Topic: Do We Need Government? (Read 6961 times)

In the US, the essential rule that executive, legislature and judiciary should be separate is broken.  Your supreme court makes laws and thus is both legislature and judiciary.  I don't know if anything can be done about it and most Americans seem not to care but its theoretically wrong and should not happen.

In the USA, I don't have a problem with lifetime appointments of SCOTUS. Interpreting laws is one thing, but I don't know where they get the authority to overturn Congress.

(not arguing with you, just spewing some thoughts after a week of work )
I think the only debatable mechanism would be the lifetime appointments of judges. Maybe it needs a democratic influence as well. But then again it depends on how and on what ground a judge is appointed. Usually these are very smart people that have their heart in society but sometimes a rotten apple gets through and i feel that there are generally too little mechanisms for society to decide about it. But then again, justice is a subtle line and should not be subjected to the sometimes whimsical public. Judges should have as much a straight view on law as humanly possible and emotions should not play a part in it. They should be fair and to do that a certain distantiation from society is required. I think that people proposing a commercial judgement system fail to understand this special position the justice system has in society.

I think that our judicical systems are some of the finest and most complex achievements humanity created.
It's not perfect, the world and reality often do not coincide with what all humans consider perfect so it cannot be perfect.  Never.
Humans between each other cannot decide what is perfect for everyone and a judge cannot decide that for humanity.
So we need people to walk the fine line, not burdened with emotion or greed but keeping a straight line while judging the weights of the parties involved against the law.
This simply cannot depend on moneymaking, it needs to be in a way separated from most of society to get a broad enough view and see the bigger consequences of the decisions.
It would be destructive to commercialize the juditial system as the core of the system is independence. That means that a judge should never be put in a position where one party can use a form of power to change the judgement. And this is exactly what would happen if there was a financial incentive, like in a company.
Without such safeguard we would be back in the dark ages as a straightening of the judicial system was what took us out of the dark ages in the first place.
Many lifes were given to get us this far and people on this forum want to get rid of it...
 

I would have a state with an elected government, a judiciary with lifetime appointments and an elected lawmaking body.  I happen to live in such a state and it works fine.  Which is why when I see people saying to throw that away and replace it with private organisations that own the courts, police and make the laws, I shudder.  Can you imagine trying to sue such an organisation? 

Exactly, so how would you keep these separated without a central force?
What would prevent a justice firm from making backroom deals with a private police corps to plant drugs on strong guys so they can come to work in jail for free?

If you have one owner of the court system and the security forces and that owner makes the laws, that's a dictatorship.  As you say, it may be benign most of the time, but its not a good alternative to what we have now.

I have no issues with private courts or private police forces but its very dangerous to make the owners of those courts lawmakers.  Separation of executive, legislature and judiciary is essential if you don't want to end up with one small group having absolute power.

The only people who need government are those who have neglected to develop the character that is necessary to govern themselves.

Technically speaking, I'm a dictator in my own home. I would never want democratic control over what what goes into, out of, or thru my home. If anybody doesn't like how I operate my property, they are free to go.

If on the other hand, I choose to sell a portion of my property (fee simple with a free & clear title) within my property boundaries, that property is now a sovereign entity (a state, if you will) and they can choose to do whatever they want on that property as long as those activities don't spill over onto mine or anybody else's. See where I'm going with this?

Your logic is fallible. Competing courts will not always lead to dictatorships. Your stretching the truth (assuming there was any to begin with). There's no way to prove that is the case. Human's are not predictable like physics. Don't conclude when no conclusion is available (non sequitur). I smell a burning straw man.

I've already shown that if you have multiple competing courts/law systems, by a process of elimination you will end up with one entity that makes the laws, owns the courts and owns the police.

The issue is whether you want democratic control of that entity or are happy to leave it to be a dictatorship.  I can see your argument that it would have to be a benign dictatorship but all dictatorships are mostly benign until they kill you if you try to assert the idea of democratic control.

I think what you don't realize Hawker, is that it can be reasonably assumed that for a corporation engaged in private court systems, law enforcement or lawyering/legislating to be profitable, or to be superior in both strength and resources, it had to have acquired those things by essentially 3 methods. They would have had to steal resources in a really stealthy manner, go to war over it (very overt), or they had to use reason, logic and incentives to negotiate for it (plurally the nice way).

As it has been proven in past discussions, warring and stealing are essentially a dangerous business, and tend to get you killed or imprisoned. At the very least, everybody hates you for it and will never trust or deal with you again. In which case, you will eventually peter out and go away, somebody prosecutes you, or some lucky vigilante takes you out. I'd hate to be the guy who has to constantly look over his shoulder because he was such unruly jerk.

Everybody should have the freedom of choice over how they want to be protected in their persons and things. Nobody should have an exclusive privilege to mete out how that is to be procured. Note, that I didn't say how anybody has a right to apply force over others for any arbitrary reason, but to defend and maintain ownership over what is rightfully theirs. It ain't rocket science. Try to think outside the box for once. Sheesh.

No, not on that basis. On the basis that the current system is immoral. A private system isn't.

There have been a few bad decisions in the existing system and on that basis you suggest replacing it with a new system where private individuals owns the courts and the security services and make the law themselves.  Its like saying that the cure for a headache is to cut your head off.

That would be like Consumer Reports taking bribes to give good reviews for products. It could happen but it won't because as soon as they are caught, their reputation would be destroyed and they would be out of business because nobody would trust them. Nobody would do business with a court where verdicts can be bought.

Of course, our current system has no problems at all *cough*O.J. Simpson*cough*...

LOL!!!!
Seriously?
Private courts are not public and have an incentive to make money.
Corruption would be instant and anyone with the right amount of money could buy them.
Justice must always be independant and cannot be commercialized.
Anyone thinking this is at least plausable has got no idea of the sots of complex problems arise in a society and how humanity has gone through some pretty shitty time to come to the conclusion that this is the best way to get any kind of justice.

I mean, just for amusement, imagine that everyone could just start their own private courtroom.
What standards/law will your judges follow?
What if another firm opens and they don't agree with your interpretation of the law?
Who will then judge wether your court is right or the other court is right?
Where would your court find authority to actually execute the interpretation of these laws?
What if the other court doesn't agree and merges with a PMC?
Who's your daddy then, huh?
I mean, if they do it then you will also need to do so because you need to protect your interpretation of the law.

It is realy a very very bad idea to just let everything to the market.
The market doesn't care at the core and your money is not enough to make them care enough.
They do their best to make you think tho that your money can make a difference, but in fact, without a revolution you would be powerless against these gigants as they have ways to make you comply without you even knowing.
Yes, that's a 3 feet dildo right up your arse right there. Didn't even notice, right?

It's stupid because it would create corporations which are too powerfull and yet only motivated by becoming more powerfull, by whatever means. If they are forced to listen to the people because people stop buying their stuff then they will listen. If they can make a ton of moneys by poisoning the water supply from the freshly accuired water distribution firm and then sell you the cure they will do it.
There is very little a big corporation is not willing to do for money and power and without a separate, independent and overarching justice system and a force to execute these judgements there is virtually no hope of humanity developing any further.

Explain your " Likely none of the kids get anything because the parents were too stupid to secure their assets. " suggestion then.  

Be honest - the real issue here is that your idea is bad.  Think of something better and post again.

No I didn't (and clarified 3 times).  Learn to read and stop lying till then the conversation is over.

55% of adults die without wills and you say they would not get anything under your system because their parents were too stupid.

That's the society you advocate.  If you want to retreat from it, that's fine.  But don't say its a false claim when I quote your own posts. 

Failed states certainly don't not in practice.

Still that point is irrelivent.  The topic was about no govt = no state.  Obviously the state wouldn't exist in a non-state solution.

Today STATE COURTS  & LAW ENFORCEMENT OFFICERS OF THE STATE protect rights (including inheritances)
Under a non-state solution PRIVATE COURTS & PRIVATE LAW ENFORCEMENT OFFICERS would protect rights (including inheritances).

Not a whole lot changes except freedom of choice. 



This has nothing to do with wills.  Kids would inherit the property of the parents according the statutes of the courts that they are contractually bound to.  No different than today.  My US citizenship and VA domicile binds me to the statutes of the state of VA and federal court when it comes to inheritances, property, contractual obligations, etc.   In a private court system I would choose a court that is aligned w/ my personal values and contract for security and law enforcement.  My rights would be protected by that private security and disputes handled by that private court. 

The only significant change would be FREEDOM OF CHOICE.  Under a private court system if I died for any reason, anywhere in the world my children's inheritances would be protected by the private court just like the state does now.

I don't care if you are serious or not.  Your claim was legal conflicts -> dictatorship I see you realize (without admitting) the lunacy in that claim.   Now you have gone to making a whole new set of false claims ("children would be robbed without wills").  

I know of no state that doesn't have provision for intestacy.  Its as basic an essential as the law on murder.  I don't know what kind of dream world you live in but in the real world 55% of people don't have wills.  Your idea that their kids should not be able to inherit their property is disgusting.

Really I'm serious - if you want to change the system, please come up with something better than what we have now. 

It is no different now.  If your assets exist outside the law then no court can help you protect them. Try owning a factory in Somalia or $20M in illegal drugs in the US and see how much use the courts are in enforcing any claim.  

You seem to forget the parents have the CHOICE to protect their assets.  They also have the chocie to live outside the law.  With freedom comes responsibility.  There is no moral hazard.  If they want their assets protected they can do so.  If they chose to not protect their assets well that is their choice.  No different than say parents in one family protecting their children by buying life insurance and parents in another family not doing so.  Should the government also collect life insurance premiums from every citizen to ensure all children have an asset when their parent dies?  

Nobody would be robbing orphans except negligent parents who decide to live outside the law.

If I recall your argument wasn't that private courts were undesirable your argument was:
conflict in court rulings -> armed conflict -> only one survives -> dictatorship.

If you accept that claim is unfounded and private courts are simply a future you don't like well that is a huge step forward in opening your eyes to alternatives and away from the mindwashing that govt services are essential.  They are a choice not essential.