Bitcoin Forum

Should government provide law enforcement? Most would argue that government is absolutely necessary for law enforcement. Prof. Edward Stringhman, however, argues that government may not even be necessary at all.

To come to this conclusion, Prof. Stringham asks a few important questions. First, if something is really important, does it logically follow that government should provide it? Second, are markets capable of providing law enforcement and security in the modern world? Third, how are disputes currently settled between people of different countries?

Looking at the first question, it doesn't seem to be the case that important things must be provided by a government. For instance, think about food. Food is necessary for life, and yet, markets do an excellent job of providing food to consumers.

Even if you're convinced that markets can provide important things, you may think law enforcement and security are a special case that markets are incapable of providing in a modern world. However, markets already enforce private rules and provide security. Disney World, Las Vegas, and malls all have private rules that are enforced by private security.

Accepting the arguments above, you may still be skeptical about market's abilities to settle disputes between different systems of rules or law. This, in fact, was Ayn Rand's primary reason for advocating a minimal state. Current interactions in the real world provide examples as to how markets resolve these disputes. Think about an international soccer game or international trade. In both instances, individuals are interacting across state boundaries, and are only subject to the jurisdiction of their own territory. In these situations, these individuals contract with the arbiters such as a soccer league or a private court to resolve disputes.

Credits: This lecture was delivered in 2009 at the Metropolitan State College of Denver School of Business, as part of the Exploring Economic Freedom Lecture Series, directed by Prof. Alexandre Padilla. This video was produced and directed by Scott Houck, and edited by Adrienne Christy. Video production provided by the Educational Technology Center at Metropolitan State College of Denver. Video used by LearnLiberty.org with permission.

well i've heard society isn't that patriarchic anymore in the 21st century, and women can very well choose their own security firms.

There'll be places the weak and abused can go. Those don't have necessarily to be security firms. Humans are good, many do voluntary service. Especially when they don't have to pay 90% of their earnings for income taxes, sales and other taxes. So there'll be shelters.

That's not one of the problems I see with libertarianism.

You heard wrong.  There are lots of weirdos and control freaks out there. 

Victims are naturally overwhelmed when they are being mistreated. So I meant "shelter" as the first impulse for them to (hopefully) know they exist and that they can run to.

What happens to the offender then is another question. In a free, anarchic society, he'll at least be ostracized. There'd probably be repuation systems. Today's prison systems are known to be inefficient don't help much to improve on our society. The video has some about that.

"I" am not a libertarian as said, but I believe it's right to question and challenge the philosophical concept of the "state", and to acknowledge that today's forms of living together is just one of many possibilities.

Agreed.

Also, @Hawker, as I mentioned previously, some countries will allow, even encourage the beating of one's wife. When you say there are laws against this, this is unfortunately a broad generalization that is not true everywhere. It was still allowed in the US a few decades ago, and apparently still is under some old state laws...

Try to google dumbest laws... apparently it's still legal to beat your wife on the Court's step on Sunday in South Carolina... :-/

"I" do have more experience of domestic abuse than you assume. I happen to know very well the psychological terror and that it is often the victim who is made feel guilty. In the case I witnessed, the offender actually was a state servant, making the victim even be more in despair with feeling helpless and the whole society, the whole world against them.

So of course it's a bit bold to claim that the monopoly of the state has worsened the situation here, but I don't believe it has improved it much either.

"Trained policemen"? Hah, well I think "trained" and empathetic psychologists would be more appropriate in such a situation either way.

"I" am not a libertarian as said, but I believe it's right to question and challenge the philosophical concept of the "state", and to acknowledge that today's forms of living together is just one of many possibilities.

The private security thing always amuses me.  Man is beating his wife; she calls the security firm and he yells "Your contract is with me - piss off or you are all fired!" and resumes beating his wife.

Logic error.  Just because someone somewhere does something stupid doesn't mean that we all have to be stupid.

There you go, you just contradicted yourself. Just because some idiot beats his wife doesn't mean that we all have to do it... Discuss.

Edit : As a bonus question, how is my previous post a logic error, when I only have stated existing and verifiable facts, while offering no logical reasoning whatsoever?

We are talking about how to stop the domestic violence resulting in death, not how best to copy it.  OP suggests the answer is for the victim to move to a shelter and the community to ostracise the violent person.  I'm suggesting the police arresting the violent person is a proven better way of handling things.

I'm not sure what you are suggesting other than that there are bad countries in the world.  If you have a useful suggestion, please post it.

... but I believe it's right to question and challenge the philosophical concept of the "state", and to acknowledge that today's forms of living together is just one of many possibilities.

Do people still desire government? It seems so.

Do I need or want it? Nope. Can me and the people who desire little to no government get our desires met? Unlikely at this point.

Start seasteading

There are also economic free zones such as Hong Kong and ones that are going to open up in South America. We'll see.

I think a better question would be:

What do we need government for?

Do people still desire government? It seems so.

Do I need or want it? Nope. Can me and the people who desire little to no government get our desires met? Unlikely at this point.

Any "Weak Government" theory needs to deal with what happened to every other "weak" government society. They were overtaken by people living under systems with centralized power. (please provide a counter example, I have looked for an example extensively) This should also be applied to considering places like Costa Rica today. Could those libertarian communities exist without US tourism and protectionism? A well-functioning economy is not the only aspect of a society that needs to be considered.

I don't think nation states invading other nation states is a serious threat anymore. Most of the wealth in modern society is not nearly invincible physical resources tied to land, as was the case in ancient times, or even factories or equipment which could be captured and salvages. Modern wealth is people - it is us, our skills and our relationships with other people that we work with. If you try to capture a country for profit, you'll find that the people there will be much more interested in putting IEDs under your tanks than working for you, and the only way to truly subdue a nation is to pretty much burn everything and everyone to the ground, and what's the profit in that?

Any "Weak Government" theory needs to deal with what happened to every other "weak" government society. They were overtaken by people living under systems with centralized power. (please provide a counter example, I have looked for an example extensively) This should also be applied to considering places like Costa Rica today. Could those libertarian communities exist without US tourism and protectionism? A well-functioning economy is not the only aspect of a society that needs to be considered.

Please provide examples of small government countries being swallowed by big government countries before demanding attention.

Libertarian pr0n 4 u.  :P

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ItjiDWa48q4

At least a government is mostly in it for you.

Corporations are in it for the win.
At least a government is mostly in it for you.

It's the other way around.

And obviously I'm not talking about those corporations who are in bed with government (pretty much all large ones in the US).

I don't deny that a lot individuals working for government are well-intentioned and earnestly "in it for you". But who is government as a superorganism in it for and who are private businesses as superorganisms in it for? To answer this question, you need to look at the incentives and not at the intentions.

Government (as a superorganism) gets rewarded for expanding its powers, by violent means, if necessary, and punished for surrendering its powers.  Regardless of the utility to the citizen.

Private business gets rewarded for providing value and punished for failing to provide value.  

It's the other way around.

And obviously I'm not talking about those corporations who are in bed with government (pretty much all large ones in the US).

I don't deny that a lot of individuals working for government are well-intentioned and earnestly "in it for you". But who is government as a superorganism in it for and who are private businesses as superorganisms in it for? To answer this question, you need to look at the incentives and not at the intentions.

Government (as a superorganism) gets rewarded for expanding its powers, by violent means, if necessary, and punished for surrendering its powers.  Regardless of the utility to the citizen.

Private business gets rewarded for providing value and punished for failing to provide value.  

The list is pretty big and contains stuff like safety regulations, work hour regulations, minimum wage, cheap drinking water, cheap electricity, etc.

A corporation is not democratic, that's another thing. You have 0 (zero) influence unless they need free consumer input to make their product even more yummie (but also 3x as cancerous).

Anarchy is a teenage dream for a world with much less population density.

Are you serious?

Safety regulations make the workplace less safe and create unemployment.    
Work hour regulations create unemployment.
Minimum wage hurts the unemployed and creates even more unemployment.
Caps on water prices create water shortages and underinvestment in vital infrastructure.
Artificially cheap electricity leads to wastefulness.


...snip...

So as the security firm drives off and the beating resumes, the woman will have the satisfaction of knowing that human beings are good and that she can move to a shelter.  You think that hats so much preferable to the present situation where the oppressive state arrests the man, do you?

Lady sues security firm for multi-million dollar settlement, they go bankrupt and other security firms take note and change their policies.
...snip...

So she has no contract with the security firm, her husband does, and she gets to sue them for breach of contract?

You really need to think that through.  Its strange enough that you want to get rid of the state.  But replacing it with a world where people can sue in private courts bankrupting security firms that are obeying the terms of their contracts...what possible benefit do you see?

Now if it possible that a security firm could write the contract which gives them the ability to drive away from a crime in progress however it is also possible for civil rights groups to decry said company, generate a lot of bad press, advocate boycotts, etc.  When that negative PR affects the bottom line they will write policies more in line w/ what society expects.  Those policies will ensure the company has a financial (if not ethical) responsibility to intervene when a crime is in progress.

deathandtaxes, what you are doing is ignoring the thread title.  The security companies would have contracts only with those who could afford to pay them and their would be no independent courts.  Your mistake is to assume that you can have no government and still have a system of justice.

Of course there would still be courts.  Complaints between security company and victims would be handled by PRIVATE courts.  Security company which chooses to be bound by no court would have no recourse if it was defrauded, robbed, or attacked.   There would still be courts and the public would still place same demands on private entities that they currently do on public entities.  Even if a security company decided to take the risk of having legal framework to resolve dispute (might makes right) the public could simply reject that company. 

It is unlikely any such company would gain sufficient marketshare with polices that out out of step with the views of the consumers who support the company.  The ownership of the entity wouldn't magically change public perception of right or wrong.  If the public believes today that it is wrong for Public Police to drive away from a crime in progress it is dubious to suddenly think if the Police were private the populace would see that any differently.

If someone owns the court and the security company, then they make their own law.  There may be other courts with other security companies but to stay in business, they will need to enforce their judgements and if there is a disagreement between courts, it will result in a zero sum game.  One will prevail.  Over time this means you will eventually end up with 1 court system and 1 security force owned privately and making its own laws for the society.

Most people would call that a dictatorship.

Having a monopoly on force is what a dictatorship is. If you can compete for justice and liberty (courts, law enforcement, prisons, arbitration, etc.) the likelihood any one person or persons can mete out punishment unilaterally and uncontested, is lessened. It's likely those groups would never get big enough to form a dictatorship. You endow unlimited power to the select few, use an arbitrary unaccountable and unassailable vote, or violate contract rights, and you almost always get abused.

In the real world, if you are competing against men with guns, you need bigger guns.  The guy who has eliminated all rivals will have the biggest guns and may be backed by a foreign state.  Any new company will be slaughtered easily.  So your proposal results in democratic government with all its faults being replaced by dictatorship. 

The road to hell is paved with good intentions.

That assumes a binary situation.  By your logic the US has already taken over the entire world right and crushed all the sovereign powers who individually have less firepower than the US.  Err wait the US hasn't taken over the world?

If there are 10 security entities and the most powerful has 5 units of firepower but the other 9 entities have 1 to 4 units of firepower but combined have 30 then the largest entity isn't going to be able to win by force.  Also belligerence by the largest entity will  lead to a loss of consumers and thus revenue and thus ability to retain 5 units of firepower.

And if you believe all that, I have more for you:

Doctors are poisoning you.
Hospitals make you sick.
White paint makes things appear black.
Seat belts kill.
Smoking is good for you.
Making stupid assertions is what the Internet is for.

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.

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?

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.
...snip...

So illogically 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.

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.

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.

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

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.

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.

When people die intestate, that means they have no made a will.  Your answer doesn't make sense because it assumes there is a will.  Try again.

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.

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.

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.  ...snip...

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

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.

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?

It is no different now.  ...snip...

I know of no state that doesn't have provision for intestacy.

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.  

...snip...
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 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.

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. 

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

...snip...
 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.

Of course there would still be courts.  Complaints between security company and victims would be handled by PRIVATE courts.

Corruption would be instant and anyone with the right amount of money could buy them.

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*...

There have been a few bad decisions in the existing system and on that basis...

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.

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.

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.

...snip...

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.

  Separation of executive, legislature and judiciary is essential if you don't want to end up with one small group having absolute power.

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?

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? 

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...
 :-\

...snip...

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.