Topic: Do We Need Government? - page 2. (Read 6961 times)

Sorry your morality tale is worse than the existing system.  If the best you can come up with is that if a couple dies in a car crash before making a will, their kids are not entitled to their estate, then your proposal is crap.

Try to think of something that improves on what we have now.  Finding new ways to rob orphans shows creativity on your part but its not really any use is it?

I already answered that.  The parents assets are already under jurisdiction of the company they contracted to provide security & law enforcement.  The courts the kids choose have no authority (beyond going to war or intra-court agreements).

IF the parents chose to not contract for law enforcement & security they are operating outside the law.  No different than if the parents lived and died in somolia or some other failed state.  Likely none of the kids get anything because the parents were too stupid to secure their assets.  Living outside the law is not recommended.  Moral of the story contract for security & law enforcement.

Ah good - progress.  You now acknowledge that the courts will indeed adjudicate.

So parents die intestate and the kids each gets a judgement from competing courts in their favour.  How do the clashing judgements get resolved?

A court certainly can but without possession of the asset and no mechanism to enforce a claim the only outcome is war. If you think a multi-billion dollar corporation will go to war to enforce your claim you are delusional.  I never said no other court can make a decision I said it was irrelevant. Really no different than a US court finding in your favor but it being unenforcable because the assets are outside the reach of the court.  The US court might agree with you but that doesn't mean the military might of these United States is going to help you enforce that claim.  If that happens are you going to renounce your citizenship?  If the US going to collapse because it can't enforce every claim made by every citizen against entities outside it control?

It happens everyday.  Another example: A mother has custody.  Father takes the child and flees to Saudia Arabia.  Mother files in US court and they find the father broke the law, a warrant is issued for his arrest on the charge of kidnapping.  Without enforcement it is useless. Of course the mother has a right to file a claim.  Of course the court will rule on it.  If the court of Saudi Arabia rule against her do you think the United States is going to go to war to being the child back?

Wait a conflict in rulings.  That must lead to war (your flawed conclusion) eventually every country will go to war with every other country until only a single country has survived.  Err. wait that hasn't happened.  Yet somehow if the legal entities were corporations instead of governments then war is unavoidable.  A logical fallacy or at best an unproven claim.

It HAPPENS EVERYDAY RIGHT NOW.  There is no material difference if the artificial lines are countries, borders, and citizenship or corporations, contracts, and customers.  If the court can enforce your claim then great.  If they can't then hopefully there is an intra-court solution (a court may enforce a ruling from another court because of reciprocity agreements).  If not then you are SHIT OUT OF LUCK ... just like today.

You are close to delusional here.  There is no way courts will refuse to adjudicate if people die intestate.  It would be like a car that doesn't drive.

The jurisdiction would the the entity which has secured the assets via contract.  If you parents accepted the services of a company to provide security and law enforcement they would be arbiter of any disputes (will or no will).

If your parents accepted no entity to provide security and law enforcement then they are chosing to live outside the law and have no security of their assets or rights.

There would only be one entity with jurisdiction.  The entity which has possession of the assets, the consent of the owner, and the military/security force to ensure others don't try to take it by force.

deathandtaxes - the US and France are separate jurisdictions.  You are proposing competing legal systems in the same jurisdiciton.

When people die intestate, that means they have not made a will.  Your answer doesn't make sense because it assumes there is a will.  Try again.

we do need government.

we do not need the government we have though.

Adjudicate what?  Parents assets are secured by company X, parents have contract w/ company X, parent's will says company X is to handle any disputes.  Sure court abc could say anything it wants.  It could rule that Parents assets are the work of the devil and order them destroyed but without force they couldn't do anything.


Sure much like the United States could disagree with a court decision made by France and launch a military strike to force a different outcome because it has superior military force.  Countries, companies, and other entities have contractual disputes everyday and rarely does it result in a war.

So yes THAT COULD HAPPEN but it doesn't.  The cost of the war (and the risk of losing when multiple competitors band together to stop the aggressive court's belligerence) has to be weighed against the benefit of the conflict.  Wars are almost never economically profitable.  If economics was a serious consideration we would have much less not more conflict in the last couple centuries.

No what would happen is via the contract your parents security company would secure their assets upon their death and assets would be split according to the will.  If there was a dispute it would be handled by the companies court.  If you didn't like that outcome your option would be to go to war.

Pretty much exactly the same outcome as today except entities would be structured by choice rather than by citizenship.

If your parents have died intestate, then any of the competing courts can adjudicate.  Also, you can't stop courts reviewing one another so a court with a small militia will be over-ruled by one with a bigger militia if someone feels there has not been due process.  If little Tim has an accident on John's property, Tim will go to a court that has a track record of large tort rewards and that court may well decide it has jurisdiction since it has the armed force to enforce its decision.

No you can't.  The court which would matter is the one that has the assets i.e. the one your parents chose.  What court you want to file in has no relevence.  They would have no say in anything beyond their jurisdiction and your parents assets wouldn't be in their jurisdiction.

Same town, same state, same country, same planet is irrelivent.  What matters is who has jurisdiction.

If company X has secure your parents assets, company X is listed as the court of venue in your parents will and company x has the firepower to ensure someone doesn't just try to take the assets by force then ....

.... DRUMROLL ....

then only the decision of company/court x matters.  You could file legal motions in every private court on the planet but it would have no relevance.  Today if your parents assets were in Pakistan then it wouldn't matter what motions you filed in a court in France or VA, or Sealand.

No it wouldn't you keep jumping to this unfound conclusion.  Much like people vote today on politicians you would be "voting" by picking the company who you feel represents your interests.  In the "your parent" example your parents CHOSE the company which would protect their assets.  They weren't forced into anything.  They could have picked company a, b, c, .... or z.  By picking A they are "voting" that company A represents their values by proxy.

Whats your obsession with travelling abroad to settle disputes?  Stay on topic please.

OP is proposing multiple competing courts systems in the same state.  So if your parents die intestate, you can go to one and get 1 verdict while your sister goes to another and gets a different verdict.  Only one of the courts can have its judgement enforced.  So the other court will end up being a court where anyone can get judgement but they won't be enforced.  So it will go bust.

Over a period of time, even if you start with 100 courts each of which has its own set of laws, you will end up with 1 because the others failed to enforce their judgement.

That means unelected body that makes and enforces law.  A dictatorship.

No I am not.  Today you and your siblings could be located in different countries and that is totally immaterial. The only relevant decision is the one made by the courts where your parents chose to be bound (by citizenship and domicile).  All law is backed by the threat of force having those laws and enforcement by private entities wouldn't change anything.

Today:
Your father has $10M in assets held in a US bank in state of VA.  The jurisdiction is the courts of VA.  You live in WY and your sister lives in France.  Say the will is in dispute due to vague language.  What the courts of France say is immaterial unless they intend to use force to reclaim the assets for your sister.  What matters is what the state of VA says and unless someone is willing to go to war over it that is the only court that matters.

Hypothetical future w/ private courts:
Your father has $10M in assets secured by Alliance Security and his will indicates Alliance Security Courts is the arbitrator in any disputes. The jurisdiction is the Alliance Security Courts. You have accepted to be bound by the statutes of Union Systems.  Your sister has accepted to be bound by the statutes of the Confederation for the Common good.  Say the will is in dispute due to vague language. What the courts of the COCG says is immaterial unless they intend to use force to reclaim the assets for your sister.  What matters is what the Alliance Security Courts say and unless someone is willing to go to war over it that is the only court that matters.

Deathandtaxes, you are proposing a world in which I go to one court to claim my inheritance and my siblings got to other courts with different inheritance laws to claim the same inheritance.

I don't know why you keep talking about different countries - we don't have countries where there are multiple competing legal systems and you should not need to move country to claim an inheritance in your own country.

FYP.  You can stop making the same unsupported claim over and over and over.

We have many countries w/ different courts RIGHT NOW!  There are conflicting legal decisions every day.  There are US companies which suffer as a result of differing legal frameworks in other countries where their suppliers, customers, factories exist.  They haven't all been taken over by a single superpower.  Period.

You keep making the claim that conflict = 1 survives except human nature has shown that is not true.  There is conflict everyday and yet distinct legal entities continue to exist.

For example:
TODAY if you do business w/ someone represented by a "foreign court" then your ability to seek damages is limited by that "foreign court".  That is a risk you know and accept prior to engaging in business.  If you don't want to take that risk then don't do business w/ "foreigners".  Pretty simple.

Now replace "foreign" with "alternative private court".  The same dynamic applies.  If you want to be "safe" and ensure rulings always are predictable w/o jurisdictional issues then only do business with entities that have accepted security/legal contracts with the same court as yours.  Somewhat more complex it is likely that courts WILL AGREE on many issues.  So for example if court X and court Y agree on property rights then doing business w/ an entity represented by court y isn't a risk if you are in court x.  How court x & court y different on the legal standing of Gay marriage is likely immaterial to the level of risk you are taking by dealing w/ a different court.

If you aren't compensated for a loss when you accepted that risk by dealing w/ an entity represented by an  "alternate private court" your court/security company isn't going to go to war for you to make things right.  Very similarly if you lose a court case in a foreign court due to differing law from US courts, the US military isn't going to mobilize to crush the "inferior court/nation" and make things right.

So you keep making this unsupported jump from
conflicting rulings -> INSTA-WAR -> only one survives.

There is no evidence for it.  Saying it over and over doesn't add any credibility to the statement.

I might not but the person suing me might.  Likewise I might not use a court that supported primogeniture but my sibling who would inherit the farm might.  And there is no way that the courts can compromise.  Either they enforce the law or they cease trading...who would ever pay a court or police force that "compromised" on your property rights.  You may as well give the rights away yourself.

So logically my point remains - each situation where there is a difference in the laws will result in 1 of the court systems being eliminated from the market.  Eventually you end up with 1 lawmaker who owns the courts and the police.  And as I said, that is dictatorship.

This is your unsupported claim.  There is no reason that competing courts couldn't reach agreements in some areas.  In other areas free market principals can work.

If you feel a "Muslim court" wouldn't properly represent your interests then you can choose to not do business w/ an entity which is represented by such a court.

Many businesses would need to accept the outcome of multiple courts in order to expand beyond local scope.  That scenario already exists in limited scope today w/ "choice of law" provisions where a debtor (in some state) can choose either the statutes of their state or the statutes of the creditors state (obviously choosing the one most beneficial).

If you want to give company X your business you can make it a condition of the contract be that disputes are handled in the court you select.  The company will have to weigh the altered legal framework against losing business.  If the company declines you can either accept "their court" or do business with a company who's legal framework is more favorable.

Personally I doubt this will ever happen but you statement of fact that "only one will survive" is unsupported.

Why is there not one world government?  The US has sufficient military power to destroy at least any non-nuclear nation that fails to accept its will.  Why hasn't the US taken over the world.  By your claim that outcome is inevitable. 

"Safety regulations make the workplace less safe and create unemployment." - I kind of stopped reading at that point.  The notion that mandatory fire escapes in factories and mandatory lifeboats on ships make them less safe is stupid.  Sorry but there is no other word for it.

Don't take my word for it.  Take just one of those stupid assertions, "Minimum wage causes unemployment",
and do a little reading on the topic.

This is actually a well studied question:

http://scholar.google.com/scholar?hl=en&q=allintitle%3A++unemployment+%22minimum+wage%22&btnG=Search&as_sdt=0%2C5&as_ylo=&as_vis=0

You will find that many respectable economists, among them several Nobel laureates, agree with this assertion and can back it up with evidence.  And the vast majority is at least undecided in this issue.  But I guess they are all stupid. 

How many medical scientists, on the other hand, claim that "smoking is good for you"?


Hawker, I have the impression that you get your beliefs from group loyalty rather than independent thought. This is fine, but calling opposing beliefs "stupid" really isn't helpful.   If you think I am wrong, give me compelling arguments, and if I find them compelling enough, I might even change my mind.

finally, a short quote:


It is no crime to be ignorant of economics, which is, after all, a specialized discipline and one that most people consider to be a 'dismal science.' But it is totally irresponsible to have a loud and vociferous opinion on economic subjects while remaining in this state of ignorance.

I understand where you are coming from with the idea of 10 or so court systems but you leave out the important fact that people expect the courts to do what is right and they expect that the court will enforce its decision.  Otherwise, they will not pay to use that court.

10 court systems means 10 sets of laws.  Where I live, some of them will be Islamic, some Sikh, some Jewish, most will be Common Law.  Within the Common Law ones, some will support primogeniture and some won't.

Cases will arise where the laws are different in each system.  For example, an Islamic court will discount my witness testimony because I am not a Muslim.  A Common Law court will accept it as equal to any other honest man's.  If they reach different conclusions, then only the one that can enforce its judgement will survive commercially.  So your 10 is down to 9.

Other examples of conflicts are inheritance where a daughter wants to inherit and some courts allow it but some say they follow primogeniture.  Debt cases where some courts allow interest to be collected but Jewish courts do not.  Again, each dispute will result in 1 system winning and the other losing.  The loser will cease trading as no-one will pay a court that can't enforce its judgements and its police may well be dead.

Eventually, you will end up with 1 court system owned by one group of people and they make the law for everyone.

That is dictatorship.  Surely you can see that the present system is preferable?