Total Posts:392|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

An-cap Q&A

annhasle
Posts: 6,657
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/28/2011 9:32:12 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
Hello, DDO. I'm here to answer any question that I can in regards to an-cap and how it would be implemented within a society. I hope my fellow an-caps will help me out as well so we can clear up some confusion anyone has -- and so we can justify something we all believe to be the best alternative to the state.

So, ask away. I'll try to answer them to the best of my ability. I do not possess a Ph.D but I think I can give at least some good answers. :P
I'm not back. This idiot just upset me which made me stop lurking.
Reasoning
Posts: 4,456
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/28/2011 9:35:55 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
Who will build the roads?
"What we really ought to ask the liberal, before we even begin addressing his agenda, is this: In what kind of society would he be a conservative?" - Joseph Sobran
Ragnar_Rahl
Posts: 19,297
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/28/2011 9:37:18 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 2/28/2011 9:35:55 PM, Reasoning wrote:
Who will build the roads?

trolololololololololol
It came to be at its height. It was commanded to command. It was a capital before its first stone was laid. It was a monument to the spirit of man.
LaissezFaire
Posts: 2,050
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/28/2011 9:37:54 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 2/28/2011 9:35:55 PM, Reasoning wrote:
Who will build the roads?

Construction workers, of course. Pretty much the same people who build them now.
Should we subsidize education?
http://www.debate.org...

http://mises.org...

http://lewrockwell.com...

http://antiwar.com...

: At 6/22/2011 6:57:23 PM, el-badgero wrote:
: i didn't like [Obama]. he was the only black dude in moneygall yet he claimed to be home. obvious liar is obvious liar. i bet him and bin laden are bumfvcking right now.
annhasle
Posts: 6,657
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/28/2011 9:40:13 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 2/28/2011 9:37:18 PM, Ragnar_Rahl wrote:
At 2/28/2011 9:35:55 PM, Reasoning wrote:
Who will build the roads?

trolololololololololol
I'm not back. This idiot just upset me which made me stop lurking.
Reasoning
Posts: 4,456
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/28/2011 9:43:52 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
But without immigration restrictions, how will we keep the brown people out?
"What we really ought to ask the liberal, before we even begin addressing his agenda, is this: In what kind of society would he be a conservative?" - Joseph Sobran
annhasle
Posts: 6,657
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/28/2011 9:45:10 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 2/28/2011 9:43:52 PM, Reasoning wrote:
But without immigration restrictions, how will we keep the brown people out?

We'd still have guns, right? :P
I'm not back. This idiot just upset me which made me stop lurking.
Reasoning
Posts: 4,456
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/28/2011 9:47:13 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 2/28/2011 9:44:58 PM, wjmelements wrote:
How would an ancap society deal with a zombie epidemic?
http://mises.org...

http://www.nostate.com...
"What we really ought to ask the liberal, before we even begin addressing his agenda, is this: In what kind of society would he be a conservative?" - Joseph Sobran
Cerebral_Narcissist
Posts: 10,806
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/28/2011 9:47:25 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
Correct me if am wrong but an-caps argue that Law and Order should be left to the market. Private competing firms.

Lets say I have a property dispute with my neighbour, our title deeds both lay claim to an area of land of equally distant from our houses. We have overlapping claims. My neighbour starts to trim a hedge that I say is on my land. I phone Security Company A who point guns at him, he phones security Company B and a small war begins.

When the dust settles we both want to go to seperate Judges for the case to be decided.

How on earth does any legal dispute get sorted in such a society?
I am voting for Innomen because of his intelligence, common sense, humility and the fact that Juggle appears to listen to him. Any other Presidential style would have a large sub-section of the site up in arms. If I was President I would destroy the site though elitism, others would let it run riot. Innomen represents a middle way that works, neither draconian nor anarchic and that is the only way things can work. Plus he does it all without ego trips.
InsertNameHere
Posts: 15,699
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/28/2011 9:48:10 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 2/28/2011 9:47:13 PM, Reasoning wrote:
At 2/28/2011 9:44:58 PM, wjmelements wrote:
How would an ancap society deal with a zombie epidemic?
http://mises.org...

http://www.nostate.com...

lol @ both those threads.
Reasoning
Posts: 4,456
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/28/2011 9:50:19 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 2/28/2011 9:47:25 PM, Cerebral_Narcissist wrote:
Correct me if am wrong but an-caps argue that Law and Order should be left to the market. Private competing firms.

Lets say I have a property dispute with my neighbour, our title deeds both lay claim to an area of land of equally distant from our houses. We have overlapping claims. My neighbour starts to trim a hedge that I say is on my land. I phone Security Company A who point guns at him, he phones security Company B and a small war begins.

When the dust settles we both want to go to seperate Judges for the case to be decided.

How on earth does any legal dispute get sorted in such a society?

It must be some land for people to be fighting a war over it. The agencies would find some kind of unbiased arbitration agency and bind themselves to the verdict, then both sides would present their case.
"What we really ought to ask the liberal, before we even begin addressing his agenda, is this: In what kind of society would he be a conservative?" - Joseph Sobran
Cerebral_Narcissist
Posts: 10,806
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/28/2011 9:55:36 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 2/28/2011 9:50:19 PM, Reasoning wrote:
At 2/28/2011 9:47:25 PM, Cerebral_Narcissist wrote:
Correct me if am wrong but an-caps argue that Law and Order should be left to the market. Private competing firms.

Lets say I have a property dispute with my neighbour, our title deeds both lay claim to an area of land of equally distant from our houses. We have overlapping claims. My neighbour starts to trim a hedge that I say is on my land. I phone Security Company A who point guns at him, he phones security Company B and a small war begins.

When the dust settles we both want to go to seperate Judges for the case to be decided.

How on earth does any legal dispute get sorted in such a society?

It must be some land for people to be fighting a war over it. The agencies would find some kind of unbiased arbitration agency and bind themselves to the verdict, then both sides would present their case.

I don't like the arbitration agency my neigbour has chosen, I want the case to be decided by the Bishop of Hamburg.

Again how does anthing get resolved with free market law and order?
I am voting for Innomen because of his intelligence, common sense, humility and the fact that Juggle appears to listen to him. Any other Presidential style would have a large sub-section of the site up in arms. If I was President I would destroy the site though elitism, others would let it run riot. Innomen represents a middle way that works, neither draconian nor anarchic and that is the only way things can work. Plus he does it all without ego trips.
LaissezFaire
Posts: 2,050
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/28/2011 9:56:23 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 2/28/2011 9:47:25 PM, Cerebral_Narcissist wrote:
Correct me if am wrong but an-caps argue that Law and Order should be left to the market. Private competing firms.

Lets say I have a property dispute with my neighbour, our title deeds both lay claim to an area of land of equally distant from our houses. We have overlapping claims. My neighbour starts to trim a hedge that I say is on my land. I phone Security Company A who point guns at him, he phones security Company B and a small war begins.

When the dust settles we both want to go to seperate Judges for the case to be decided.

How on earth does any legal dispute get sorted in such a society?

When citizens of two separate governments--who each have different security providers representing them--have a property dispute, does it escalate into violence? Of course not. And that's with no profit motive (violence is expensive)--simply the desire to avoid violence. Private firms would, in addition to not wanting their employees to die, have a strong incentive to avoid violent disputes with other firms because they're unprofitable. Firms could have pre-made agreements with each other, laying out a procedure they'd go through when a dispute between their customers arises simply because it's much more profitable for each firm to do so, since customers avoid violent firms (they don't want to get hurt) and fighting unnecessarily wastes money. They'd just settle the dispute in a courtroom, peacefully.
Should we subsidize education?
http://www.debate.org...

http://mises.org...

http://lewrockwell.com...

http://antiwar.com...

: At 6/22/2011 6:57:23 PM, el-badgero wrote:
: i didn't like [Obama]. he was the only black dude in moneygall yet he claimed to be home. obvious liar is obvious liar. i bet him and bin laden are bumfvcking right now.
juvanya
Posts: 613
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/28/2011 9:56:35 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 2/28/2011 9:47:25 PM, Cerebral_Narcissist wrote:
Correct me if am wrong but an-caps argue that Law and Order should be left to the market. Private competing firms.

Lets say I have a property dispute with my neighbour, our title deeds both lay claim to an area of land of equally distant from our houses. We have overlapping claims. My neighbour starts to trim a hedge that I say is on my land. I phone Security Company A who point guns at him, he phones security Company B and a small war begins.

When the dust settles we both want to go to seperate Judges for the case to be decided.

How on earth does any legal dispute get sorted in such a society?

You go to the judge before "going to war". War is expensive, especially if you fück up and are subject to resultant liabilities.

Also, claim =/= ownership. You need to be actually using the land or display the clear intention to use it soon.
Reasoning
Posts: 4,456
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/28/2011 9:58:22 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 2/28/2011 9:55:36 PM, Cerebral_Narcissist wrote:
I don't like the arbitration agency my neigbour has chosen, I want the case to be decided by the Bishop of Hamburg.

Then if he agrees that Bishop of Hamburg would make a fair arbiter, her will agree.

Again how does anthing get resolved with free market law and order?

Arbitration.
"What we really ought to ask the liberal, before we even begin addressing his agenda, is this: In what kind of society would he be a conservative?" - Joseph Sobran
Cerebral_Narcissist
Posts: 10,806
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/28/2011 10:00:54 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 2/28/2011 9:56:23 PM, LaissezFaire wrote:
At 2/28/2011 9:47:25 PM, Cerebral_Narcissist wrote:
Correct me if am wrong but an-caps argue that Law and Order should be left to the market. Private competing firms.

Lets say I have a property dispute with my neighbour, our title deeds both lay claim to an area of land of equally distant from our houses. We have overlapping claims. My neighbour starts to trim a hedge that I say is on my land. I phone Security Company A who point guns at him, he phones security Company B and a small war begins.

When the dust settles we both want to go to seperate Judges for the case to be decided.

How on earth does any legal dispute get sorted in such a society?

When citizens of two separate governments--who each have different security providers representing them--have a property dispute, does it escalate into violence? Of course not. And that's with no profit motive (violence is expensive)--simply the desire to avoid violence. Private firms would, in addition to not wanting their employees to die, have a strong incentive to avoid violent disputes with other firms because they're unprofitable. Firms could have pre-made agreements with each other, laying out a procedure they'd go through when a dispute between their customers arises simply because it's much more profitable for each firm to do so, since customers avoid violent firms (they don't want to get hurt) and fighting unnecessarily wastes money. They'd just settle the dispute in a courtroom, peacefully.

Okay... so the neighbour is hacking down my hedge. I phone my guys, he phones his guys.

What if...
1: He refuses to stop cutting the hedge.
2: One of us refuses to go to court.
3: Neither of us decide on what court to use.
I am voting for Innomen because of his intelligence, common sense, humility and the fact that Juggle appears to listen to him. Any other Presidential style would have a large sub-section of the site up in arms. If I was President I would destroy the site though elitism, others would let it run riot. Innomen represents a middle way that works, neither draconian nor anarchic and that is the only way things can work. Plus he does it all without ego trips.
Cerebral_Narcissist
Posts: 10,806
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/28/2011 10:04:14 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 2/28/2011 9:56:35 PM, juvanya wrote:
At 2/28/2011 9:47:25 PM, Cerebral_Narcissist wrote:
Correct me if am wrong but an-caps argue that Law and Order should be left to the market. Private competing firms.

Lets say I have a property dispute with my neighbour, our title deeds both lay claim to an area of land of equally distant from our houses. We have overlapping claims. My neighbour starts to trim a hedge that I say is on my land. I phone Security Company A who point guns at him, he phones security Company B and a small war begins.

When the dust settles we both want to go to seperate Judges for the case to be decided.

How on earth does any legal dispute get sorted in such a society?

You go to the judge before "going to war". War is expensive, especially if you fück up and are subject to resultant liabilities.

Do we... so an-cap relies on all parties being logical and long sighted, just as humans naturally are... oh wait.

Also, claim =/= ownership. You need to be actually using the land or display the clear intention to use it soon.

To what extent do I have to be using the land, to what extent do I have to show the clear intention to use it soon? These sound like laws, however the law is privatised.
I am voting for Innomen because of his intelligence, common sense, humility and the fact that Juggle appears to listen to him. Any other Presidential style would have a large sub-section of the site up in arms. If I was President I would destroy the site though elitism, others would let it run riot. Innomen represents a middle way that works, neither draconian nor anarchic and that is the only way things can work. Plus he does it all without ego trips.
GeoLaureate8
Posts: 12,252
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/28/2011 10:04:18 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
I'm with Cerebral on this one.

Private/free market law and order is ABSURD! And quite laughable!
"We must raise the standard of the Old, free, decentralized, and strictly limited Republic."
-- Murray Rothbard

"The worst thing that can happen to a good cause is, not to be skillfully attacked, but to be ineptly defended."
-- Frederic Bastiat
LaissezFaire
Posts: 2,050
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/28/2011 10:06:52 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 2/28/2011 10:00:54 PM, Cerebral_Narcissist wrote:
At 2/28/2011 9:56:23 PM, LaissezFaire wrote:
At 2/28/2011 9:47:25 PM, Cerebral_Narcissist wrote:
Correct me if am wrong but an-caps argue that Law and Order should be left to the market. Private competing firms.

Lets say I have a property dispute with my neighbour, our title deeds both lay claim to an area of land of equally distant from our houses. We have overlapping claims. My neighbour starts to trim a hedge that I say is on my land. I phone Security Company A who point guns at him, he phones security Company B and a small war begins.

When the dust settles we both want to go to seperate Judges for the case to be decided.

How on earth does any legal dispute get sorted in such a society?

When citizens of two separate governments--who each have different security providers representing them--have a property dispute, does it escalate into violence? Of course not. And that's with no profit motive (violence is expensive)--simply the desire to avoid violence. Private firms would, in addition to not wanting their employees to die, have a strong incentive to avoid violent disputes with other firms because they're unprofitable. Firms could have pre-made agreements with each other, laying out a procedure they'd go through when a dispute between their customers arises simply because it's much more profitable for each firm to do so, since customers avoid violent firms (they don't want to get hurt) and fighting unnecessarily wastes money. They'd just settle the dispute in a courtroom, peacefully.

Okay... so the neighbour is hacking down my hedge. I phone my guys, he phones his guys.

What if...
1: He refuses to stop cutting the hedge.
Your guys would stop him, his guys would refuse to protect him. His protection firm wouldn't agree to protect him no matter what--agreeing to protect a criminal while he's committing crimes is far too risky. They'd tell him to stop or they'd stop protecting him.
2: One of us refuses to go to court.
3: Neither of us decide on what court to use.
It wouldn't be up to you, your protection firms would figure it out. They'd never agree to let their customers figure out the courts--too much chance they won't be able to agree on one. They'd have pre-made agreements to go to specific courts written in the contracts.
Should we subsidize education?
http://www.debate.org...

http://mises.org...

http://lewrockwell.com...

http://antiwar.com...

: At 6/22/2011 6:57:23 PM, el-badgero wrote:
: i didn't like [Obama]. he was the only black dude in moneygall yet he claimed to be home. obvious liar is obvious liar. i bet him and bin laden are bumfvcking right now.
Cerebral_Narcissist
Posts: 10,806
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/28/2011 10:07:05 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 2/28/2011 9:58:22 PM, Reasoning wrote:
At 2/28/2011 9:55:36 PM, Cerebral_Narcissist wrote:
I don't like the arbitration agency my neigbour has chosen, I want the case to be decided by the Bishop of Hamburg.

Then if he agrees that Bishop of Hamburg would make a fair arbiter, her will agree.

I want the Bishop of Hamburg, they want Fast-Speedy-Courts PLC. Neither of us budge.

Again how does anthing get resolved with free market law and order?

Arbitration.

Arbitration requires both parties to submit to or be coerced by a third party. What if I decide to reject all suggested arbiters?
I am voting for Innomen because of his intelligence, common sense, humility and the fact that Juggle appears to listen to him. Any other Presidential style would have a large sub-section of the site up in arms. If I was President I would destroy the site though elitism, others would let it run riot. Innomen represents a middle way that works, neither draconian nor anarchic and that is the only way things can work. Plus he does it all without ego trips.
LaissezFaire
Posts: 2,050
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/28/2011 10:10:59 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 2/28/2011 9:59:45 PM, FREEDO wrote:
Would monopoly arise?
No.
If so, is that bad thing?

If not, why?
The only time a monopoly can exist is through government intervention creating and enforcing one by forcibly preventing competition. In free markets, even rich and powerful people like Rockefeller failed to create monopolies--he tried to monopolize the oil business but repeatedly failed, since whenever he hiked up prices firms quickly rose to compete with him. Even supposed 'natural monopolies' like electricity wouldn't be a problem. During the 19th century, cities without government granted electricity monopoles had competing electric firms (not sure about the physics and engineering of how this worked, but they managed to figure it out), and had much lower prices than cities with monopolized electricity.
Should we subsidize education?
http://www.debate.org...

http://mises.org...

http://lewrockwell.com...

http://antiwar.com...

: At 6/22/2011 6:57:23 PM, el-badgero wrote:
: i didn't like [Obama]. he was the only black dude in moneygall yet he claimed to be home. obvious liar is obvious liar. i bet him and bin laden are bumfvcking right now.
Cerebral_Narcissist
Posts: 10,806
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/28/2011 10:12:25 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 2/28/2011 10:06:52 PM, LaissezFaire wrote:
At 2/28/2011 10:00:54 PM, Cerebral_Narcissist wrote:
At 2/28/2011 9:56:23 PM, LaissezFaire wrote:
At 2/28/2011 9:47:25 PM, Cerebral_Narcissist wrote:
Correct me if am wrong but an-caps argue that Law and Order should be left to the market. Private competing firms.

Lets say I have a property dispute with my neighbour, our title deeds both lay claim to an area of land of equally distant from our houses. We have overlapping claims. My neighbour starts to trim a hedge that I say is on my land. I phone Security Company A who point guns at him, he phones security Company B and a small war begins.

When the dust settles we both want to go to seperate Judges for the case to be decided.

How on earth does any legal dispute get sorted in such a society?

When citizens of two separate governments--who each have different security providers representing them--have a property dispute, does it escalate into violence? Of course not. And that's with no profit motive (violence is expensive)--simply the desire to avoid violence. Private firms would, in addition to not wanting their employees to die, have a strong incentive to avoid violent disputes with other firms because they're unprofitable. Firms could have pre-made agreements with each other, laying out a procedure they'd go through when a dispute between their customers arises simply because it's much more profitable for each firm to do so, since customers avoid violent firms (they don't want to get hurt) and fighting unnecessarily wastes money. They'd just settle the dispute in a courtroom, peacefully.

Okay... so the neighbour is hacking down my hedge. I phone my guys, he phones his guys.

What if...
1: He refuses to stop cutting the hedge.
Your guys would stop him, his guys would refuse to protect him. His protection firm wouldn't agree to protect him no matter what--agreeing to protect a criminal while he's committing crimes is far too risky. They'd tell him to stop or they'd stop protecting him.

Why would his guys refuse to protect him? I am paying my guys to stop him, and he is paying his guys to stop me from stopping him. According to his title deed he is on his land, cutting his own property.

What if they look reluctant, so he upgrades his membership. Lets say his goons get commission for that. They have families to feed.

2: One of us refuses to go to court.
3: Neither of us decide on what court to use.
It wouldn't be up to you, your protection firms would figure it out. They'd never agree to let their customers figure out the courts--too much chance they won't be able to agree on one. They'd have pre-made agreements to go to specific courts written in the contracts.

Thats not very free market now is it? Wouldn't this create court monopolies?

What if I offer my security company more money to settle out of court by murdering my neighbour?
I am voting for Innomen because of his intelligence, common sense, humility and the fact that Juggle appears to listen to him. Any other Presidential style would have a large sub-section of the site up in arms. If I was President I would destroy the site though elitism, others would let it run riot. Innomen represents a middle way that works, neither draconian nor anarchic and that is the only way things can work. Plus he does it all without ego trips.
LaissezFaire
Posts: 2,050
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/28/2011 10:19:04 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 2/28/2011 10:12:25 PM, Cerebral_Narcissist wrote:
At 2/28/2011 10:06:52 PM, LaissezFaire wrote:
At 2/28/2011 10:00:54 PM, Cerebral_Narcissist wrote:
At 2/28/2011 9:56:23 PM, LaissezFaire wrote:
At 2/28/2011 9:47:25 PM, Cerebral_Narcissist wrote:
Correct me if am wrong but an-caps argue that Law and Order should be left to the market. Private competing firms.

Lets say I have a property dispute with my neighbour, our title deeds both lay claim to an area of land of equally distant from our houses. We have overlapping claims. My neighbour starts to trim a hedge that I say is on my land. I phone Security Company A who point guns at him, he phones security Company B and a small war begins.

When the dust settles we both want to go to seperate Judges for the case to be decided.

How on earth does any legal dispute get sorted in such a society?

When citizens of two separate governments--who each have different security providers representing them--have a property dispute, does it escalate into violence? Of course not. And that's with no profit motive (violence is expensive)--simply the desire to avoid violence. Private firms would, in addition to not wanting their employees to die, have a strong incentive to avoid violent disputes with other firms because they're unprofitable. Firms could have pre-made agreements with each other, laying out a procedure they'd go through when a dispute between their customers arises simply because it's much more profitable for each firm to do so, since customers avoid violent firms (they don't want to get hurt) and fighting unnecessarily wastes money. They'd just settle the dispute in a courtroom, peacefully.

Okay... so the neighbour is hacking down my hedge. I phone my guys, he phones his guys.

What if...
1: He refuses to stop cutting the hedge.
Your guys would stop him, his guys would refuse to protect him. His protection firm wouldn't agree to protect him no matter what--agreeing to protect a criminal while he's committing crimes is far too risky. They'd tell him to stop or they'd stop protecting him.

Why would his guys refuse to protect him? I am paying my guys to stop him, and he is paying his guys to stop me from stopping him. According to his title deed he is on his land, cutting his own property.
Because they'd want to settle the matter in court first, since doing so is cheaper and easier than settling it through violence. If the court decided it was his, your firm would stop protecting you instead.

What if they look reluctant, so he upgrades his membership. Lets say his goons get commission for that. They have families to feed.

2: One of us refuses to go to court.
3: Neither of us decide on what court to use.
It wouldn't be up to you, your protection firms would figure it out. They'd never agree to let their customers figure out the courts--too much chance they won't be able to agree on one. They'd have pre-made agreements to go to specific courts written in the contracts.

Thats not very free market now is it? Wouldn't this create court monopolies?

What if I offer my security company more money to settle out of court by murdering my neighbour?

Security companies could go rogue, operating outside of the court system and murdering people and whatnot. But if they did, reputable firms would simply refuse to peacefully deal with them, treating them as nothing more than bands of criminal thugs. Even people that might potentially want rogue firms would avoid these types of firms, since a reputable firm--one that other firms will deal with peacefully--would be better able to protect them than a rogue firm. So, since most people don't want those sorts of thuggish tactics anyway, and those that might will probably value peace and better protection anyway, the criminal, rogue firms would always be in the minority, if they existed. They'd be easily dealt with by the vast majority of firms, the reputable, law-abiding ones.

And no, this would not create monopoly courts. Different arbiters would still have to compete with each other for the
Should we subsidize education?
http://www.debate.org...

http://mises.org...

http://lewrockwell.com...

http://antiwar.com...

: At 6/22/2011 6:57:23 PM, el-badgero wrote:
: i didn't like [Obama]. he was the only black dude in moneygall yet he claimed to be home. obvious liar is obvious liar. i bet him and bin laden are bumfvcking right now.
Reasoning
Posts: 4,456
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/28/2011 10:19:23 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 2/28/2011 10:12:25 PM, Cerebral_Narcissist wrote:
Why would his guys refuse to protect him?

His title to the land is contested. Should he be found in the wrong, the insurance company would have to pay damages for the hedge.

It wouldn't be up to you, your protection firms would figure it out. They'd never agree to let their customers figure out the courts--too much chance they won't be able to agree on one. They'd have pre-made agreements to go to specific courts written in the contracts.

Thats not very free market now is it?

Why isn't it?

Wouldn't this create court monopolies?

Anyone would be free to sell his own arbitration services.

What if I offer my security company more money to settle out of court by murdering my neighbour?

Then the security company would be a band of criminals not much different from a government and would be treated as such.
"What we really ought to ask the liberal, before we even begin addressing his agenda, is this: In what kind of society would he be a conservative?" - Joseph Sobran
djsherin
Posts: 343
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/28/2011 10:27:03 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 2/28/2011 10:12:25 PM, Cerebral_Narcissist wrote:
At 2/28/2011 10:06:52 PM, LaissezFaire wrote:
At 2/28/2011 10:00:54 PM, Cerebral_Narcissist wrote:
At 2/28/2011 9:56:23 PM, LaissezFaire wrote:
At 2/28/2011 9:47:25 PM, Cerebral_Narcissist wrote:
Correct me if am wrong but an-caps argue that Law and Order should be left to the market. Private competing firms.

Lets say I have a property dispute with my neighbour, our title deeds both lay claim to an area of land of equally distant from our houses. We have overlapping claims. My neighbour starts to trim a hedge that I say is on my land. I phone Security Company A who point guns at him, he phones security Company B and a small war begins.

When the dust settles we both want to go to seperate Judges for the case to be decided.

How on earth does any legal dispute get sorted in such a society?

When citizens of two separate governments--who each have different security providers representing them--have a property dispute, does it escalate into violence? Of course not. And that's with no profit motive (violence is expensive)--simply the desire to avoid violence. Private firms would, in addition to not wanting their employees to die, have a strong incentive to avoid violent disputes with other firms because they're unprofitable. Firms could have pre-made agreements with each other, laying out a procedure they'd go through when a dispute between their customers arises simply because it's much more profitable for each firm to do so, since customers avoid violent firms (they don't want to get hurt) and fighting unnecessarily wastes money. They'd just settle the dispute in a courtroom, peacefully.

Okay... so the neighbour is hacking down my hedge. I phone my guys, he phones his guys.

What if...
1: He refuses to stop cutting the hedge.
Your guys would stop him, his guys would refuse to protect him. His protection firm wouldn't agree to protect him no matter what--agreeing to protect a criminal while he's committing crimes is far too risky. They'd tell him to stop or they'd stop protecting him.

Why would his guys refuse to protect him? I am paying my guys to stop him, and he is paying his guys to stop me from stopping him. According to his title deed he is on his land, cutting his own property.

Engaging in fighting is expensive. Every action has costs and benefits. Going to war to continue getting fees from one client would have the benefit of continued fees but the costs of fighting (ammunition, employees lives, presumably death benefits/medical costs to the killed/wounded, significant loss of reputation among potential and current clients, etc.). Not going to war would have the cost of possibly losing that client's membership. Even if he's paying a lot of money, the costs are too great.

What if they look reluctant, so he upgrades his membership. Lets say his goons get commission for that. They have families to feed.

2: One of us refuses to go to court.
3: Neither of us decide on what court to use.
It wouldn't be up to you, your protection firms would figure it out. They'd never agree to let their customers figure out the courts--too much chance they won't be able to agree on one. They'd have pre-made agreements to go to specific courts written in the contracts.

Thats not very free market now is it? Wouldn't this create court monopolies?

What if I offer my security company more money to settle out of court by murdering my neighbour?

That would be a hell of a risk for that company to take. The same question could be asked in today's world. What if you're friends with a cop and you give him a bunch of money to murder a guy you have a simple property dispute over? People don't suddenly resort to lethal violence over minor disputes like this. Even if you bribed the guy and got away with it, how likely is that really to occur?
Cerebral_Narcissist
Posts: 10,806
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/28/2011 10:28:40 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 2/28/2011 10:19:04 PM, LaissezFaire wrote:
At 2/28/2011 10:12:25 PM, Cerebral_Narcissist wrote:
At 2/28/2011 10:06:52 PM, LaissezFaire wrote:
At 2/28/2011 10:00:54 PM, Cerebral_Narcissist wrote:
At 2/28/2011 9:56:23 PM, LaissezFaire wrote:
At 2/28/2011 9:47:25 PM, Cerebral_Narcissist wrote:
Correct me if am wrong but an-caps argue that Law and Order should be left to the market. Private competing firms.

Lets say I have a property dispute with my neighbour, our title deeds both lay claim to an area of land of equally distant from our houses. We have overlapping claims. My neighbour starts to trim a hedge that I say is on my land. I phone Security Company A who point guns at him, he phones security Company B and a small war begins.

When the dust settles we both want to go to seperate Judges for the case to be decided.

How on earth does any legal dispute get sorted in such a society?

When citizens of two separate governments--who each have different security providers representing them--have a property dispute, does it escalate into violence? Of course not. And that's with no profit motive (violence is expensive)--simply the desire to avoid violence. Private firms would, in addition to not wanting their employees to die, have a strong incentive to avoid violent disputes with other firms because they're unprofitable. Firms could have pre-made agreements with each other, laying out a procedure they'd go through when a dispute between their customers arises simply because it's much more profitable for each firm to do so, since customers avoid violent firms (they don't want to get hurt) and fighting unnecessarily wastes money. They'd just settle the dispute in a courtroom, peacefully.

Okay... so the neighbour is hacking down my hedge. I phone my guys, he phones his guys.

What if...
1: He refuses to stop cutting the hedge.
Your guys would stop him, his guys would refuse to protect him. His protection firm wouldn't agree to protect him no matter what--agreeing to protect a criminal while he's committing crimes is far too risky. They'd tell him to stop or they'd stop protecting him.

Why would his guys refuse to protect him? I am paying my guys to stop him, and he is paying his guys to stop me from stopping him. According to his title deed he is on his land, cutting his own property.
Because they'd want to settle the matter in court first, since doing so is cheaper and easier than settling it through violence. If the court decided it was his, your firm would stop protecting you instead.

My neighbour is not prepared to be attacked or left defenceless by the people he is paying to protect him. I am not willing to pay people who do not defend my gooseberry bush. Both companies have a vested interest in escalating this into violence.


What if they look reluctant, so he upgrades his membership. Lets say his goons get commission for that. They have families to feed.

2: One of us refuses to go to court.
3: Neither of us decide on what court to use.
It wouldn't be up to you, your protection firms would figure it out. They'd never agree to let their customers figure out the courts--too much chance they won't be able to agree on one. They'd have pre-made agreements to go to specific courts written in the contracts.

Thats not very free market now is it? Wouldn't this create court monopolies?

What if I offer my security company more money to settle out of court by murdering my neighbour?

Security companies could go rogue, operating outside of the court system and murdering people and whatnot. But if they did, reputable firms would simply refuse to peacefully deal with them, treating them as nothing more than bands of criminal thugs. Even people that might potentially want rogue firms would avoid these types of firms, since a reputable firm--one that other firms will deal with peacefully--would be better able to protect them than a rogue firm. So, since most people don't want those sorts of thuggish tactics anyway, and those that might will probably value peace and better protection anyway, the criminal, rogue firms would always be in the minority, if they existed. They'd be easily dealt with by the vast majority of firms, the reputable, law-abiding ones.

Where does all this morality come from, it would surely all come down to profit? The consumer is most interested in getting the product he wants. Only a tiny minority is concerned by ethical free trade practices. The rest of us have our food and clothing produced by slaves and we dont care.

The law will become that which makes profit, or rather what makes money will become legal.


And no, this would not create monopoly courts. Different arbiters would still have to compete with each other for the

If security companies are making mutual agreements on specific arbiters to use the natural result is a calcification of the market.
I am voting for Innomen because of his intelligence, common sense, humility and the fact that Juggle appears to listen to him. Any other Presidential style would have a large sub-section of the site up in arms. If I was President I would destroy the site though elitism, others would let it run riot. Innomen represents a middle way that works, neither draconian nor anarchic and that is the only way things can work. Plus he does it all without ego trips.
CosmicAlfonzo
Posts: 5,955
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/28/2011 10:30:34 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
Does an-cap take into account certain belief systems that call for the creation of a state, the subjugation of non-believers, and the prophecy that the world will eventually be united under said belief system?
Official "High Priest of Secular Affairs and Transient Distributor of Sonic Apple Seeds relating to the Reptilian Division of Paperwork Immoliation" of The FREEDO Bureaucracy, a DDO branch of the Erisian Front, a subdivision of the Discordian Back, a Limb of the Illuminatian Cosmic Utensil Corp
Reasoning
Posts: 4,456
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/28/2011 10:31:20 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 2/28/2011 10:30:34 PM, CosmicAlfonzo wrote:
Does an-cap take into account certain belief systems that call for the creation of a state, the subjugation of non-believers, and the prophecy that the world will eventually be united under said belief system?

Such religions will give way under market pressure.
"What we really ought to ask the liberal, before we even begin addressing his agenda, is this: In what kind of society would he be a conservative?" - Joseph Sobran