Topic: Maximum role of Government? - page 18. (Read 28705 times)

So if there is a threat I can act on it? Like suing someone because they might do something?

That would be one of a multitude of possible outcomes; and even though they hit at the center of the issue of what is inherently right and wrong, it still makes things a bit messy. Here's why. Even if either court ruled in your favor or mine, the restitution would vary all over the place. Which do we choose? Additionally, there probably would be no "double jeopardy" protection, which would allow a wealthier individual or association to pursue me ad infinitum. I could be virtually bankrupted defending myself. Mind you there could also be court A, B, C, D, E, F... How do we handle Habeus Corpus. Bail Bonding. How long could you hold me before trial... Etc. Etc.

Of course, insurance companies might mitigate this issue somehow, but it is a difficult situation in even the most simple of scenarios.

You have to wait for an overt threat.

But I should be free to choose which risks to take, right? They can't force me to take risks I'm not willing to take or able to avoid? Or can they? Do I have to wait for harm to come to me or may I prevent it?

Right, let's say violate instead. I'm not using my native language here, I will choose the wrong words every now and then. Ok, so the NAP may be violated under certain conditions?

You and I have a dispute and you go to your court (A) and I go to my court (B). There are four possibilities.

1. Both A and B rule in your favor. There's no issue. You win. Case closed.

2. Both A and B rule in my favor. There's no issue. I win. Case Closed.

3. A rules in my favor and B rules in your favor. That's weird since my court ruled against me but your court ruled against you. It's also not the scenario most people care about. The last scenario is the one that worries people.

4. A rules in your favor and B rules in my favor. This is likely to happen if we both pick courts that are biased towards us. It's the scenario you seemed worried about. This leaves us with two further options.

4a. A and B have an agreement in place to go to a neutral third party C to settle the dispute and are what are known as "legitimate courts". C rules in either of our favors and then both A and B agree to abide. One of us wins. Case closed.

4b. A and B have no agreement and are what are known as "bandit courts". The problem is, since they have to fight everybody, other bandit courts and legitimate courts, and the legitimate courts only have to fight the bandit courts, the bandit courts have higher costs and lower profits and eventually get out competed. Also, few people are going to deal with you unless you have a reputation for dealing with legitimate courts rather than bandit courts.

It's not a perfect system but it's still one that tends towards the preferred outcome, having disputes settled without violence in an equitable manner.

Just thinking out loud here...

Central Government:

Pros: Standards could be applied universally. Consistency. Collectivism tends to work well when you work as a unit. For example in world wars you have a concentration of power and effort in a specific direction (of course, was the war justifiable in the first place...) Hard to flee the law to another jurisdiction.

Cons: Being collective in nature and concentrated in it's centricity, legal plunder is really easy. A few bad apples and the whole system gets messed up. Men have the prediliction to work less not more, so the politically inclined use the law as a shield of non-liability, monopoly, special favors and other false protections to create artificial barriers to entry for competition.

Non-Central Government or Competing Governments:

Pros: Everybody can choose who they will to protect them, or not. Competition should produce better quality services for cheaper prices. There is no possibility to plunder, or at least not any that couldn't be ferreted out reasonably easy. No privileges, no monopolies, no exceptions (or if they do have them, you ignore them and look elsewhere). Laws should be less complicated and can be changed more fluidly.

Cons: Criminals could just ignore one jurisdiction and plead their case elsewhere, seeking refuge within a community who supports and protects their ideals. The law is applied, judged, and sentenced in various ways. Jailbreaks by other competing "governments" could be justified if their "evidence" proved "their" man innocent. This would lead to potential tribal waring and discord. Standing armies with disparate orders and varying interpretations of their law in relation to others could make for confusion as to who did what to whom first (as in who initiated aggression first?).

Haven't seen many Libertarian societies of late. I wonder why that is? Not saying it shouldn't be, just trying to figure out why we haven't arrived there yet.
Just thinking...

A voluntary society depends on no such thing, not in the way you mean it anyway.  There are always gray areas as to exactly when and to what degree defensive violence is appropriate, for example. AnCapistan requires no perfect agreement. That's what arbitrators and juries are for.

OTOH, a society that is based around a monopoly that is final arbiter of all disputes, including disputes with itself is autocratic at best. A society built around the entity that interprets and selectively enforces the rules that limit it's power is totalitarian because that effectively means there are no limits.

I really wonder why you engage in all these debates. Do you think you are learning? teaching? winning? Entertaining yourself?
There are legitimate criticisms of a stateless society, but you haven't made any of them. You're not even wrong in an original way. Please try and do better.

I would say that if I was starving or freezing in the woods and I stumbled upon a log cabin, I would break in, eat food and get warm. However, having violated the NAP, I wouldn't expect that nothing should be done to me. I would still expect that I be forced to pay restitution, any damages, plus the cost of the food, etc. The key for libertarian punishment is to make the victim as whole as possible, as if the crime never occurred. However, this is an emergency situation and we don't make general laws based on emergency situations. Most of the time we aren't starving and freezing in the woods so our general laws should reflect that.

"Hard cases make bad law."

Assumption: Central authority does not do the fucking in the first place.

Assumption is wrong, ergo conclusion (Central authority keeps fucking in check) is wrong as well. Thanks for playing, we have some lovely parting gifts for you.


He has no right TO risk your life. Problem is, you have no right to be free from risk. Life is risk. As long as he has not harmed you, you have no claim against him. You have the right and ability to protect yourself in any way you see fit that does not impinge upon his freedom.

No. I may violate it, in emergency situations, but I would not abandon it.

as i said, presumably never, as he can always consider some action of the other party as having been "aggressive".

No, I mean "initiate agression", something that the NAP forbids.

presumably via his logic, any situation that would call for the use of aggression would only be as the result of some other's action which meets some definition of "aggressive".

I didn't get that. Explain if it's important.

And how come you always seem to forget to answer the question: Please explain why his right to risk my life is greater than my right to protect myself from unnecessary risk?

And another question for you. If you use the NAP as a guiding principle for all your actions, could you see any situation where you would have to abandon the NAP for any reason?

Absolutely.  And with the removal of the central authority that keeps the fucking under control, what you end up with is a massive clusterfuck - which has been my point all along.

Since when does someone breaking a law render that law invalid?

The NAP boils down to "don't fuck with people". Those that fuck with people get fucked back. That's the way it works.

Oh but I can, because Libertopia DEPENDS ON a consistent application of this non-aggression bullshit.  Therefore, if the application is inconsistent, the system isn't real-world worthy.


On the other hand, there are MANY shades of gray between no power and ultimate power.  Making the illogical, idiotic mental leap that if zero power is insufficient then the ONLY other possibility must be ultimate power... well that's just... illogical and idiotic.

You can't have it both ways.  If you want to criticize an inconsistent application of the NAP in Libertopia, then you can't claim that you are too sophisticated to see things purely in black and white.  You hold your interlocutor to a higher standard than yourself.

[citation needed]

The world was black and white when I was twelve too.  I remember everything used to be an all or nothing proposition. 

Then I grew up.

If not ultimate power, then who would "enforce that principle consistently"?