Anarchocapitalism
Offline Guruite's post:
Agorists are anarchocapitalists who believe modern-day black markets serve as free markets so they deal drugs and eventually people will prefer free markets, which eventually leads to government being helpless and unable to stop counter-economics, and then government comes down (Or becomes voluntary).
I don't exactly see or agree with your logic. I mean, the government is good, to an extent. I would think that we just need a little island for people who are fully anarchist to go live like moose (because any form of social interaction makes a hierarchy (which would then be the form of government))
Dealing drugs is illegal, as such it will not do much to persuade public opinion (I don't listen to the rantings of serial killers because they are serial killers and it is against the law (and immoral... which is what most of americans see drugs as))
As my friend has called himself an anarchocapililist, but he had diffrent ideas please define your position a little more to me. Do you believe in any government and if you do to what extent (I already know how you plan to get to whatever it is that you want...)
My step uncle essentially locks all food out of the house for 24 hours one day a month (he is uber-mormon, and as such fasting is not only mandatory but also very very long (at my house my mom just wont fix breakfast till 12:30... and will frown if we get out the cheerio's before that))
Noor:
Unless the government is voluntary, I disagree.
I wouldn't mind that if the government left us alone and doesn't force us to follow any of its rules.
I'm not anti-social, just against involuntary hierarchies or societies.
Making drugs illegal isn't going to stop people from doing them. That's why drug laws are useless.
My position is that all government should be abolished and replaced with private businesses, but I don't mind smaller voluntary governments though. As for the economy, it's a free market.
I don't believe any form of government is moral since practically all of them are generally involuntary.
Technorati Tags: Politics and Governments
Governments are systems of authority governing social interactions.. this authority cannot be abolished - if there is an ordered system of people, there is a government. This could be a animalistic hierarchy or a monarchy or a democracy... but it will happen if humans are social creatures (not like moose)..
As far as 'anarchy' goes, I think that people have the right to go to some corner of the globe and do whatever they like there... but if they want to succeed they need to have some sort of government... The best form of government is the one where people can leave and go to a non governed area. however, a government of some sort will arise when they get their (or they will live like moose... solitary)
I personally would want some sort of mini government that only protects the rights of its citizens.. but one that would let its citizens leave and go anywhere they desired.
Laws should not be enacted just because they could be useful or not... they should be enacted because they are right or wrong... the drug law is wrong, a law against murder is right - the reasons why could (and proably have been) discussed in an ethics thread
I don't believe any form of government is moral since practically all of them are generally involuntary.
So what would be the order that resulted? It would be essentially gang warfare (which relies on a heiarchy or government)...
Why do I think gang warfare? Well because there would be nothing to stop a buisnessman or a mob boss to go on a killing spree, eventually society would collapse
Governments are systems of authority governing social interactions.. this authority cannot be abolished - if there is an ordered system of people, there is a government.
Hierarchy =!= government.
You're forgetting that government claims territory for itself, collects taxes, sets laws - all without consent of the individual. Hierarchies generally do not do any of those.
Let other humans create their own hierarchy, I don't care. If they attempt to include me, I'll retaliate.
Ireland was in anarchy for more than a thousand years. Caveman lived in anarchy for several thousand years. The Old West (which was a fairly peaceful place) was in technically anarchy. Labrador, Iceland, and many others were in anarchy also. They didn't need a government and they did fine.
If an involuntary government is formed in an anarchist society the people will see it as a controlling mafia and revolt against it.
I personally would want some sort of mini government that only protects the rights of its citizens.. but one that would let its citizens leave and go anywhere they desired.
If you mean a government that allows people to live apart from it in anarchy, then I don't have a problem with that sort of government.
Laws should not be enacted just because they could be useful or not... they should be enacted because they are right or wrong... the drug law is wrong, a law against murder is right - the reasons why could (and proably have been) discussed in an ethics thread
Let the people defend themselves if they want to. Placing laws against murder is only going to make people more dependent on the government. People can also hire a protection agent if they want to.
So what would be the order that resulted? It would be essentially gang warfare (which relies on a heiarchy or government)...
Anarchy isn't chaos, it simply means no rulers. You already live most of your life in a state of anarchy.
If some people want to be gangsters they'll be punished by the court if they harm someone.
What stops a boss from going out and killing people today? Nothing. They can just go out and buy a gun, load it and fire at everyone. The only "deterrent" that govt-imposed law does is threaten them with a punishment. Same thing goes with market courts.
You're forgetting that government claims territory for itself, collects taxes, sets laws - all without consent of the individual. Hierarchies generally do not do any of those.
Okay, first off - no that is just plain wrong a government at least has reason to guide it (sometimes)
Hierarchies do certainly collect 'taxes' of a sort (ever seen the Godfather part 2?) And they do set 'laws' only they are much less just - (Look at my wife and you will be disemboweled)
Like I said, you want to live like a moose, then you should be able to... but if you want to have any sort of social interactions (other than random meeting) with people then you need to have a set of rules to guide those interactions - and the only way to be able to enforce those rules is to have force... and there are only so many ways to get that force... moose have strongest survive, slightly better is a hierarchy like structure based on family or something... and then comes government. - unless there are no immoral people in your society, the result will be gang warfare (and since there are always killers...)
no, they had a set of rules that governed social behavior and the force to back that up... in my definition that is a form of government, as simplistic as it seems
There will always be one form of a ruling body or another in any society... definitions aside... this body must be able to excersize force... if it is not government, then it is some sort of a gang
Ideally, I believe that the world should have a sizable (maybe madagascar size) island or location where people can do what they want, if they choose to form mutual freindships... fine let them be trading partners... unfortunately I think that it will progress to gang warfare.. (for some reason I think that I am coming off as if I do not believe in humanity (as if we are unable to be good without government) ... this is not what I think... I do believe that for the majority people could exist in some sort of I-mind-my-busness-you-mind-yours-and-we-go-to-work-at-the -factory society, however I believe that because of crazy/irrational people, the village will have to defend itself... but it might not be able to... eventually the result will be large masses of people living in the same area for protection (a city). Once this happens, some sort of social nessesity will make it mandatory for some sort of ruling body
(plus i think it would be very hard to get all of the services that we normally enjoy without government)
Let the people defend themselves if they want to. Placing laws against murder is only going to make people more dependent on the government. People can also hire a protection agent if they want to.
Haha, but what if a psychopath gets the money to pay these mercenaries? then he could take over the world - if he had enough power/ money... power hates a void and gang bosses would emerge
If some people want to be gangsters they'll be punished by the court if they harm someone.
Yes, eventually anarchy is chaos, or moose, or gang warfare, or governments... peaceful anarchy is impossible with criminals - oh and by what authority would the court punish them??? No rulers?? WTF you need rulers to make a court, at least to enforce rules.
What stops a boss from going out and killing people today? Nothing. They can just go out and buy a gun, load it and fire at everyone. The only "deterrent" that govt-imposed law does is threaten them with a punishment. Same thing goes with market courts.
No, most people are good. With a society of them... then yes some sort of peaceful harmony could be acheived... but the fact is that we will always have criminals... and they will always form some gangs, and take what they need... the only way to combat that is to get a bigger gang, or a government
A sense of morality and a sense of humanity is what stops a man from killing, but some people will always be devoid of those things...
You're forgetting that government claims territory for itself, collects taxes, sets laws - all without consent of the individual. Hierarchies generally do not do any of those.
Okay, first off - no that is just plain wrong a government at least has reason to guide it (sometimes)
Belief in govt requires doublethink. It's called slavery if I enforce rules onto you, yet it's not called slavery when government does the same thing? That's what is contradictory about statism.
I haven't see that movie. But I was talking about hierarchies in general, like in the animal sense in which there is a pecking order.
Like I said, you want to live like a moose, then you should be able to... but if you want to have any sort of social interactions (other than random meeting) with people then you need to have a set of rules to guide those interactions - and the only way to be able to enforce those rules is to have force...
I have my set of rules for myself. I'll interact with those people whose rules are compatible with mine. I don't have to bother about those who have different rules for themselves.
If you want to kill me and I don't want to be killed, then I'm not going to interact with you (And if you attempt to kill me I'll retaliate).
I'm not going to initiate force on anyone, I'll only retaliate.
I don't have a problem with hierarchies/govts as long as they're voluntary and don't force others.
Killers can be punished by a market court. You can have justice and courts in anarchism.
no, they had a set of rules that governed social behavior and the force to back that up... in my definition that is a form of government, as simplistic as it seems
What was it that enforced the rules? The people themselves. Self-government is what it was about. That's what I'd like, but it still qualifies as anarchy.
Government is a group of people that forces rules onto others and claims territory (And others, such as taxes).
There will always be one form of a ruling body or another in any society... definitions aside... this body must be able to excersize force... if it is not government, then it is some sort of a gang
And the people would just allow the gang to attack and loot them? The gangsters would be shot down within two seconds.
Ideally, I believe that the world should have a sizable (maybe madagascar size) island or location where people can do what they want, if they choose to form mutual freindships... fine let them be trading partners... unfortunately I think that it will progress to gang warfare.. (for some reason I think that I am coming off as if I do not believe in humanity (as if we are unable to be good without government) ... this is not what I think... I do believe that for the majority people could exist in some sort of I-mind-my-busness-you-mind-yours-and-we-go-to-work-at-the -factory society, however I believe that because of crazy/irrational people, the village will have to defend itself... but it might not be able to... eventually the result will be large masses of people living in the same area for protection (a city). Once this happens, some sort of social nessesity will make it mandatory for some sort of ruling body
They don't need a ruling body for protection, market police can do that. Then there's the courts also. Government isn't necessarily the only thing that can provide protection.
The market takes over practically all those services. Education, courts, police, roads and infrastructure, everything is maintained by the private market.
Let the people defend themselves if they want to. Placing laws against murder is only going to make people more dependent on the government. People can also hire a protection agent if they want to.
Haha, but what if a psychopath gets the money to pay these mercenaries? then he could take over the world - if he had enough power/ money... power hates a void and gang bosses would emerge
The people would attack and kill him off, or if that doesn't happen the court would punish him anyway. If he becomes too powerful I doubt the private agency would continue helping him especially if he goes out and murders people.
If some people want to be gangsters they'll be punished by the court if they harm someone.
Yes, eventually anarchy is chaos, or moose, or gang warfare, or governments... peaceful anarchy is impossible with criminals - oh and by what authority would the court punish them??? No rulers?? WTF you need rulers to make a court, at least to enforce rules.
I could give you a list of anarchist societies that were peaceful. They had courts, rules and order without rulers.
The court punishes the criminal on the victim's complaints. It's a judicial system based on morals and not govt-imposed law.
What stops a boss from going out and killing people today? Nothing. They can just go out and buy a gun, load it and fire at everyone. The only "deterrent" that govt-imposed law does is threaten them with a punishment. Same thing goes with market courts.
No, most people are good. With a society of them... then yes some sort of peaceful harmony could be acheived... but the fact is that we will always have criminals... and they will always form some gangs, and take what they need... the only way to combat that is to get a bigger gang, or a government
In fact, this reminds me of the "God of the gaps". You're using a "government of the gaps" here. You think only the government can deal with gangsters and nothing else, the same way many theists say only their god could've created the universe.
Gangsters can be dealt with by a market police and courts. And if the victim wants to defend themselves, let them.
If someone wants to kill someone who doesn't want to be killed, what makes you think the victim wouldn't defend themselves or even attempt to do so? The criminal has no right to kill the victim without consent, he is in the wrong. It doesn't need a government to impose that law. Market anarchy is based on voluntaryism - if someone does something to someone else involuntarily, that's morally wrong. No government needed.
Which is why I think that there should be a 'Moose' Clause, go live and do your own thing... just don't come crying to us if your new order fails... This is a built in 'hole', the people can go live there, but I strongly believe that it will be a shitty place (again, a government of sorts will arise, only it will be gangs, dictators, or fascism of some sort.)
I'm not going to initiate force on anyone, I'll only retaliate.
I don't have a problem with hierarchies/governments as long as they're voluntary and don't force others.
Killers can be punished by a market court. You can have justice and courts in anarchism.
I must be missing something. How can a 'market court' arise without some sort of leadership (which would be a government).
If a body of men (used to mean both men and women) has authority over the general populace, then it is a government... even if that body of men is randomly selected from the populace.
Exactly, the top dog gets to make silly rules (we will wear red bandannas and kill the blue ones!) and kill people... this happens almost always (as far as I know, always without fail) when people are in a lower socioeconomic 'class' or place. These gangs form. The only real thing that would stop one from gaining members is: another bigger gang, or a mutual compact among people. I do believe that governments need to be 'voluntary' (by the moose clause) but they are necessary for society to exist as well. Essentially, the voluntary part is either accept a society and a government, or go live like moose or in a gang... because without a government that is what society will deteriorate into (again, not because of the many good, but because of the few evil/starving)
The court punishes the criminal on the victim's complaints. It's a judicial system based on morals and not govt-imposed law.
And I could give you zounds of references to where people made a court system out of no government - it was lynchings that they came up with.
Without the proper authority, no court can or should punish someone. By this I mean (Ideally, as the world does not *currently* operate near your or my government/anarchy) that people endorse a government for protection and they pay taxes. If someone does not, then they must go live somewhere else. If people from this other place attack the formed government, the retaliation is a 'war'.
However, by not having a set system of rules (in town no. 1 stealing is death, in town no. 2 stealing is 50 flogs) the result is relative punishments. - that means that criminals are much more likely to move to the town w/the more lenint (spelling?) of laws. This will require there to be stronger laws and so on, until the result is a large, overbearing 'market jury'.
Also, I have never heard of a long lasting society (I mean more than a couple of years until the turmoil died down) being anarchist and having a just criminal system.
Gangsters can be dealt with by a market police and courts. And if the victim wants to defend themselves, let them.
NO, the (proper) government is not 'of the gaps' it has a specific function and a specific way to accomplish that function. I would like to hear exactly how market police and courts would not succumb to bribery and or force. Even the government does that, and again, any body with authority to pass laws and enforce them is essentially a government - even if you call it a 'market police or court' - mercenaries could hold a territory and become a government for hire...
Other things can deal with gangsters, but eventually the organized gangsters will form a government hierarchy... when this happens they will grow stronger than a single town, because of this they will eventually grow to strong for a small group of random individuals to combat... the individuals will have to recruit either by forming a town council or another gang... either way, a government.
It doesn't need a government to impose that law. Market anarchy is based on voluntaryism - if someone does something to someone else involuntarily, that's morally wrong. No government needed.
I will summaries my arguments against the 'market court/police/army/prison system' (for that is all that I really see is necessary for a government)
No. 1 - How can you guarantee that this market court will not become a tool of the richest man in town, effectively allowing him to eliminate his competition legally? (or another scenario... the richest man in the gang or something else)
No. 2 - How is this 'market court' much different than a government? (I believe it to be a poor one)
No. 3 - How can this court make objective rulings, when public opinion could be so biased. (How could a market court have survived in the racist south?)
No. 4 - Who would be on this court, and what would happen if someone disagreed with the rulings, (let us say a gang that was more powerful than the town)
No. 5 - How could this court properly enforce the rulings? A private police/prison system could have more flaws that the court.
It is getting a little late where I am, so I will try to think of some better criticisms tomorrow (I had some good ones.. but I forgot them I think...)
There have been anarchies that lasted successfully for thousands of years. Anarchy does work if people aren't deluded into believing a govt is necessary.
And I don't want you to come to the anarchist society if your govt-controlled society gets into a war with another society. The govt is always the primary target for an attack. In anarchy it's a lot harder to attack each person individually and relay orders to them.
Government => Hierarchy
Hierarchy => Inequality
Inequality => Conflicts
Conflicts => War
Without govt laws, there's still something called morality. A private individual can start a court that bases its decisions on morals.
Here's a quote: "Where there is morality, laws are unnecessary. Without morality, laws are unenforceable."
That's not how a market court works. If the defendent or accuser feels wronged he/she can try another court.
I don't care about hierarchies of any kind as long as they're voluntary. If a hierarchy attempts to involve me I have a right not to be in a pecking order. I'll retaliate.
Authority doesn't protect the weak, it only makes them more dependent. And usually the authority is the "top dog", the strong one. So we have the strong ones protecting the weak ones from other strong ones, with nothing protecting the weak from the strong ones that is protecting them.
Yes, a mutual compact is mutually voluntary so I don't have a problem with it.
And what stops the other bigger gang from becoming more powerful? Another bigger gang? Then what about that one? It just goes on infinitely.
An anarchist society wouldn't deteriorate into a government-controlled one as long as the people are free from belief in the government.
Hello? The 50s and 60s racism? The police, the government, supported the lynchings!
And don't forget that slavery was legal too - the government said it was okay for slave-owners to beat up slaves mercilessly and force them to toil like the slaves had no rights. The law took away the rights of the slaves, the law also prevented women from voting, and today the law prevents gays from marrying. The court said it was okay for overseers to brutally beat up slaves.
See how government abuses its power and uses it against the people? Even your idea of a libertarian government can always grab all the power and become Nazi-like if it wants to since it has power (to some extent) over the people.
In anarchy where people are free from the govt delusion it'd very hard for a govt to form since the individual persons would rebel.
Non sequitor. A court can punish people without authority. The "law" used is morality.
The people wouldn't attack a govt as long as it didn't force its rules onto them. What reason would they have to do so? Unless the government invaded their anarchist society they wouldn't bother about it.
You'd have to consider the victims. If the victim isn't pleased with the punishment the criminal was given the victim can try another court to decide on the punishment.
The Old West was in pretty much anarchy and they had courts and outlaws. They didn't need a government.
If a market police or court goes corrupt it immediately loses the vast majority of employees and customers. No more profit, goes out of business. If your employer was involved in some scandal would you continue working under him? You'd quit and work for someone else since your employer can't be trusted. If Target hired a private army and started to take over would you continue buying from them? You'd shop at Wal-Mart and Target wouldn't get profit and eventually goes out of business.
A market court bases its decisions on rights and morality. And both a market police and court are voluntary. You choose which police force or court you want to patronize. You don't choose which government you want to go with. As for democracy the majority isn't always going to make the better choice. The majority always wins and the minority is crushed in democracy. In market anarchy the individual person chooses a court or protection agency.
The individuals can shoot at the gangsters or sue them. There's the court, there's the police, there's other protection agencies if they want.
Government is involuntary. Market police is voluntary.
Because if the rich man wants to do something that violates others rights, the market court will go against him when the victims sue him.
It's voluntary, unlike government. That's the main difference.
If the victim thinks the court is biased he/she can always try another court that he/she thinks gives a better ruling.
The court is privately owned and operated and the private individual maintains the employees that serve as the jury. If someone disagreed with the rulings they can try another court. If that one doesn't work either they can try another one until one is fair.
Flaws such as...??
Okay, First off I think that we should have a clear idea of government, in explicit terms so.. I use the first sentance from wikipedia (if you find this unsuitable then you could propose your own definition)
"A government is a body that has the authority to make and the power to enforce rules and laws"
By anarchy, you mean that there should be no body to 'make and the power to enforce rules and laws' (again, if you disagree with this definition, by all means choose your own definition)
A court's definition (again from wikipedia) is "a public forum used by a power base to adjudicate disputes and dispense civil, labour, administrative and criminal justice under its laws."
Now, in your definition of 'court' there is no power backing it (as it would have the ability to make laws (or rulings.. temporary laws))(such a power would enforce the decision of the court and be a form of government)
And your police force would have no laws governing it. (for the reason that it would have power, but not laws... or it would be a government)
as the power to make and enforce rulings (rulings would be temporary laws) is the definition of a government
authority is a given I suppose because if a court did not have authority it would not be a court... only a mockery.
1 - you must show up to court
2 - you dont have any authority
1 - okay, then you dont have to come...
Well, they did have governments as the sheriffs dept would qualify (has the power to make and enforce laws)
These protection agencies would be gang like, as you could pay them and wage war on the 'market police'
so rights like the right to a speedy trial would be forfeit right? as well as the right to not be tried for the same crime twice? - your society has no rights it is kill or be killed, pay the mercenaries more than your enemies or you get killed by them
And another and another and another.... until they are both out of money or until one court kills one of them right? Oh and in this process, rights go out the window (such as innocent until proven guilty (as one court could only say guilty!))
Getting bought out by a company, which then hires them to kill dissenters (as this company could then loot other towns and share the spoils with its shareholders and the mercenaries!)
Sure, until some town gets a drought, gets pissed at the price of things and loots another town..
Hahahahahahahahahahahahah! Or the rich man will just pay the jury and get the other thrown in jail! (The court would not stand up for others rights if they were gettin paid oodles of money)
Yeah, but it has the guns - or it can steal them.. make slaves and make a profet! you can't tell me that there would not be a crazy cult that goes and raids other people's homes for guns, then controlls the town and makes it their slaves (it could happen... )
says who?
"A government is a body that has the authority to make and the power to enforce rules and laws"
By anarchy, you mean that there should be no body to 'make and the power to enforce rules and laws' (again, if you disagree with this definition, by all means choose your own definition)
Government is a group of people that creates and enforces rules and laws, taxes its subjects and claims territory. It also has the power to go to war with another government.
Now, in your definition of 'court' there is no power backing it (as it would have the ability to make laws (or rulings.. temporary laws))(such a power would enforce the decision of the court and be a form of government)
Can a court start a war with another court, without losing its customers? Can a court involuntarily demand money from other people and use it for infrastructure?
And a court doesn't have a "power" in that sense to back it up. The laws in a market court are based on morality.
What police power? Market police acts sort of like a bodyguard. The customer pay the police force to protect them and if the police gets into a scandal they won't get any customers.
1 - you must show up to court
2 - you dont have any authority
1 - okay, then you dont have to come...
If X has been wronged by Y the court rules that Y loses his/her rights and becomes an outlaw. So yes, a person can be forced to come to the court.
Not sure but I think the sheriffs were for protection, not enforcing laws. Don't know really. But the sheriffs dept didn't enforce taxes, build infrastructure, or throw those who didn't pay taxes in jail.
Why would you want the power? To go around harming or killing other people? You'd end up in jail if that happened.
I don't see anything wrong with that if it means fairness for both sides.
Rights do exist in anarchism. They don't have anything to do with the government or govt imposed law. And if someone attempts to kill me, I'll retaliate or sue them. Same thing goes with today's system.
If two courts have different rulings a third court can rule on either of them.
Not that different from modern-day courts.
If a court is biased it loses its customers and goes out of business. Simple.
Why would the company even try to hire them to attack, if the people will blow them up? You're forgetting that in anarchy the people will have to have some knowledge of defense.
And the people being looted will just sit there and stay quiet about it?
How is this any different from modern-day bail?
Then the court becomes known for scandals and loses popularity and reputation. And the victims can always demand their rights from a second court - the second court sees the first court wronged them they'd break up the first court.
They'd get blown up if they tried to force people into slavery at gunpoint. Who would even dare to attack a society that has guns and other weapons waiting for them if they strike?
says who?
I'm giving you the facts, it should be obvious that law is separate from morality. You're simply saying that a court needs authority behind it for it to create laws and I pointed out that market courts can operate based on morality and not govt imposed law.
Well, I only partially agree with the taxes. Taxes have been used to fund a government however I believe that small scale governments could be run on a voulenteer basis (the greeks had some sort of thing like this... but they also had taxes along side)
As for claims territory, that only happens for a while (some countries have remanied the same size for many many years...)
war could be put under law (as in it is a law that you must attack this other country)
And a court doesn't have a "power" in that sense to back it up. The laws in a market court are based on morality.
1: No - the police force could (technically it would be small scale war)
2: No - The police force could
(remember, I said that the court had no power, the police force would ... it would have power to enforce the decisions that the court made (right... if it did not then there would be no point of the court))
3: I know that the court would not have power... but the police force would
Oh, I assumed that the court would have the police do their bidding... enforce their judgments
If the court had no such power (no police, no prisons... ) then it would be useless... essentially asking the criminal to accept his punishment
Who brings in outlaws? Bounty hunters? And the bounty would be paid by who? The plaintiff? If the plantif diddnt have enought money would he just let the criminal get away? (which would encourage more wrongs on the poor, which would make the poor make a gang)
Taxes are not a necessity to a government, the sherrifs did enforce some law (they could have made it up in their mind...)
And they did throw people in jail (as well as get a paycheck from the city.. so they might have had taxes)
Why would you want the power? To go around harming or killing other people? You'd end up in jail if that happened.
Not me, but many many people would (it is just naive to think that no more people like hitler would arise)
The rich man could essentially bankrupt the poor man by retrying him and retrying him again and again... he could rob him through lawyers .... dosent sound ethical does it?
Okay, so lets say that someone muggs you, you cannot resist (even if you have a weapon... you could still be subdued first)
Lets say that you do not know who it was... but your in luck... he wore a mask but left hairs and other evidence
You want to have justice done, and think that you could get the guy.. but wait! There is no database of criminal's hair or fingerprints (for who would finance this?) Yet you have a likely suspect... and you think that if you could compair the DNa of their hair to the strands that you have ... you could indicate them as the mugger! So you go to a court to make them get this man's hair... because you are persuasive, you get the 'warrant' to take his hair... but he does not respect your authority... and he pays no homage to your court... it has no authority over him... and no way to enforce the ruling it just passed...
SO you have an option
1 hire a police force to assult him and take his hair by force... but NO he has more money than you.. and he already has paid a private army to patroll his house!
2 - get some of his hair some other way!
It just so happens that you find some of his hair in his hairbrush!... so you steal it (the hair, not the hairbrush)
SO now you, a poor person needs to finance the tests that do this kind of work (assuming that they exist...)
You cant and your mugger gets away...
How did I break a rule of your Utopia? (This is part challenge... but I could have misunderstood some fundemental working of your utopia... so show me where my error is)
Not that different from modern-day courts.
If a court is biased it loses its customers and goes out of business. Simple.
and if there is that third court then a rich man could make a fourht and a fifth court rule... and pay them to win...
In your system the prosecutor with money will always win, because he can make an infinite number of trials happen (wasting the defendants time and money)
But a small organised defence is better than a large disorganised defense (plus, criminals have the advantage of striking first)
The looters will loot at night!
Then the court becomes known for scandals and loses popularity and reputation. And the victims can always demand their rights from a second court - the second court sees the first court wronged them they'd break up the first court.
WTF! what if the first court breaks up all of the other courts first? What authority would the second court have to break up the first?
And it is different, and I did not say that I supported the bail system
And who says what rights the person is entitled to?? There would be no entity to say.. one court would let people have the right to a speedy trial.. one might not..
One that can steal the weapons with an army of silent paid ninjas!
(and of course pirates!)
When the courts operate on anything (wheter it be morality, money, or a figure eight ball that they got in a happy meal) , if they have power to enforce their rulings (which is a nessesity) they ARE the government
As for claims territory, that only happens for a while (some countries have remanied the same size for many many years...)
war could be put under law (as in it is a law that you must attack this other country)
Kind of. The difference between war and law is that war kills people, law (like banning drugs, that sort of thing) doesn't kill people.
Yeah...and they'll lose all their patronizing customers and go out of business.
3: I know that the court would not have power... but the police force would
Yes, but the court does have a power to send the police if it finds the criminal guilty.
If the court had no such power (no police, no prisons... ) then it would be useless... essentially asking the criminal to accept his punishment
The court does sort of have a police - enforcement agents that punish a criminal.
The victim brings the criminal to the court for the trial. If you attack me I'll go to the court, present my case, and if you're found guilty you'd be forced to come along to the court.
And they did throw people in jail (as well as get a paycheck from the city.. so they might have had taxes)
The sheriffs didn't claim territory for themselves involuntarily. That's one of the main essentials of a government.
Hitler gained a lot of his support through propaganda that promoted extreme nationalism. Obviously in anarchy there's technically no such thing as nationalism. If a new Hitler came about he'd be instantly shot down by the people.
The poor man would have the right to go to a court and ask for retribution and if the court rules against the rich man he'd have to pay back the money and stop his behavior.
Lets say that you do not know who it was... but your in luck... he wore a mask but left hairs and other evidence
You want to have justice done, and think that you could get the guy.. but wait! There is no database of criminal's hair or fingerprints (for who would finance this?) Yet you have a likely suspect... and you think that if you could compair the DNa of their hair to the strands that you have ... you could indicate them as the mugger! So you go to a court to make them get this man's hair... because you are persuasive, you get the 'warrant' to take his hair... but he does not respect your authority... and he pays no homage to your court... it has no authority over him... and no way to enforce the ruling it just passed...
If he's not respecting me the court will go against him. And my court does have the right to enforce the ruling if he's proven guilty since he attacked me.
1 hire a police force to assult him and take his hair by force... but NO he has more money than you.. and he already has paid a private army to patroll his house!
My lawyer has the right to grab him since he wasn't respecting my rights when he attacked me.
It just so happens that you find some of his hair in his hairbrush!... so you steal it (the hair, not the hairbrush)
SO now you, a poor person needs to finance the tests that do this kind of work (assuming that they exist...)
You cant and your mugger gets away...
How did I break a rule of your Utopia? (This is part challenge... but I could have misunderstood some fundemental working of your utopia... so show me where my error is)
I'm not calling it a utopia. You're the one who's too optimistic about your government - you imply that it is magical and will take care of every problem.
And yes, you did misunderstand it.
How is this that different from modern-day bail?
No. If the prosecutor is seen as scandalous he won't get any support.
Exactly, small privately-owned and operated defense forces work better than large state-controlled ones. It's also easier to keep a small force organized.
And whenever a country wants to attack another one, the first target will usually be the government. In anarchy it's much harder for them to do so since there's no centralized power structure to relay orders to.
Same thing today. There's market courts to deter them from looting at night.
If the victim isn't pleased with the first court he/she has a right to try another court. The victim has been wronged, he/she can choose the court.
And who says what rights the person is entitled to?? There would be no entity to say.. one court would let people have the right to a speedy trial.. one might not..
Let the person choose the court. Speedy trial or no speedy trial, it's the person's choice.
(and of course pirates!)
They'll be blown up. And any violence that could potentially take place in anarchy isn't anything compared to the wars and murder that the State causes.
Courts don't claim territory for themselves involuntarily. That's one of the essentials of a government. A state of any kind claims territory for itself.
By the way, market anarchy involves self-government. Like, I have the power to do what I want to with myself. It's still anarchy in the sense there is no centralized group of individuals involuntarily claiming hold over a territory, passing laws and collecting taxes. Since I govern myself I own my property but I acquired my land through voluntary means. It's still kinda self-government though.
Death Penalty
Yeah...and they'll lose all their patronizing customers and go out of business.
Unless their customers were crooks themselves... (or uninformed)
So how is the symbiotic court/police system different than a small government?
The victim brings the criminal to the court for the trial. If you attack me I'll go to the court, present my case, and if you're found guilty you'd be forced to come along to the court.
So you could essentially make people come into my home and take me away without my knowledge of why by lying to the court (and presenting false information)
This court system has a Huge potential for abuse... it is way way to relient on everybody being good - if the rich guy had bough the court... the poor guy would be screwed
This is just too subjective, your making too many presumptions (like that he had not bought many courts out, or that he has a way better lawer... or that he just creates a new court every time he wants to and finances it to rule against you (again and again)
But what if you lie? I mean, because of market forces.. I cannot see the detailed amount of CSI and lab tech going on because it would ahve to be paid privatly (which means a lot more criminals going free)
And yes, you did misunderstand it.
Utopia was the wrong word, and no, my government has some kinks. But it at least can provide consistency (and if the people dont like it they can move to anarchy island... where the no1 cable television show is filmed!)
I diddnt say i supported bail, and it is different because bail does not overturn rulings and force the prosecutor to become the defendant...
And whenever a country wants to attack another one, the first target will usually be the government. In anarchy it's much harder for them to do so since there's no centralized power structure to relay orders to.
Again, criminals who want to loot do not have the restrictions of the government (and the populace would be large and unorgaized compared to the small and orgaized criminal orgaization.)
But he can still drag the people back tome and time again - wasting their money, but not winning anything (because they would have to pay the court... unless you made it a rule that only the prosecutor would have to pay... but then what about the poor who get mugged?)
Haha, the one with his/her 9 brothers on it! This is totally unfair, neither person should be able to pick a court - this would essentially play out as richest person wins (lawsuits go back and forth until one of them ends up broke)
Not the person on trial obviously (this right was to protect the defendent)
You dont mind violating this right?
By the way, market anarchy involves self-government. Like, I have the power to do what I want to with myself. It's still anarchy in the sense there is no centralized group of individuals involuntarily claiming hold over a territory, passing laws and collecting taxes. Since I govern myself I own my property but I acquired my land through voluntary means. It's still kinda self-government though.
Not all governments have to claim territory, just small amounts of money (they could then pay for their meetings to the person who owned the building)
And self government is essentially morality (I dont spit on my neighbours dog, even though it is not illegal (or is it.. never mind))
Does anyone else want to post in this thread? I mean, I dont mind it just being me and noor... but...
Sorry 'bout the delay, I kinda forgot about this thread.
Death Penalty
I was talking about laws prohibiting drugs and that sort of thing, that minarchists are usually against.
Unless their customers were crooks themselves...
Even if the customers were crooks, why would they patronize a business that was cheating them?
Well people in a market anarchist society would have to be a bit more alert. And the same thing can happen today with government. Corporations can often cheat their customers especially if the customers are ignorant. And the government can only stop it once the government finds out (which would usually be when the customers find out). And in a MA the customers stop patronizing the business as soon as they find out it's corrupt.
So how is the symbiotic court/police system different than a small government?
Courts don't claim territory for themselves.
Courts don't go to wars against other courts.
Courts don't enforce laws onto people that aren't attacking others unprovoked.
Courts are privately owned and operated and are voluntary for those who respect others' rights.
The victim brings the criminal to the court for the trial. If you attack me I'll go to the court, present my case, and if you're found guilty you'd be forced to come along to the court.
So you could essentially make people come into my home and take me away without my knowledge of why by lying to the court (and presenting false information)
What prevents that from happening today? Anyone can do that to anyone else even with government.
This court system has a Huge potential for abuse... it is way way to relient on everybody being good - if the rich guy had bough the court... the poor guy would be screwed
If that happens the poor guy can get his money back by trying another court and the first court that the rich man bought out wouldn't get any customers because of its dishonesty.
This is just too subjective, your making too many presumptions (like that he had not bought many courts out, or that he has a way better lawer... or that he just creates a new court every time he wants to and finances it to rule against you (again and again)
If the court is dishonest no victim would go to it. Simple as that. Government doesn't allow that, it always forces its authority onto you no matter what.
But what if you lie?
I can still lie under oath even in the government-operated courts.
Actually, i