Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[LeopardPM]

ah, yes, I forgot about that disclaimer - knew it would come in handy one day!

[Terry 1956]

As long as there is an 'opt out' feature without punishment, then I am all for the UM government - basically it allows for AnCap to result if the market desired it - fine by me!  I swing towards having the market decide in all things, it represents us, as humans, most efficiently - if we are moral - so will it.

     Exactly. The arbitrary and vauge "social contract" is replaced by a LITERAL contract one can actually opt-out of.

                                                                               
Here is a way to look at public institutions for courts and defense:   1- As a hedge on the private institutions, people often by a put on stocks they own so they will not lose or lose as much if the stock goes down but the put has a cost.                                            
    2- As a consumers association, more than likely the private firms will form associations, so it may be in the interest of consumers to form their association.                  
   3- As  a buyers club. private outfits may give discounts to members.                                                      
 

[Terry 1956]

I don't know. Hoppe's writings have been very convincing to me.

I still haven't been convinced that court systems can be done privately. However I also realize the corrupt nature of our current court systems, and think "how can private systems be any worse?" But then I think if we got rid of all the guild-like licensing systems. 9An inherent conflict of interest for laywars) the state court system might actually work.

I'd sure rather have market anarchy then what we currently have. However I'm not at all convinced that market anarchy would remain that way and not turn into criminal anarchy. However I think I've been convinced that since criminal anarchy is only possible in a non-market environment,

See http://www.mises.org/journals/jls/17_2/17_2_1.pdf

market anarchy couldn't devolve into criminal anarchy. So if we can make sure that when we abolish government, we do it peacefully so that the current market economy stays intact when government's abolished, I think we'll probably be all right.

Still, I haven't been convinced that private court systems would work. But let's abolish everything else -- including government police. (Socialised protection by its very nature incourages crime and discourages private crime prevention measures)

So anyway Yeah, I'm anarchistic about everything else except courts currently.

Tracy Saboe

     How would the verdicts of the state courts be enforced without some kind of police body? Perhaps all regular security could be handled by private companies, but shouldn't there still be sheriffs to enforce the orders of the courts?

I think it would be a good idea to completely seperate the ruling( or courts) from the enforcement. Yeah I would say a Sheriff on a county level, A constible at the county district level, a Marshall at the state and federal level to serve orders and transport prisoners.

[<Patrick>]

     Does anyone think it would be possible to create an ultraminimal state, at least on the NH state level?

[Mike Lorrey]

At the state level, we'd need a government that:

a) was strong enough to keep out the feds (should be its number one job)
b) kept the legislature and judiciary strong enough to limit each other and look out for the rights of individuals
c) had a constitutional amendment which was much more powerful in prescribing impeachment of judges and legislators who violate their oaths of office, and a very powerful mandamus amendment so that citizens could hold bureaucrats accountable via the civil courts, impeach and/or recall elected officials and judges by petition to the General Court OR the Governor.
d) an amendment saying EXACTLY what government COULD do, and saying anything else it is specifically prohibited from.

[<Patrick>]

I'm an advocate of the ultraminimal state myself.  The argument between anarchocapitalists and "ultraminarchists" (for lack of a better term) boils down to whether a competitive justice system would eventually coalesce into an ultraminimal state through "natural causes."  Nozick's argument is this - Either one justice provider will win out in an anarchic situation, and become the dominant service provider (the ultraminimal state), or nominally competing justice providers will have to get together to decide how disputes among different justice providers will be resolved.  If the latter happens, you get a federal structure, in which disputes among justice providers are appealed to some other authority, whose decisions can perhaps be appealed yet again.  In either case, you end up with a single structure of justice provision, an ultraminimal state.  A purely competitive justice system is impossible.

I found this quote of yours:

     "I am speaking only for myself and not for the Free State Project, but I will say in response that there is another alternative: the ultraminimal state. I believe that as a matter of history it is apparent that a dominant protection provider will arise in most societies, in the manner described by Robert Nozick in 'Anarchy, State and Utopia'.  However, this dominant protection agency need not support itself through taxes - it could use user fees and punitive damages from civil court cases - nor need it forcibly incorporate 'independents' into a single judicial/police/military system. People would be free to drop out from the dominant provider, but empirical evidence suggests that most would not."

--Jason Sorens

     Well, let's make this happen in New Hampshire!

[<Patrick>]

At the state level, we'd need a government that:

a) was strong enough to keep out the feds (should be its number one job)
b) kept the legislature and judiciary strong enough to limit each other and look out for the rights of individuals
c) had a constitutional amendment which was much more powerful in prescribing impeachment of judges and legislators who violate their oaths of office, and a very powerful mandamus amendment so that citizens could hold bureaucrats accountable via the civil courts, impeach and/or recall elected officials and judges by petition to the General Court OR the Governor.
d) an amendment saying EXACTLY what government COULD do, and saying anything else it is specifically prohibited from.

     We would have to ammend the constitution. Does anyone know how to go about ammending a state constitution?

[Terry 1956]

At the state level, we'd need a government that:

a) was strong enough to keep out the feds (should be its number one job)
b) kept the legislature and judiciary strong enough to limit each other and look out for the rights of individuals
c) had a constitutional amendment which was much more powerful in prescribing impeachment of judges and legislators who violate their oaths of office, and a very powerful mandamus amendment so that citizens could hold bureaucrats accountable via the civil courts, impeach and/or recall elected officials and judges by petition to the General Court OR the Governor.
d) an amendment saying EXACTLY what government COULD do, and saying anything else it is specifically prohibited from.

                                                                             
What about empowering grandjuries?