We need someone to protect peoples rights otherwise they are taken by force. We need an authority to protect us against the use of force from outsiders and also from insiders (criminals and the gov).
Gov makes this easy
Topic: Criticisms? - page 2. (Read 11855 times)
"I was assuming no prior contract, with the siblings, where now, I realize that of course he would have had a contract with his REA, as would the mob members."
Not an implied contract at all, an explicitly stated one, and not with the siblings, but with his Rights Enforcement Agency.
Ah. Of course. First thing every mob does before hanging a man is negotiate a contract with their Rights Enforcement Agency.
Yes, actually. although it actually happens long before that, when they hire them.
"I was assuming no prior contract, with the siblings, where now, I realize that of course he would have had a contract with his REA, as would the mob members."
Not an implied contract at all, an explicitly stated one, and not with the siblings, but with his Rights Enforcement Agency.
Ah. Of course. First thing every mob does before hanging a man is negotiate a contract with their Rights Enforcement Agency.
"I was assuming no prior contract, with the siblings, where now, I realize that of course he would have had a contract with his REA, as would the mob members."
Not an implied contract at all, an explicitly stated one, and not with the siblings, but with his Rights Enforcement Agency.
"I was assuming no prior contract, with the siblings, where now, I realize that of course he would have had a contract with his REA, as would the mob members."
You are creating an implied contracts between the siblings. Since none of them can possibly know the terms of that contract, its a bit far fetched. You also create an implied contract between the mob and they person they hanged. I don't have an adjective for that.
No, no such implied contract. If you can point out where that is stated, I would appreciate it.
You are creating an implied contracts between the siblings. Since none of them can possibly know the terms of that contract, its a bit far fetched. You also create an implied contract between the mob and they person they hanged. I don't have an adjective for that.
So earlier when you said the siblings were stuffed, you have changed your mind and now there is some way to compel the person in possession to accept arbitration? And if a mob hangs a man, there is some group who can compel the members of that mob to accept arbitration ? And it will have remand jails for mob members who are a flight risk ? I assume the "arbitration" will involve a jury and that any crime must be punished beyond all reasonable doubt before a punishment is administered?
It's not so much changed my mind, as changed assumptions. Arbitration, as I said, can be compelled, if you had previously agreed to bring all disputes to arbitration, and agreed to being compelled to show up if you were reluctant. I was assuming no prior contract, with the siblings, where now, I realize that of course he would have had a contract with his REA, as would the mob members. Thus, under that contract, if it specified (and I see no reason why it would not) that he - or the mob members - would bring any disputes before arbitration, he could be compelled to show up, as could they. But while not all contracts with REAs would specify "If you don't come to arbitration, we can force you," all would say something along the lines of "You agree to take all disputes to arbitration," so if he did not, he would be in breach of contract, resulting in the same consequences as I outlined before. This is why I posted this thread, to help me see the holes, not in the theory, but in my defense and understanding of it.
Without violent harm being done, and without a prior contract specifically allowing it, there's no justification to compel someone to appear at arbitration. Even with violent harm being done, you're taking a bit of a risk in doing so (which I suppose you could take even without violent harm, if you really wanted your money back) because you're violating his rights in using force against him, and the arbiter could come down on his side of things, or just order that he be paid restitution for the harm you've done him. At best, that would cut into your judgment, at worst, you may end up owing him a hefty restitution.
As for "jail", nothing so barbaric. Flight risks would be detained, but at a facility either of their choosing, or as specified in their contract with their REA. These facilities, since they are in market competition with one another, would be competing for customers - both people wishing to make sure the person doesn't escape, and people wishing a pleasant experience while confined. Thus, "Bob's Bed, Breakfast, and Bail-bonds" would be a much nicer place to stay than the county lock-up.
As for a jury (and here I assume that that first "punished" was intended to be "proven"), if you really desire 12, or 15, or any number other than one arbiter to decide your case, you can have that, but that will be more expensive. The idea behind arbitration is that you select someone whose judgment you trust to decide your case. A jury is there to back up the fallibility of a single, court-appointed judge. Since both sides come to an agreement about the judge they think will best decide the case, a jury is not necessary to backstop that. But yes, of course any crime needs to be proven before a judgment is made against someone, to do otherwise would be idiotic. Thank you for highlighting another difference between court and arbitration for me.
Who exactly punishes the mob members ? Have they even committed a crime ?
Of course they've committed a crime, murder. And the murderers are taken to arbitration to determine what they owe the estate of the "rapist", probably with a little thrown in to help fund or repay the cost of finding the right guy.
No that's contradicting yourself. No-one gets taken to arbitration; they volunteer to go. If they are being taken to arbitration, its a court.
No, a court is a government construct, where the judge is paid by the same person as is the prosecutor, and you have no say in who that judge is.
Arbitration can be compelled, such as by a contract you agreed to previously (such as that with your defense agency - a note: I'm going to start using David Friedman's term "Rights Enforcement Agency", I like that one better.) The difference between arbitration and court is that you get to help pick the judge - again, it probably would be specified in the contract with your REA - and they are not part of the same organization as is claiming damages against you.
So earlier when you said the siblings were stuffed, you have changed your mind and now there is some way to compel the person in possession to accept arbitration? And if a mob hangs a man, there is some group who can compel the members of that mob to accept arbitration ? And it will have remand jails for mob members who are a flight risk ? I assume the "arbitration" will involve a jury and that any crime must be punished beyond all reasonable doubt before a punishment is administered ?
Who exactly punishes the mob members ? Have they even committed a crime ?
Of course they've committed a crime, murder. And the murderers are taken to arbitration to determine what they owe the estate of the "rapist", probably with a little thrown in to help fund or repay the cost of finding the right guy.
No that's contradicting yourself. No-one gets taken to arbitration; they volunteer to go. If they are being taken to arbitration, its a court.
No, a court is a government construct, where the judge is paid by the same person as is the prosecutor, and you have no say in who that judge is.
Arbitration can be compelled, such as by a contract you agreed to previously (such as that with your defense agency - a note: I'm going to start using David Friedman's term "Rights Enforcement Agency", I like that one better.) The difference between arbitration and court is that you get to help pick the judge - again, it probably would be specified in the contract with your REA - and they are not part of the same organization as is claiming damages against you.
Who exactly punishes the mob members ? Have they even committed a crime ?
Of course they've committed a crime, murder. And the murderers are taken to arbitration to determine what they owe the estate of the "rapist", probably with a little thrown in to help fund or repay the cost of finding the right guy.
No that's contradicting yourself. No-one gets taken to arbitration; they volunteer to go. If they are being taken to arbitration, its a court.
Who exactly punishes the mob members ? Have they even committed a crime ?
Of course they've committed a crime, murder. And the murderers are taken to arbitration to determine what they owe the estate of the "rapist", probably with a little thrown in to help fund or repay the cost of finding the right guy.
Please don't confuse what a nice person like you would do with how a mob behaves. If a mob decides that a guy who has carried out a rape/murder is to be hanged as what he did is a threat to every decent person, does a NAP based society have a procedure to ensure that the man gets a fair trail before being hanged?
Yes. Remember those protection agencies? As long as that person is not refusing arbitration, they will prevent the mob from assaulting him. Yes, especially if the evidence bears out that he was innocent. That's what the (initial) arbitration is for, to determine guilt or innocence.
So a mob hangs a guy for raping a little girl. She identified him. Turns out she got it wrong.
Who exactly punishes the mob members ? Have they even committed a crime ?
If you haven't yet, you must watch :
The Machinery Of Freedom by David Friedman (Illustrated summary) http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=jTYkdEU_B4o#
The Machinery Of Freedom by David Friedman (Illustrated summary) http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=jTYkdEU_B4o#
This is getting cross-posted in the other threads. If you doubt the fairness of NAP and market anarchy, This will be a good use of 23 of your minutes.
Please don't confuse what a nice person like you would do with how a mob behaves. If a mob decides that a guy who has carried out a rape/murder is to be hanged as what he did is a threat to every decent person, does a NAP based society have a procedure to ensure that the man gets a fair trail before being hanged?
Yes. Remember those protection agencies? As long as that person is not refusing arbitration, they will prevent the mob from assaulting him. Yes, especially if the evidence bears out that he was innocent. That's what the (initial) arbitration is for, to determine guilt or innocence.
Please don't confuse what a nice person like you would do with how a mob behaves. If a mob decides that a guy who has carried out a rape/murder is to be hanged as what he did is a threat to every decent person, does a NAP based society have a procedure to ensure that the man gets a fair trail before being hanged?
Yes. Remember those protection agencies? As long as that person is not refusing arbitration, they will prevent the mob from assaulting him.
And if they don't get there in time? Is there a penalty for the mob?
If they hang him without proof, then it's not a NAP-based society.
If they give him a fair choice of arbitration then it's a NAP-based society.
There's no sense in arguing pragmatic issues like HOW to bring about such a society until we agree that we SHOULD bring it about.
If they give him a fair choice of arbitration then it's a NAP-based society.
There's no sense in arguing pragmatic issues like HOW to bring about such a society until we agree that we SHOULD bring it about.
Please don't confuse what a nice person like you would do with how a mob behaves. If a mob decides that a guy who has carried out a rape/murder is to be hanged as what he did is a threat to every decent person, does a NAP based society have a procedure to ensure that the man gets a fair trail before being hanged?
Yes. Remember those protection agencies? As long as that person is not refusing arbitration, they will prevent the mob from assaulting him.
A system where a mob can hang a man without a jury trial is a system where mobs will hang men without jury trials. If the mobs are of different races or religion, they will argue its self-defence. The question is whether the NAP forbids it? If not, its a lot less benign that I thought.
In a case of irrefutable proof (man murders someone in broad daylight, gets 6 or seven holes punched in him by the people in the street) I'd say justice done. But in a case where there is even a shred of doubt, arbitration remains the way to go. "Better that ten guilty persons escape than that one innocent suffer," as it were.
Please don't confuse what a nice person like you would do with how a mob behaves. If a mob decides that a guy who has carried out a rape/murder is to be hanged as what he did is a threat to every decent person, does a NAP based society have a procedure to ensure that the man gets a fair trail before being hanged?
A system where a mob can hang a man without a jury trial is a system where mobs will hang men without jury trials. If the mobs are of different races or religion, they will argue its self-defence. The question is whether the NAP forbids it? If not, its a lot less benign that I thought.
In a case of irrefutable proof (man murders someone in broad daylight, gets 6 or seven holes punched in him by the people in the street) I'd say justice done. But in a case where there is even a shred of doubt, arbitration remains the way to go. "Better that ten guilty persons escape than that one innocent suffer," as it were.
Jump to: