Owens belongs to a protection agency himself, he has no recourse.
    But this is simply not true. It is bad for business if Owens runs around telling people he was brutally attacked, and if Johnson does nothing to rebut these charges. If people give any validity to Owens’ story, they will shop elsewhere. Even beyond the pecuniary aspects, if Johnson is at all a normal human being, he will feel uncomfortable at social events if people are whispering about the tale behind his back.
    Consequently, Johnson will publicly invite Owens to bring his charges to any reputable judge who specializes in such cases. Now if Owens comes back and recommends that they take the case to his brother, Johnson will object that such a trial would be biased. But if Owens suggests several possible judges, all of whom are unrelated to the disputants and specialize in commercial theft and excessive force, and still Johnson refuses, then the community will give more credence to Owens’ claims of brutality. The point is that within a private legal system, there would be dozens of fair judges from which to choose; there would be no question on two honest disputants settling on one of them, and hence failure to do so would be interpreted as a sign of dishonesty.
    EVIDENTIARY RULES, PRECEDENT, ETC.

    Now once two parties (Johnson and Owens, in our example) agreed on a judge, he or she would presumably hear testimony, admit physical evidence, etc. according to rules and procedures that were designed to best promote the appearance of fairness and objectivity. After all, the one crucial asset a private judge would have is his or her reputation for unbiased rulings. In our fictitious case, Owens would probably be allowed to present medical records from the date of the alleged attack, while Johnson would submit the surveillance tapes if he had footage of Owens pocketing merchandise and then resisting when confronted.
    When making his final decision, the judge would probably rely on precedent. He would probably say, “In other cases like this one, judges have found the store owner culpable of excessive force whenever…” and so on. We should realize that this reliance on precedent is not necessarily due to an abstract conception of ideal law, but also the result of the incentives faced by the judge. He wants future customers to bring cases before him, and they will be more likely to do so if his prior rulings are based on some type of judicial principles and are consistent with “reasonable” rulings made by other judges.
    To see this point, imagine a ridiculous scenario. Suppose after hearing the evidence from both sides, the judge ponders for a moment and then announces, “I find in favor of the plaintiff, Mr. Gary Owens. Because of the unwarranted force used by the owner, I hereby declare that justice will be served only when Mr. Mark Johnson gives three hickeys to the plaintiff.” After such a ruling, this judge would likely go out of business.
    APPEAL

    Instead of the above ruling that would benefit neither party, suppose instead that the judge had ruled that Johnson owed Owens 50,000 ounces of gold. Johnson would surely object that this was ridiculous, and would refuse to comply. He would then appeal the ruling and demand that he and Owens bring the case before a different judge, who would “overturn” the prior ruling.
    The incentives here would be similar to the situation that led to the first trial. Depending on how absurd the first ruling, the community would be more or less understanding of Johnson’s refusal to submit to the decision (even though he had agreed to do so beforehand). But once a judge had rendered a quite “reasonable” ruling, even if it had gone against Johnson, the store owner would eventually submit in order to put the issue behind him and get back to his business. As with someone who refused to go to trial at all, someone who continually appealed, especially after multiple rulings that were totally consistent with the prevailing legal norms, would be viewed with suspicion.
    REFINEMENTS

    The above examples serve to illustrate the fundamental basis of private law: individuals have disputes and want an expert, third party to render an opinion. Over time, of course, the free market would develop institutional refinements of this basic service.
    Most obvious, people could arrange beforehand on the judge (or arbitrator) to be used in the event of a dispute. (For example, this could be specified in every contract, whether hiring an employee or renting an apartment.) The legal codes to be applied, the number of permissible appeals, etc. could all be specified beforehand, making it all the more suspicious if one of the parties violated these provisions after hearing the decision of the judge.
    The other likely refinement would be the involvement of guarantors, or agencies that would vouch for individuals in the event that they were assessed large fines. Just as insurance companies presently pay catastrophic damages committed by their clients, so too would such agencies pay the fines if one of their clients were convicted, say, of bank robbery. In modern societies banks, large employers, real estate agents, etc. would all probably insist on dealing only with individuals who were represented by reputable agencies vouching for them.
    OBJECTIONS

    One major objection to such a system is that there wouldn’t be one uniform set of laws applicable to everyone. So what? If orthodox Jews want to have a rabbi apply the Mosaic Law to their disputes, while atheist libertarians want Stephan Kinsella to apply The Ethics of Liberty to their disputes, why shouldn’t they be allowed to do this? Yes, “bad laws” might be produced under anarchy, but people would not be subjected to them, or at least not nearly to the extent that they are forced to submit to bad government legislation. (In the same way, bad books will be produced under anarchy, but no one would be forced to read them.) In any event, under the government right now, there isn’t a uniform set of laws applied to everyone, so this objection is silly on its face.
    Another common objection is that the rich could purchase rulings in a private court system. Again, this overlooks the rampant corruption in government courts. At least on the open market, future disputants could avoid judges accused of accepting bribes in the past. In contrast, under the State the only recourse against a corrupt judge is to hope that the voters remember (and care) and vote him or her out, or that the politicians appoint someone else.
    Another typical concern is that my proposed system would work for “rational” people, but not for violent criminals. In an article such as this, I can only say that every action in a free society would be subject to the judicial process as I’ve described. I specifically constructed the example to include the use of force (rather than reneging on a debt contract, say) to illustrate the principles involved. Had Johnson hired a private security firm whose employees broke Owens’ arm, the situation would not be essentially altered. (Of course, Johnson would do well to patronize only reputable security firms that had a reputation for restraint when dealing with shoplifters.) This concern is related to the role (if any) of prisons in a free society, and here I do not have the space to deal with this fascinating subject (though I do so in my book ).
    Finally, there is the allegation that I am somehow advocating legal positivism, i.e. that I am claiming any “law” that passes the profit-and-loss test is a good one. Nothing could be further from the truth; my ethical beliefs are informed by my Christian faith, and I am a firm believer in natural law. But in this article, I am describing not the content of the legal code(s) that would arise in a free market society, but rather the forces influencing their evolution.1 For those Randians who are tempted to email me and claim that there is one objective set of laws that any intelligent thinker can discover through ratiocination, I merely respond: Even if this were true, no government in history has yet achieved what you desire.2 Perhaps it is time to consider a different approach?
    CONCLUSION

    In closing, let me point out two real world examples of “private law” in action. First, there is the burgeoning arbitration industry. Just as millions of people opt for market-produced bottled water, despite the “free” government alternative, so too do millions of people resolve their disputes through private arbitration.
    For another obvious example, consider the umpires and referees in professional sports. Despite the clichés, these “judges” have to be generally unbiased, because the owners of teams know that customers would stop watching games if they were rigged. Although die hard sports fans may still bitterly lament the horrible call back in 1978 (say) that cost their team victory, that’s just the point—you have to go back decades for most teams to remember such a travesty! And if anyone claimed that his football team had a losing record last season because of bad refs, everyone would know the guy was being absurd. Especially when it’s not their own team at stake, sports fans know and trust the integrity of their “judicial system.”
    To argue for a private legal system is really just to argue against a government-imposed monopoly. In every other sector, the coercive approach fails, and there is nothing unique about law to change that conclusion.
    https://mises.org/library/possibility-private-law
    Quote Originally Posted by Torchbearer
    what works can never be discussed online. there is only one language the government understands, and until the people start speaking it by the magazine full... things will remain the same.
    Hear/buy my music here "government is the enemy of liberty"-RP Support me on Patreon here Ephesians 6:12

  30. #326
    Quote Originally Posted by heavenlyboy34 View Post
    ...
    I didn't ask you for a youtube video. I asked you to to speak for yourself. Do it.

    Can I opt out and hire my own private men with guns and my own court to compete with your private men with guns and your private court?

    Yes or no. It's a simple question.

  31. #327
    Quote Originally Posted by heavenlyboy34 View Post
    I'm not reading your unformatted wall of text of somebody elses spew. Speak for yourself, son. I'm asking you, HB, a question. And a very fair question.

    Can I opt out and hire my own private men with guns and my own court to compete with your private men with guns and your private court?

    Yes or no. It's a simple question. Be a man and speak for yourself.

    Can I?
    Last edited by Natural Citizen; 10-15-2017 at 07:55 PM.

  32. #328
    Quote Originally Posted by Natural Citizen View Post
    I didn't ask you for a youtube video. I asked you to to speak for yourself. Do it.

    Can I opt out and hire my own private men with guns and my own court to compete with your private men with guns and your private court?

    Yes or no. It's a simple question.
    It's the wrong question because it has nothing to do with how private courts work. You can have your own agency if you want, but if you and I don't contractually agree to be bound by said agency, your agency has no authority WRT me.
    Quote Originally Posted by Torchbearer
    what works can never be discussed online. there is only one language the government understands, and until the people start speaking it by the magazine full... things will remain the same.
    Hear/buy my music here "government is the enemy of liberty"-RP Support me on Patreon here Ephesians 6:12



  33. Remove this section of ads by registering.
  34. #329
    Quote Originally Posted by Natural Citizen View Post
    I'm not reading your unformatted wall of text of somebody elses spew. Speak for yourself, son. I'm asking you, HB, a question. And a very fair question.

    Can I opt out and hire my own private men with guns and my own court to compete with your private men with guns and your private court?

    Yes or no. It's a simple question. Be a man and speak for yourself.

    Can I?
    I'm trying to help enlighten you so you don't have to ask questions that have already been answered a million times, son. Be a man and study $#@! for yourself.
    Quote Originally Posted by Torchbearer
    what works can never be discussed online. there is only one language the government understands, and until the people start speaking it by the magazine full... things will remain the same.
    Hear/buy my music here "government is the enemy of liberty"-RP Support me on Patreon here Ephesians 6:12

  35. #330
    Quote Originally Posted by heavenlyboy34 View Post
    I'm trying to help enlighten you so you don't have to ask questions that have already been answered a million times, son. Be a man and study $#@! for yourself.
    I have. Likely far more than you and anyone else in this thread. Which is precisely why I asked you the question.

    Are you going to answer it or continue to run from it like a chicken dick?

    Can I opt out and hire my own private men with guns and my own court to compete with your private men with guns and your private court?

    Yes or no. It's a simple question.

    Can I.

    I want your words, HB.

Page 11 of 25 FirstFirst ... 91011121321 ... LastLast


Similar Threads

  1. What’s Anarcho-Capitalism?
    By Suzanimal in forum Political Philosophy & Government Policy
    Replies: 18
    Last Post: 03-14-2015, 09:56 AM
  2. Anarcho-capitalism vs Free Market Anti-Capitalism
    By awake in forum Political Philosophy & Government Policy
    Replies: 84
    Last Post: 05-13-2010, 04:12 PM
  3. Anarcho-capitalism?
    By Che in forum Economy & Markets
    Replies: 34
    Last Post: 06-21-2009, 10:50 PM
  4. Anarcho-Capitalism
    By LibertiORDeth in forum Grassroots Central
    Replies: 31
    Last Post: 10-01-2008, 05:05 AM
  5. Anarcho-Capitalism
    By Fox McCloud in forum U.S. Political News
    Replies: 3
    Last Post: 02-20-2008, 08:23 PM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •