Bitcoin Forum

When there is no government, armed gangs fight until one of them wins and becomes the government.

Things like "Who will build the roads?" and "What happens if someone invades?" or "Corporations will control the world!" are what I want to see.

When there is no government, armed gangs fight until one of them wins and becomes the government.

External threats are one of the main problems. There is a reason that you see no AnCap societies when you look around today.

Corporations are a product of the government. You pay a government to be excused from certain laws. So maybe that isn't the word you were looking for.

The world will be ruled by companies, and companies are smart enough to know that war and crime is bad for business.

The word he's looking for is companies (that is, groups of individuals working together to make money; nothing more, nothing less). Companies will rule the world, which is a good thing because companies want money, not votes, and the only for them to get money is to provide what people are willing to pay for, as opposed to government's taking people's money by force and spending it on things the people don't necessarily want.

I'd like to do a little research.

I'm convinced AnCap can work, but obviously, not everyone is.

I'd like to hear your doubts, your concerns, and your criticisms. Why do you think it will fail?

Things like "Who will build the roads?" and "What happens if someone invades?" or "Corporations will control the world!" are what I want to see.

Things that will be ignored: "You're stupid." (especially if you use "your"), "It's a pathetic ideology." etc.

I'll likely let the questions get up a good head of steam and then answer a bunch of them all at once. Of course, I welcome the other anarchists and libertarians on here to swing in and answer anything they have a mood to.

So. Why do you think we need a government?

The best thing there is for business is when the use of force is placed under an objective system of laws, i.e., a [good] government. So, corporations (and honest people in general) would work to set up a government.

Well, if companies rule the world, they are the government (albeit a non-objective one), and they can take people's money by force.

Let me ask, why would you support anarcho-capitalism when you could support having a mininal government that enforces only the basic rule of law, so that there is a capitalist system? Is there something wrong with that solution to you?

The worst thing there is for business is when the government starts forcing them to pay taxes. Nobody is suggesting that there shouldn't be an objective system of laws, just that said laws shouldn't be created and enforced at the whim of a single, monopolistic entity.

How? In a free market, no company can force any individual to use them rather than their competitors, and the resulting competition will keep prices down.

Because minimal governments don't tend to stay minimal for very long.

Then how are laws going to be determined and enforced? I'd like to hear about the nuts and bolts of what you're proposing.

Because if the companies are "ruling the world," as you say, then that means they have a monopoly on the use of force, which means they CAN take people's money by force. By the way, no, I don't buy into any of that leftist hogwash that conflates a free market with force which you were addressing in the rest of that paragraph. Presumably, in explaining how the nuts and bolts of the system will work, you will explain why you think that companies can "rule the world" and yet not be able to initiate force against people.

That is fundamentally a cultural problem. It doesn't have to be that way, if the culture improves. Having a stronger constitution can also help a lot, but that's just an implementation concern (i.e. not as fundamental).

...snip...

Well, the laws we have in place today are the result of a monopoly on justice. Most of those laws, without the monopoly on justice, wouldn't stand. Drug laws, for instance. not everyone agrees that pot is bad for you, so without the monopoly, a ban on marijuana wouldn't be universally enforced. If someone wanted to keep pot out of their private property, that's up to them to decide, and up to them to enforce. Everyone agrees that they would rather not be murdered. Even without a monopoly on justice, ...snip...

Thats just wrong.  You will still live in a society where people are determined to prevent drug use.  Instead of police you will have vigilantes.  IF you want to legalise dope, you need to convince people; removing the state just means that instead of arrest and trial you get kidnapped and lynched.

I'm inclined to say that it's not a cultural issue, but rather a flaw in the nature of the beast. Any monopoly will naturally seek to expand. A monopoly on violence is uniquely suited to expand in whatever direction it chooses.

This illustrates the general point that there will be continual disagreements between these agencies. (They will also disagree about even more serious matters, such as whether person X is guilty of murder.) And how will they resolve these disagreements? Well, they'll have to use force. It will be in your interest as an individual to join a gang that has a lot of power and a large and stable or growing territory... which will eventually become a government. Better to just put up with bad drug laws than go through all that! myrkul, this is my response to your last long post responding to me. If you would like to try to explain a safe way for disputes between agencies to be resolved, that would be interesting.

By the way, government bureaucrats don't stand to gain anything personally by expanding the government, except pursuing their own social goals, social status, and profiteering through corruption. (And at a fundamental level, those things are not really "gains"--they just don't necessarily know that.) With a better culture that values small government in principle and that demands transparency in government, those things could be dealt with. So, this rebuts your point that "any monopoly will naturally seek to expand."

[Arbitration. Arbitration is win/win. War is win/lose, possibly even lose/lose. Why play zero (or negative) sum games, when positive sum ones are available? If you don't know what arbitration is, I can explain it, but the Wikipedia article is sufficiently accurate.

Maybe. With a better culture, and "eternal vigilance," we could keep a government small. For a while. A generation, maybe two, or even three. But sooner or later, the corrupt will get into power, or the power will corrupt a good man, and one of those "gains" will look attractive, and then we're off to the races again. I'd rather toss the ring into Mt. Doom, than give it to someone and trust in future generations watching the ringbearer carefully.

I know what arbitration is. My gang will never agree to arbitration with your gang if my gang can just take over your gang's territory. And I definitely want my gang to do that, because if some person under your gang falsely accuses me of murder, I do not want an arbiter to decide that I am guilty and for my gang to hand me over for punishment.

In other words, why play a positive sum game, when I can play a zero sum game whose payoff is larger? And if I can't win the zero sum game, there is probably someone else who can (or whose alliance can), etc.

I think anti-trust laws are a good and necessary thing. Otherwise, businesses with a necessary product and a very high entry threshold (think: power companies... lines, plants, etc) can become fascist monopolies if unregulated. Government is the entity that formally speaks on behalf of the people and prevents these things from happening.

Great. Let's turn those anti-trust laws on this business you call government. Life would be a hell of a lot nicer if that trust were broken up.

Now of course AnCap can "work" but will it be better than our democratic systems? Not unless human nature changes.

In 415 BC a democratically elected government attacked a neutral island (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Melian_dialogue) that refused to join its military alliance and killed all of the men and enslaved all of the children.

Even in the context of a war, such an action would be considerably less likely and less successful in modern times. If not human nature, what did change?

In 415 BC a democratically elected government attacked a neutral island (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Melian_dialogue) that refused to join its military alliance and killed all of the men and enslaved all of the children.

Even in the context of a war, such an action would be considerably less likely and less successful in modern times. If not human nature, what did change?

I feel a little responsible for this line of conversation... I kinda started it all with that reference to the "corporations will rule the world" bit. That's an actual argument I got once, and while it's already been satisfactorily answered, that answer opened up this can of worms, so I'll start my answering here.

I was only half-joking when I said companies will rule the world.

I see it like this: we live in a state of anarcho-capitalism. The entity that calls itself "government" in the U.S. is simply the long-standing business of democracy, majority rule, and public interest. It is also a heavily armed and vengeful business. And of course, it is also a corrupt business, like many other businesses. Calling for an end to government (misinformed anarchism) is naive. There will always be people with power over other people. This is an unavoidable fact for any ideology. Pacifism, communo-anarchism, etc. miss this point. "Government" is a meaningless and arbitrary word. A goverment is a business with lots of guns, support, and power. There will always be governments, there will always be businesses, no matter what you may choose to call them. Personally, I am glad that there are businesses that favor majority rule. I think anti-trust laws are a good and necessary thing. Otherwise, businesses with a necessary product and a very high entry threshold (think: power companies... lines, plants, etc) can become fascist monopolies if unregulated. Government is the entity that formally speaks on behalf of the people and prevents these things from happening.

I disagree that there will always be governments. The government NEEDS the consent of the people to function. That's why we are so heavily propogandised in government run education centers and government backed media about the importance and virtue of the state. Once people understand that the government is an immoral institution and isn't actually necessary, it will inevitably end. It's a battle of ideas and the internet is turning the tide.

OK, so to sum up, the reasons so far why AnCap won't work are:

• armed gangs
• invading armies
• terrorists
• Lynch mobs because of smoking a joint
• companies becoming de facto governments

The first three are handled by defense agencies, as would the fourth one, if it weren't so damn laughable.

Let me explain what a defense agency is. It's a private military force/police department. Most likely, companies will specialize in one part of that, with mutual aid agreements covering any "holes." It's even possible a defense agency would have only other defense agencies as clients, and specialize in repelling large-scale invasion. Defense agencies would compete for your business. Not in the way armies currently compete for tracts of land, but rather, in the way cable and satellite TV providers compete to be the ones showing you reality shows.

Which brings us to the 5th scenario... Honestly, this is the most credible of the bunch. A company decides to use it's admittedly impressive resources to take power and declare itself the new government of the territory, maybe even that defense agency defense agency I mentioned in the last paragraph. Even assuming that they would want to ruin their sweet deal, and can find people willing to shoot the people whom they are being paid to protect, they won't have it easy. They'll have to defeat all those other defense agencies, each one with an unpredictable arsenal. Then, assuming they succeed there without being whittled down to the CEO, they'll still have to subjugate a potentially very heavily armed populace. Some nutjob could really ruin their day (http://www.baenebooks.com/chapters/1416520724/1416520724___4.htm).

If you don't have a monopoly on violence, using violence to achieve your ends gets kind of expensive.


Oh, not to worry, I know. I was mostly addressing the fact that that off-hand comment started one heck of a spiral.

You defence agencies will all have to either eliminate one another or settle for perpetual war.  So you end up with a dictatorship or disaster or both.

How would this work in an anarchic system?  Who would determine who has the right to use which land?  How can I buy a house from someone if it's not clear that it's theirs to sell?

You can say this, but unless you can back it up with reasoning, it's just an assertion.

If you have a boundry dispute, and the neighbours have alternate defence companies, only 1 of them can win.  The losing company will go bust as who will pay for a defence company that loses.  So 2 defence companies becomes 1.  Even if you start with 100, every dispute that requires the defence company to actually do some defending will result in a win/loss and the loser will go out of business.  Result is 1 company that "defends" everyone and everyone has to pay it taxes or get hurt.

The oldest son goes to a court that believes in primogeniture and he is entitled to entire estate.  The second son goes to an Islamic court and is awarded more than his sister in accordance with Islamic law.  The daughter goes to a Episcopalian Christian Court and is awarded a third.

Anarchy just isn't going to happen.  People naturally consolidate power and impose their will.

People said that powered flight was impossible, too. In fact, people tend to think everything is impossible, right up until someone goes and does it. We call those people "wrong".

People said that powered flight was impossible, too. In fact, people tend to think everything is impossible, right up until someone goes and does it. We call those people "wrong".

This barbaric anarchic system of yours...

I'd like to understand your point of view. Why do you call it "barbaric"?

I'd like to understand your point of view. Why do you call it "barbaric"?

It may have been a poor and hasty choice of a word, frankly. Rereading your posts, you say that "defense companies" are for defense only, not attacking. Here is the problem:

says who??

Think about it.

We may agree on more than we both realize. I agree with you that violence is a poor way of reaching a solution. But violence is also the ultimate trump card, and as long as that trump card exists (as long as violence is possible), it will happen. People want power.

Some good points. Who says? Well, ultimately, the people do. "The market," if you will. I'm not going to argue that violence is never going to happen, and I absolutely agree that certainly at a global level, and in many ways, at all other levels, we're already living in an anarchy.

Violence will happen. Not going to deny that. There will still be murders, there will still be theft, humans are humans, nothing is going to change that. What needs to change is how we deal with it. Do we accept it, as long as we call theft "taxes", and kidnapping "imprisonment", and murder "war"? Do we accept it, as long as it's done by people in special costumes?

Or do we stop accepting violence as OK, no matter who does it, or what they're wearing? That's the Non-Aggression Principle. No person has the right to initiate force or fraud upon another person.

People never seem to realise we already live in an anarchy, but the "government"(s)  control the most force, without a large majority wanting to hold onto their freedom they will just become slaves again. and again.

So you have the solution then?

1. Tell me where you will implement it.
2. Tell me how many people will it be seeded with.
3. Tell me who your geographical neighbors will be.
4. Tell me how it will be defended.
5. Tell me how it all works out.

Can't you see your arguments are helping my case?


Would not be the way it would go down. You know nothing of Arbitration. All parties agree to the "court" they will use. Here's how it would actually work:

The oldest son selects an arbitration firm that supports primogeniture, the second son selects one that supports Islamic tradition, and the daughter selects a firm that supports equal rights for women. They can't agree as to which one they should use (and why should they? each choice is a bad choice for the other two), so the arbitration firms, among them, select a fourth arbitration firm that they can all agree on. If they cannot agree on a single firm, the process repeats. They pick ones that they can trust, and those firms come to an agreement as to who will decide. If they can't agree... well, I think you get the point.

Defense companies are just that... defense. They don't go on the attack.

So in each case, the market incentive is not to have arbitration.  Its your classic win or die situation.  There can only be 1 winner.  That winner is your new government.

Part of something is better than all of nothing, and remember, once they've selected "their" firms, those arbitrators take over for them, and are capable of selecting new arbitrators to decide between them. The market incentive is to get the decision made quickly, and with as few layers of that as possible, because each new layer cuts into the pie.

There is a free market in law. Arbitration is free market law. Until you understand that, you're just going to make yourself look more foolish with every statement that you make.

So. Why do you think we need a government?

Things that will be ignored: "You're stupid." (especially if you use "your"), "It's a pathetic ideology." etc.

Very well, at this point, I will completely ignore you. Have a nice life.

Police and Firefighters can be handled privately, either as part of an insurance contract, or separately.


Oh, and for those wondering why I'm not responding to FirstAscent, I direct you to these postings:

Part of something is better than all of nothing, and remember, once they've selected "their" firms, those arbitrators take over for them, and are capable of selecting new arbitrators to decide between them. The market incentive is to get the decision made quickly, and with as few layers of that as possible, because each new layer cuts into the pie.

There is a free market in law. Arbitration is free market law. Until you understand that, you're just going to make yourself look more foolish with every statement that you make.

So you think that property rights can be taken off a person on the basis that "Part of something is better than all of nothing."  Nice.

I'm not sure how you got here... The reason I said "Part of something is better than all of nothing." is that each person has a chance to lose everything, if they fight over it... and, in your scenario, that is assured for two of the kids. In my scenario, all participants have a right to the property... they're just working out the split.

If the oldest son goes to a court that supports primogeniture, then he is paying for that court to enforce his legal right to the entire estate.  If it can't do that, that court cannot exist; it has no place in the market.  It either enforces its own judgements or it ceases to exist.

No arguments here... Which is why I don't think that a primogeniture-supporting court would last long. But it's your scenario, I was just working within the bounds of that. If he wants a sure shot at getting ANY of his deceased father's property, though, he's going to have to compromise.

In truth, you can start with 1000.  The nature of the market is that only 1 court will be left because each time there is a conflict, one of the courts will fail to enforce its judgement and it will cease to have a place in the market.

Agreed?

You're sooooo close. Now, you just have to realize that what you describe is not how courts become monopolies, but how laws would be normalized in a market court system.

So you are agreed that we end up with 1 set of laws and 1 court system in a market court system.  And that that 1 set of laws doesn't have any particular advantage or fairness.  Its the one that has the firepower to enforce its judgements.

Thats your ideal? 

One set of laws, but not one court. The one set of laws does have an advantage in fairness, because it is the one that the market has chosen, the one that benefits both sides of each dispute the most.

Lets stay to one point at a time.

No matter how many sets of laws you start with, you end up with just one set.  And its not selected by fairness; its selected by its ability to be enforced.  So if an ambitious country or a rich individual supplies one of the court systems with attack helicopters and tanks, the other court systems all fail and the law of the land is whatever that 1 court system with the backing of a foreign state happens to say it is.

How is that a good thing?

You make a good point, but your assumptions are flawed. To be honest, I'm having trouble coming up with a way to explain just how flawed, simply because we're coming from such completely different directions.

OK. I imagine that such an action would be viewed (rightly) as an invasion by the supporting country, or a takeover attempt by the rich individual. That "court system" would be wiped off the map, just as any other invading force would be.

Ignore the source of the fire-power.  Any court system has to be able to enforce its judgements to survive in a market.  You have agreed that you eventually you will end up with one.  That one is not the "fairest" its the one with the most fire-power.

How is "most fire-power" a good way to decide what the law should be?

You are the one saying that enforcement = firepower, not me.

Enforcement requires violence

And this is where you are wrong.

Disagreements are not settled by force in arbitration. They are settled by both parties coming to an agreement.

If they don't agree, the court will enforce a judgement.  That's what a court is for.

Again you insist on that word, "court"... why are you stuck on that?

Because when people go to a person to adjudicate, its called going to court.  That's the language.  Unless you mean that there is no enforcement in which case, there are no property rights at all.

So. Why do you think we need a government?

Further examples are hospitals, dentists, children's daycare centers, pleces that care for the (mentally) handicapped, and primary schools. (You would not move little Timmy for the third time this year, making him lose al his friends again, and driving 150 miles every day to get him to a school)

This is a good point. Some people might get screwed, and not have a better market option locally. Of course, there are other options. If the only retirement home (school/daycare/etc) local to you is horrible, you could always start your own. Or advertise for someone to do so. If you've gotten screwed by someone, take them to arbitration.

If arbiters can't/don't back up their decisions with violence, then they are just a bunch of dickheads with neat opinions.

Daycare and caring for the elderly aren't vital services... these were done by the family for a large majority of human history. But I don't really worry about there being people around willing to take those jobs.

Indeed, but because of that both the elderly and the infants died much quicker and much more often. you think any extended family can provide the proper care for Alzheimers, Diabetes, Osteoporosis or Arthritis? I think we are now rightly holding ourselves to higher standards than we have for a large majority of human history.

I propose an online government...

On the contrary, as I said, I don't worry about there being people willing to do those jobs. Even now, daycare is taken care of privately all the time, as is aged care.

I appreciate your input, but kindly make your own thread for this, it sounds like a great discussion, but it's not this discussion.

As far as I know there has been a growing shortage in people willing to do those jobs in almost all western countries. Daycare and aged care are only taken care of privately in highly urban area's where there are lot's of relatively well to do people who have the means to take their bussiness elsewhere. In AnCap this problem would be maginified by leaving the people who have it the hardest with potentially the worst services. This would be a much worse outcome than having governments imposing standards and (pricing)regulations to those kind of services, and making them partially govenment-funded if needed.

The shortage is not in people willing to do them, but in people able to do them because of regulations. Regulations raise barriers to entry, and reduce the number of people able to get into a field. Placing price caps on the service make it even worse. I'm not even going to get into the problems caused by government subsidies.

If arbiters can't/don't back up their decisions with violence, then they are just a bunch of dickheads with neat opinions.

If anyone actually agrees with FirstAscent and would like his points addressed, feel free to quote him and ask. Otherwise, I'll just assume he's ranting into the aether.

No, when people go to a government to adjudicate, that's called court. It comes from back when people used to go to kings to judge their cases. They held "court".

When you go to a private agency to adjudicate, it's called either arbitration, or mediation, depending on whether it is contractually binding.

People have a property dispute.  They have only 1 place to go to resolve it.  It won't be a mediation or arbitration.  One of them will win and the court will enforce that win. That is going to court.  If you want you can call it something else but the effect is the same; the loser faces violence if she does not comply with the adjudication.

In the scenario you describe, the laws that court enforces are arrived at by means of that court being the most efficient at enforcing its judgements.  That enforcement power comes from fire-power.  So you whole system is based on might making laws and legal rights.

How is that an improvement on democratically elected representatives making laws?

You seem to be fond of wikipedia quotes, so here's one that should enlighten you: "Arbitration, a form of alternative dispute resolution (ADR), is a legal technique for the resolution of disputes outside the courts"

Arbitration (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arbitration) is market law. Arbitration is enforced by the fact that you sign a contract agreeing to the decision before the proceedings start.

Court court court court.... You're not listening to me.

Court is government law. Court is enforced by violence.

Arbitration (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arbitration) is market law. Arbitration is enforced by the fact that you sign a contract agreeing to the decision before the proceedings start.

You seem to be fond of wikipedia quotes, so here's one that should enlighten you: "Arbitration, a form of alternative dispute resolution (ADR), is a legal technique for the resolution of disputes outside the courts"

Lets get back to our landowner who died intestate.  The oldest son believes in primogeniture and he is in possession.  He won't go to arbitration as he already has what he believes is his right.

If the other siblings can get an order to get him off that property, that is a court system.  If not, they have lost any chance of an inheritance.

OK, so now we come to how law is enforced without force. I've said this before, elsewhere, but I'll say it again here.

So, the two siblings who just want a share of the property agree to go to arbitration to settle the dispute, but the a-hole son doesn't agree, he believes that as the first son, he is entitled to the whole thing. He hasn't harmed anyone, unless the other siblings had residence on the property and he won't allow them to stay, but we'll assume he moved in after the father's death and the other siblings likewise had other dwellings. But he still refuses arbitration to resolve the dispute. No harm means no justification in kicking him off by force, so that is off the table.

However, there is still an option available to the siblings. They can make it known to all and sundry that the offending son is refusing arbitration. Since arbitration is the means by which disputes are resolved, anyone who sees that knows that should they get into a dispute with him, it's is not likely that he will accept arbitration on that, either. That means that they are not likely to deal with him. He can't force others to do business with him, so if they decide not to, he's out of luck.

You might think (and maybe he does, too), "Oh, no big deal," but imagine: He can't get clothing, because the clothier knows that if there's a dispute, he won't go to arbitration. He can't get food, because the grocer knows that if there's a dispute, he won't go to arbitration. He can't get any of the services we take for granted in modern life, because the proprietors know that if there's a dispute, he won't go to arbitration. Most importantly, he can't get protection, because the protection companies know that if there's a dispute, he won't go to arbitration. He has, by his own actions, made himself literally an outlaw. He's on his own.

That's a pretty mighty incentive to go to arbitration, yeah?

Um no.  He is merely exercising his rights.  Even people who disagree with him will accept that.  He will have food from Tesco, petrol from BP, clothes from Armani, cars from Mercedes.  The market does not judge people and say "Your cash is not good here."  Of course security companies will want to protect him; he has the assets that are worth protecting.

It seems your position is that the guy who has taken possession is the winner.  He has the land, money and the protection.  The siblings have nothing. 

How can that be an improvement on what we have now?

The market does indeed judge people and say "your money is no good here" Or rather, your credit. Why would Mercedes sell him a car, when no contract he signs would be worth the paper it was written on? Likewise the protection agency. Likewise the insurance agency. I'll admit, clothes, groceries and gas might be relatively easy to get, as long as he pays cash. Once his cash runs out, then what? Nobody's going to hire him. Nobody's going to work with him. He's screwed over family. What will he do to someone with no ties to him?

What you are describing is a market incentive.  It rewards people who take possession and refuse arbitration.  I can't see how that is better than the existing system.

Let me put it into terms that might be more familiar.

Would you do business on here with someone who had earned the "Scammer" tag?

Look at my sig - I only do business with rule breakers, cheats and scammers.  Their money is as good as money from the Pope.

I see where you are coming from.  You seem a nice person and to assume that bad people don't prosper in a lawless environment like the Internet.  But they do - they really do. 

I have to admit, that was the last response I expected. But... You get your money up front, dont'cha?


Sure, in the internet, where a fresh rep is just a few clicks away. In meatspace, having a bad reputation has slightly more weight to it.

I'd like to introduce an example that has a bit more weight to it, which will show more clearly where there is a problem in milder examples.

Imagine someone who is just rich and powerfull, a warlord, wallstreet bigshot, ceo of a multinational, or gangleader. There are plenty of people like that now, and there will be in an AnCap, or under NAP. This guy has his own arbitraging companies, his own private army/policeforce and a chain of stores and hotels to bring in the money.

Now what would possebly stop him from claiming land, kicking people out of their houses and stores? Sure people would want to "sue" him, get him into arbitraging. Mister bigshot could just insist on only using his own firms, so what if the competing arbitrage firm would suggest a common ground? Mister bigshot could just refuse till the and of time while he just enforces his own "laws" and the people would be homeless and/or dieing in the street. Justice has become a commodity for sale, and the richer of more powerfull you become you can buy more "justice".

"The idea of "free contract" between the potentate and his starving subject is a sick joke"

Exactly. So some arbiter says I owe someone else x. I don't agree. Ha! Better yet, I'll just hire the arbitration firm that I own - after all, they are private firms, no? Think of the benefits of doing so. The fee I pay them goes back into my pocket, and they'll render the decision I desire.

Wait though. Myrkul will say that I can't do that. Oh yeah? Just who the fuck says I can't do that? The NAP doesn't.

Firepower. It all boils down to that. Violence. Who's guns are bigger and more numerous. Who has less scruples. Who is the bigger and richer asshole.

Does that sound like the world we want to make for ourselves?

You just don't get it, do you?

Let me spell it out for you. Nobody has to abide by any damn thing in your society.

Except they do. They have to unfortunately abide by the whims and fancies of whoever has the biggest guns and the most money.

Isn't that what I said here:


And here?

True, true, but it seemed to me that the understanding of the implications of this didn't fully carry over to the other examples that are still discussed. And I thought an example that took smaller and more detailed steps wouldn't hurt :)

Back to the topic, in the inheritance situation, primogeniture is not a social evil.  In your system, eldest son has a market incentive to take possession and refuse to arbitrate.  All the local eldest sons will agree with him and the rest of the people will just get used to him.

Now what would possebly stop him from claiming land, kicking people out of their houses and stores? Sure people would want to "sue" him, get him into arbitraging. Mister bigshot could just insist on only using his own firms, so what if the competing arbitrage firm would suggest a common ground? Mister bigshot could just refuse till the and of time while he just enforces his own "laws" and the people would be homeless and/or dieing in the street. Justice has become a commodity for sale, and the richer of more powerfull you become you can buy more "justice".

True, true, but it seemed to me that the understanding of the implications of this didn't fully carry over to the other examples that are still discussed. And I thought an example that took smaller and more detailed steps wouldn't hurt :)

Ranting into the aether... Apparently FirstAscent doesn't understand the concept of "ignored"

Secondly, You mentioned NAP, yes? He is actively harming people, yes? Right now? Shoot his ass.

Leaving aside the fact that I explicitly described a market incentive not to screw over your family, if primogeniture becomes the accepted method, then that is what the market selected. If you don't like it, I suggest you draw up a will.

...snip...

Siblings who have been excluded don't get to say whether or not a parent dies intestate.  But on your logic, a will won't matter as anyone can take possession and refuse arbitration.

Critics love making edge cases, and saying "see, your system is based on who has the most guns", while ignoring the fact that even at the best of times, government is based on who has the most guns. I don't pretend it would be perfect, but the majority of cases will be settled peaceably, between the two parties involved. In a government system, the majority forces the minority in every decision.

The reality of your joke of a system is this:

1. Everyone follows their own made up rules.
2. Those who can afford it, arbitrarily, and at their own whims, enforce their own made up rules with money and guns.

A will is a legally binding contract. If you have taken possession, in violation of the will, and are refusing arbitration, you're harming the other siblings. Now they're justified in kicking him off by force.

If the market accepts the fact that he is claiming primogeniture after his father died intestate, and continues to provide him services, then that is the market choice for dealing with a parent who dies intestate: primogeniture. If you do not like that, make sure you don't die intestate.

Critics love making edge cases, and saying "see, your system is based on who has the most guns", while ignoring the fact that even at the best of times, government is based on who has the most guns. I don't pretend it would be perfect, but the majority of cases will be settled peaceably, between the two parties involved. In a government system, the majority forces the minority in every decision.

Democratic government is most certainly not based on who has most guns.

Inheritance is not an edge case and your approach that people who are refused arbitration have no recourse is shocking.  How can you even begin to advocate such an unjust system?  I'd be ashamed.

That sounds exactly like a republic, except item #1 would be "someone else's made up rules". The Ancaps seem to be proposing we lower that arbitrary barrier in #2 to include all people, and assuming that people who waste their money on irrational rules will become poorer and lose influence. Correct?

Bullshit. 50%, plus one, of the people tell me it's illegal to drink caffeine, and suddenly I can't drink caffeine. If I try to do so anyway, they arrest me, and if I resist hard enough, they shoot me. How is that not about who has the most guns?

Incorrect.

If you change #1, then we're no longer discussing what I said, are we?

As for #2, your sentence regarding it is manipulative and presumptuous.

I feel like I just walked into a room where people are fighting and got a chair broken over my head.

Heh... Which is why I waited.

"The Ancaps seem to be proposing we lower that arbitrary barrier in #2 to include all people, and assuming that people who waste their money on irrational rules will become poorer and lose influence."

This isn't 100%. Understand that the underlying principle of AnCap is the Non-Aggression Principle: No person has the right to initiate force or fraud on another person. Outside of that, anything goes. You can make your own rules, but if you try to force other people to follow them, that will be interpreted as an attack on the society, and an attempt to create a new government. It will not end well for you.

A will is a legally binding contract. If you have taken possession, in violation of the will, and are refusing arbitration, you're harming the other siblings. Now they're justified in kicking him off by force.

If the market accepts the fact that he is claiming primogeniture after his father died intestate, and continues to provide him services, then that is the market choice for dealing with a parent who dies intestate: primogeniture. If you do not like that, make sure you don't die intestate.

Critics love making edge cases, and saying "see, your system is based on who has the most guns", while ignoring the fact that even at the best of times, government is based on who has the most guns. I don't pretend it would be perfect, but the majority of cases will be settled peaceably, between the two parties involved. In a government system, the majority forces the minority in every decision.

Again, says who? How is anything legally binding in a world with no laws or rulers?

True, but even the NAP can be interpreted differently between libertarians, and I would assume Ancaps too. Apologies if this sparks a huge tangent, but carbon pollution might be a good example - depending on your scientific ability, carbon emissions are anywhere between unimportant and an existential risk. Assuming the Ancap society is just as divided as this forum is, how would/should interpretation conflicts be resolved?

Arbitration. Interpretation conflicts, damages, anything except an active assault can be resolved in Arbitration or mediation.

So what if a self-sufficient group decides that <externality here> is harmless? They wouldn't have to care about hurting reputations outside the group by refusing to arbitrate. If another group has a huge problem with this, how is violence averted? Assume both groups believe in the NAP but disagree about the facts.

Bullshit. 50%, plus one, of the people tell me it's illegal to drink caffeine, and suddenly I can't drink caffeine. If I try to do so anyway, they arrest me, and if I resist hard enough, they shoot me. How is that not about who has the most guns?


I never said they had no recourse, that you don't like their recourse is your problem.

Democracy is not about a simple majority getting all it wants.  There are always things like property rights.  Your system has no such rights since the person who has most fire-power has an absolute law making power.

You know what? You're right. Recognizing each person's self-ownership and rejecting government violence will only lead to chaos. It's much better to give all the guns to one monopoly organization and let all the decisions be made by popular vote. If a lot of people agree about something, it's probably right anyway.

What you might do is look up the concept of separation of powers; having executive, judicial and legislative powers all in 1 "defence agency" is guaranteed to be a disaster. 

Uh... yeah, duh.

That's why a defense agency is a defense agency, and a arbitration firm is an arbitration firm. I'm still not sure where you picked up the idea that they were the same thing.

Because the most efficient way to do it will be for same people to own the defence agency and to own the courts.  That way, they can charge for a guaranteed service.  Vertical integration is the technical term. 

Conflict of interest is the term you're looking for.

But its a market in violence. So conflict of interest will be normal since anyone who objects receives the violence.  They are the biggest and the best - what you gonna do?  Tell your friends that they are not nice people?

If a verbal objection receives violence, that's a NAP violation, and a fairly clear attempt at establishing a state. Even the biggest and the best can be taken down by enough of the little guys.

What you need is a marker mechanism that does not create such a super "defence agency."

Do me a favor... explain, in detail, each step where we get from 100 defense agencies down to one superagency?

I'd like to see your logic.

We've already done this.  Each dispute that requires 1 side to win or lose will result in 1 defence agency going out of business.  There can never be a market for a "defence agency" that allows someone else to win.

No matter how many you start with, you end up with 1.

Conflict of interest is the term you're looking for.

If you have a dispute, you don't call your defense agency, you call your arbitration firm.

That's why defense agencies don't fight defense agencies. Defense agencies are just that: defense. Against criminals or invading armies, not each other. If you have a dispute, you don't call your defense agency, you call your arbitration firm.

We have already established that there can only be 1 arbitration firm; the one that has enforcement powers.  If you are saying that the enforcement agency is not a defence agency, that seems very inefficient.

Again with the we. Who the hell is we?

Arbitration is not enforced by violence. Thus, market competition can allow more than one.

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=88296.msg978281#msg978281

We have been through this.  You can start with as many as you want but you can only end up with 1.

And this is where you are wrong.

Disagreements are not settled by force in arbitration. They are settled by both parties coming to an agreement.

You quoted me disagreeing with you and then said we agreed. Come on, you can't think anyone is that stupid.

I quoted me proving there can only be 1 court/arbitration agency.

You have to come up with some way for this to work soon.  Going in circles where you are wrong all the time is boring me.

Arbitration is not enforced by violence. If you can't get that through your skull, there's nothing I can do to help you.

OK, so now we come to how law is enforced without force. I've said this before, elsewhere, but I'll say it again here.

So, the two siblings who just want a share of the property agree to go to arbitration to settle the dispute, but the a-hole son doesn't agree, he believes that as the first son, he is entitled to the whole thing. He hasn't harmed anyone, unless the other siblings had residence on the property and he won't allow them to stay, but we'll assume he moved in after the father's death and the other siblings likewise had other dwellings. But he still refuses arbitration to resolve the dispute. No harm means no justification in kicking him off by force, so that is off the table.

However, there is still an option available to the siblings. They can make it known to all and sundry that the offending son is refusing arbitration. Since arbitration is the means by which disputes are resolved, anyone who sees that knows that should they get into a dispute with him, it's is not likely that he will accept arbitration on that, either. That means that they are not likely to deal with him. He can't force others to do business with him, so if they decide not to, he's out of luck.

You might think (and maybe he does, too), "Oh, no big deal," but imagine: He can't get clothing, because the clothier knows that if there's a dispute, he won't go to arbitration. He can't get food, because the grocer knows that if there's a dispute, he won't go to arbitration. He can't get any of the services we take for granted in modern life, because the proprietors know that if there's a dispute, he won't go to arbitration. Most importantly, he can't get protection, because the protection companies know that if there's a dispute, he won't go to arbitration. He has, by his own actions, made himself literally an outlaw. He's on his own.

That's a pretty mighty incentive to go to arbitration, yeah?

...snip...

Arbitration is not enforced by violence. If you can't get that through your skull, there's nothing I can do to help you.

Your idea that in cities like London, people care about public opinion is quaint but wrong.  You whole idea fails if the people who "cheat" win.  Sorry you need to come up with an enforcement system that gives the siblings access to justice or you have nothing.

Make a will.

You can't make a will on behalf of a dead parent. 

Be honest; you don't have a just solution for them.

I do, you just don't think it will work. If the dead parent had had a will in the first place (as anyone with enough shit to fight over should), this wouldn't be an issue.

So if the problem didn't exist it would not be a problem? 

http://wiki.answers.com/Q/What_percentage_of_people_in_the_US_die_without_a_Will

In the US alone, 55% of families have this problem.  Surely you have something to offer by way of justice for the half of American families in this position?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arbitration

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arbitration

It is a resolution technique in which a third party reviews the evidence in the case and imposes a decision that is legally binding for both sides and enforceable.

What part of this don't you get?

From Wikipedia:


In your NAP-Land, there is no enforcement and nothing is legally binding.

Now you are trying to hide.  Grow up and think of an intelligent answer.  

I asked you for a just solution for the siblings when the eldest son in possession refuses arbitration.  What does your system offer for them to enforce their claims?

Wow - he didn't even read the link he posted :o

Arbitration is not enforced by violence.

I did. Arbitration is the answer to disputes. If the eldest son refuses arbitration, then he makes himself outlaw. I should note that Outlaw has a specific meaning... Similar to Open Season. He has refused to be a part of civil society, and is on his own, including, and in fact especially, protection. Criminals can (and probably will) come and steal his shit, or kill him. It doesn't matter if the general populace doesn't care about him refusing arbitration, the arbitration firms sure do, as do the protection agencies.

Enforcement does not equal intiatory violence. How can I get it through your skulls that law does not need a government?

He hasn't broken any law.  He has the money to pay the defence agency. 

Doesn't matter. The defense agencies know that 1. he might refuse arbitration with them, too. and 2. defending him threatens the very fabric of the society. Since they can reason out just as well, if not better, how letting him get away with it will affect society, as you can, they see that allowing him to refuse arbitration like that makes the whole system worthless. So, he refuses arbitration, they refuse protection. Outlaw. Literally, outside the law.

I think what myrkul is proposing is an Ancap society actually populated with Ancaps.

Sorry - if you think the likes of Blackwater or Sandline care about that, you are mistaken.  They don't - they really do work for bastards.  In Iraq, they really did kill innocent people on behalf of bastards.  An inheritance dispute won't trouble them for a nanosecond.

Why don't we take a step back here?  I admire the way you put your head above the parapet and made this thread.  You have to accept a system that leaves 55% of families depending on the morals of contract gunmen is not good enough.  There is no point in spitting out an instant answer which is morally weak.

Why not take the time to think of an actual fix ?

I think what myrkul is proposing is an Ancap society actually populated with Ancaps. Democracy hinges upon the morality of our gunmen as well.

Blackwater and the like are run by military men... by definition psychopaths - created, if not born. I don't expect them to care about humans.

You're being dishonest with yourself if you truly believe that 55% of people (all those who die intestate) would wholly be at the mercy of "the morals of contract gunmen"... you forget that arbitration is for disputes, not defense agencies. You presented a rare case, where one son of three (how many of those 55% had three children?) refused arbitration (how many of those that did have 3 children had enough shit to fight over?) because he believed in primogeniture (how common is this belief?). In that rare case, then his case might be said to be at the mercy of the protection company's morals.

...snip...

They have the ordinance, the men and the experience to be "defence agencies" and absent a state, what will stop them?

No such thing.

1. People change.
2. People don't always adhere to their principles when the tables turn against them.
3. Outside forces and internal forces create scenarios which require a change of principles.
4. People have children who don't agree.
5. Immigrants come in and see a weak system that can be taken advantage of.

From point 5:
Like the original forefathers to this great nation, immigrants who discovered a weak point and then killed everyone here with germ warfare, then turned the story in to one of cute cowboy and indian movies depicting the Indians as the aggressors you mean?

Well, that is a problem, isn't it? They're part of the current monopoly of power. But that's not really a problem with the system as such, but rather with getting from here to there.

We're not discussing how to get there from here, really, (though if you'd like to, we can) but the way that makes the most sense to me is Agorism (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Agorism).

Um no.  They are not allowed operate in our countries the way they do in Iraq and Afghanistan.  In your system, they will be free to do as they please. 

Sigh. The problem with discussing this sort of thing with people like you is that people see, and expect, in others what they see in themselves.

...snip...

Could that be because you are a dreamer and you have no idea how the real world works?

No, I know exactly how the world works. The idea is to change that.

Any change has to be in the context of human nature and old fashioned economics.  The system you describe creates market incentives to totalitarian dominance by 1 defence agency.  You assume that Blackwater and Aegis and the like will become nicer organisations staffed by more sweet natured mercenaries in your NAP world.  There is no reason for the rest of us to share you assumption. 

I make no such assumptions, and any further claims that there will be a market incentive to monopoly will be ignored as per the original post.

Peace out.

I do hope this means that you will be quiet now and let people with real, legitimate concerns ask. "market incentive to monopoly" is just ridiculous on its face.

No - it means that if you keep advocating it I am still here.  You still have not provided a sensible way that allows competition between defence agencies that does not end in monopoly. If you come up with something better, of course I am interested.

But at least you accept that the children of people who die intestate are screwed by your system.  That's 55% of families in the US so that alone means your system will never be adopted.

No, I already discussed how edge your case was, and, how it handles even that case. No arbitration, no protection. Troll harder.

55% of families is not an edge case.

But you weren't discussing 55% of people. You were discussing a very specific situation, where the father died intestate, and the first son advocated primogeniture and refused arbitration. that many ands adds up to an edge case.

55% of people die intestate.  Your rule is that whoever has the dead person's possessions can keep it and refuse arbitration. That is a not a decent way to do things.  Its not an edge case either.

That's not my rule. That's your misinterpretation of my rule.

Correct me then.  When someone dies intestate and there is a dispute as to who inherits what, if the person who has possession refuses arbitration, what remedy do the siblings have?

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=88296.msg979353#msg979353

You said it yourself. without protection, you die. No arbitration, no protection.

You said it yourself.Without protection, you will die. No arbitration, no protection.

They will have no problem getting protection as defence agencies will always accept their money.  Its the siblings who are dispossessed that will struggle to afford protection.

You made mention that you have been cheated. Do you then extend credit to the same person again? The same would apply here. He has already broken one contract, his agreement to use arbitration. Do you not think he will break contract with the defense agency? No arbitration, no defense. Without defense, you will die.

I can't see people being happy enough with your idea ever to vote for it.  Can you?

Who said anything about voting? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Agorism

I love it and hope you dedicate your life to it.  We may well have a win/win here.

Myrkull: You have stated that the defense agencies wont attack each other since it will not be profitable. Why is it that criminal gangs that want to maximize profit attack each other? Why is it that states now and historically attack each other?

Myrkull: You have stated that the defense agencies wont attack each other since it will not be profitable. Why is it that criminal gangs that want to maximize profit attack each other? Why is it that states now and historically attack each other?

In 415 BC a democratically elected government attacked a neutral island (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Melian_dialogue) that refused to join its military alliance and killed all of the men and enslaved all of the children.

Even in the context of a war, such an action would be considerably less likely and less successful in modern times. If not human nature, what did change?

In NAP-Land, nothing is illegal. For example, none of these are illegal:

1. Breaking DRM on your own phone
2. Possessing cannabis
3. Transferring wealth anonymously
4. Public nudity
5. Not buying health insurance
6. Sodomy, gay marriage
7. Fireworks
8. Refusing to pay for atom bombs
9. Moving across the world without anyone's permission

The following are common (very very common, based entirely on my own imagination)

1. Doing whatever the hell I want so long as it doesn't harm you.

For someone who said he'd "largely ignore" me, he sure talks a lot, doesn't he?

FTFY

Explodicle,

If you're going to quote me, then quote what I said, or say it yourself.

Regarding your statement, clearly if any and every ugly and despicable act under the sun is not illegal in NAP-Land, then obviously other stuff is as well. Number 9 on your list is very interesting. The World analogizes to NAP-Land in some ways - nations are privately owned properties where residents pay monthly fees, but must abide by the security forces employed by the land owners, and the relations between these property owners are negotiated on a per situation basis.

Note that within that world (our world), there are feuds, atomic bomb explosions, mass murder, genocide, etc. Welcome to NAP-Land!

I wouldn't consider the existing world to be NAP-land because most of those states don't follow the NAP or even try. Yes, this is because some things are broken that we need to fix - for example, by promoting an independent monetary system, or convincing people to stop supporting wars. Given that myrkul's stated plan is agorism, I thought it was clear to everyone that he isn't going to just buy an island and hope that everything works out. If you think force is a natural monopoly, then let's work together to fix that. We can accomplish anything!

But I don't want to put words in anyone's mouth (sorry!) this is just my effort to understand myrkul's Ancap position.

In NAP-Land, nothing is illegal. For example, none of these are illegal:

1. Murder, mass murder
2. Stealing, theft, trespass, B & E
3. Blackmail, extortion
4. Slander, bullying, threatening
5. Environmental destruction, toxic waste dumping, poaching
6. Polluting, noise
7. Spying
8. Kidnapping
9. Child abuse

The following are common (very very common)

1. Lawsuits, counter-suits, and more
2. Revenge, feuds, escalation of feuds
3. Weapons, and more weapons, and bigger weapons
4. Looking over your shoulder wherever you go
5. Tolls, fees, penalties
6. Inconsistency with regard to, well, everything

In addition to the fact that if you follow the strict law of NAP, then murder cannot be a crime.  Thought Experiment: if I murder someone, who can retaliate against me without breaking the NAP?  The only person that has the moral high ground by which to kill me back, or put me in jail, or otherwise instigate 'force' against me would be the recently deceased person, no?  How would anyone else have claim on my personal liberty?

When you kill someone, you don't just hurt them. You hurt their family, their friends, their coworkers, practically everyone they know will be affected by your actions.

LOL, love it.  But you forgot:

*  Counterfeiting
*  Every type of financial fraud imaginable

When you kill someone, you don't just hurt them. You hurt their family, their friends, their coworkers, practically everyone they know will be affected by your actions.

So all those people are free to attack you if you kill one person?  Please tell me you are I am mistaken - that makes the NAP meaningless :(

I'd like you to explain how that makes NAP meaningless, But I'll address your question first.

I don't endorse or condone retributive violence. Only in very few cases would I even accept it. All of these people, however, would have claim for damages against the killer, in lesser and greater degrees. So the murdered person is not the only victim, just the one that was most harmed, and the one whom you are least able to make whole.

Most people would interpret that to mean that instead of a system where a court checks if a person is proven guilty beyond all reasonable doubt before punishing them, you have lots of people who feel damaged by a suspected killer and who will get together to kill him.

Proving guilt beyond all reasonable doubt won't happen with mob law.  You will see innocents killed. 

Of course, that makes all of the mob killers too and they are then targets themselves.  In my background of sectarian violence, this is a very familiar scenario.  Its hard to see the point of the NAP if that is how its intended to work.

Ahh. I see your point, and indeed, if the mob decided to take vengeance, that would tend to break the system. Thus why I disapprove of retributive violence. It's usually counterproductive, and always unproductive. In other words, it never fixes anything, and usually makes things worse. The solution here is again, since nobody is in immediate danger, to use arbitration. Each of those people have a grievance against the killer, which can be brought to arbitration.

He's harmed someone, violently, so in this instance, I would consider forcing him to show up justified.

A system where a mob can hang a man without a jury trial is a system where mobs will hang men without jury trials.  If the mobs are of different races or religion, they will argue its self-defence.  The question is whether the NAP forbids it?  If not, its a lot less benign that I thought. 

In a case of irrefutable proof (man murders someone in broad daylight, gets 6 or seven holes punched in him by the people in the street) I'd say justice done. But in a case where there is even a shred of doubt, arbitration remains the way to go. "Better that ten guilty persons escape than that one innocent suffer," as it were.

Please don't confuse what a nice person like you would do with how a mob behaves.  If a mob decides that a guy who has carried out a rape/murder is to be hanged as what he did is a threat to every decent person, does a NAP based society have a procedure to ensure that the man gets a fair trail before being hanged?

Yes. Remember those protection agencies? As long as that person is not refusing arbitration, they will prevent the mob from assaulting him.

And if they don't get there in time? Is there a penalty for the mob? 

If you haven't yet, you must watch :
The Machinery Of Freedom by David Friedman (Illustrated summary) http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=jTYkdEU_B4o#

Yes, especially if the evidence bears out that he was innocent. That's what the (initial) arbitration is for, to determine guilt or innocence.

Who exactly punishes the mob members ?  Have they even committed a crime ?

Of course they've committed a crime, murder. And the murderers are taken to arbitration to determine what they owe the estate of the "rapist", probably with a little thrown in to help fund or repay the cost of finding the right guy.

No that's contradicting yourself.  No-one gets taken to arbitration; they volunteer to go.  If they are being taken to arbitration, its a court. 

No, a court is a government construct, where the judge is paid by the same person as is the prosecutor, and you have no say in who that judge is.

Arbitration can be compelled, such as by a contract you agreed to previously (such as that with your defense agency - a note: I'm going to start using David Friedman's term "Rights Enforcement Agency", I like that one better.) The difference between arbitration and court is that you get to help pick the judge - again, it probably would be specified in the contract with your REA - and they are not part of the same organization as is claiming damages against you.

So earlier when you said the siblings were stuffed, you have changed your mind and now there is some way to compel the person in possession to accept arbitration?  And if a mob hangs a man, there is some group who can compel the members of that mob to accept arbitration ?  And it will have remand jails for mob members who are a flight risk ?  I assume the "arbitration" will involve a jury and that any crime must be punished beyond all reasonable doubt before a punishment is administered?

You are creating an implied contracts between the siblings.  Since none of them can possibly know the terms of that contract, its a bit far fetched.  You also create an implied contract between the mob and they person they hanged.  I don't have an adjective for that.

"I was assuming no prior contract, with the siblings, where now, I realize that of course he would have had a contract with his REA, as would the mob members."

Not an implied contract at all, an explicitly stated one, and not with the siblings, but with his Rights Enforcement Agency.

Ah.  Of course.  First thing every mob does before hanging a man is negotiate a contract with their Rights Enforcement Agency. 

We need someone to protect peoples rights otherwise they are taken by force. We need an authority to protect us against the use of force from outsiders and also from insiders (criminals and the gov).

Gov makes this easy

Except for one thing.... Government, by its existence, is breaking it's own stated reasoning for existence.

"We must protect you from theft and murder, so therefor we must take your money. Oh, and if you disagree, we'll kill you."

US was just a first try and it got stronger faster than any other country ever...for the first hundred fifty years. Now it is nowhere near what it should be and it shows.

We have tried to limit government once, and you are right it hasnt worked. Now the question is whether a government CAN potentially do it or if no Gov can do better.

First of all no gov is not an option that will happen in the near future (neither is limited gov) but we are thinking ideally. A government could make sure that their are certain "laws" that are essential for all citizens i.e. no initiating force. Then we could have private systems of protection, but otherwise if there is no government what makes sure that even that "law" is maintained across all police forces?

Lysander Spooner's quote, “But whether the Constitution really be one thing, or another, this much is certain - that it has either authorized such a government as we have had, or has been powerless to prevent it. In either case, it is unfit to exist.” gets truer every day.

That quote always bothers me. It's an appeal to consequences with conveniently no anarchist comparison, against a useful but imperfect safety mechanism.

You might be surprised. New Hampshire is trending rapidly towards little or no government, as it is the focus of the Free State Project. Inherent oxymoron aside, it's a great idea, and you should at least look into it.

So, the second part of your question could be rephrased as "If there is no monopoly on law, how will law be maintained?"

The answer to that is simultaneously simple, and complex. The simple answer (as it is with most libertarian questions) is "the market will decide upon a fair system". That's going to seem like handwaving, and in a sense, it is. But there is a more involved answer, which explains exactly how the market will decide upon a fair system of law, which I will briefly summarize here:

Private law is practiced by what are called arbiters. Arbitration is already a common practice in business, where they don't want to bring their dealings into court. In any dispute, there are two sides. Both would like to see the dispute resolved as fairly (for them) as possible. Since both sides would like a fair shake, they both seek arbiters who will deal with them fairly. Perhaps they can even agree on one. That would be best, since it's cheaper for all concerned. But perhaps they cannot decide on a single arbiter. In that case they each choose one who they feel will best represent their case, and these two arbiters then agree on a third, who will ultimately decide their case. Arbiters who have a reputation for dealing fairly will get more business than those who do not.

That's the nutshell description, you'll get a more in-depth examination of the system if you read the books I provide in the "book club" thread.

In saying that, Hitler was elected. The majority can and is wrong. Under a completely free system like you advocate, what is stopping people voting/electing/paying for a "police" service that attacks others of a certain race/religion etc. This could absolutely happen and it could be feudalism in a sense. With no Gov or document that protects against that one thing - protecting against initiators of force - than technically no one has to. Yes if we are dealing with ideal citizens that think correctly they wont do this, but we are dealing with reality. People are irrational and they would do this.

Government, in order to be effective, must be able to reach outside of it's cage. Any cage that will allow it to reach outside, is not strong enough to hold it.

What do you mean by "reach out of its cage"? Are you talking about the slight or uncommon exceptions most people will tolerate, like DUI self-incrimination and Guantanamo torture?

Unfortunately, we have to get lucky that the majority is ethical and that is a big risk.

Logically, there are four possibilities as to the mixture of good and evil people in the world:

    All men are moral.
    All men are immoral.
    The majority of men are immoral, and a minority moral.
    The majority of men are moral, and a minority immoral.

(A perfect balance of good and evil is practically impossible.)

In the first case (all men are moral), the government is obviously not needed, since evil cannot exist.

In the second case (all men are immoral), the government cannot be permitted to exist for one simple reason. The government, it is generally argued, must exist because there are evil people in the world who desire to inflict harm, and who can only be restrained through fear of government retribution (police, prisons et al). A corollary of this argument is that the less retribution these people fear, the more evil they will do.

However, the government itself is not subject to any force or retribution, but is a law unto itself. Even in Western democracies, how many policemen and politicians go to jail?

Thus if evil people wish to do harm, but are only restrained by force, then society can never permit a government to exist, because evil people will work feverishly to grab control of that government, in order to do evil and avoid retribution. In a society of pure evil, then, the only hope for stability would be a state of nature, where a general arming and fear of retribution would blunt the evil intents of disparate groups. As is the case between nuclear-armed nations, a “balance of power” breeds peace.

The third possibility is that most people are evil, and only a few are good. If that is the case, then the government also cannot be permitted to exist, since the majority of those in control of the government will be evil, and will rule despotically over the good minority. Democracy in particular cannot be permitted, since the minority of good people would be subjugated to the democratic control of the evil majority. Evil people, who wish to do harm without fear of retribution, would inevitably control the government, and use its power to do evil free of the fear of consequences.

Good people do not act morally because they fear retribution, but because they love virtue and peace of mind – and thus, unlike evil people, they have little to gain by controlling the government. In this scenario, then, the government will inevitably be controlled by a majority of evil people who will rule over all, to the detriment of all moral people.

The fourth option is that most people are good, and only a few are evil. This possibility is subject to the same problems outlined above, notably that evil people will always want to gain control over the government, in order to shield themselves from just retaliation for their crimes. This option only changes the appearance of democracy: because the majority of people are good, evil power-seekers must lie to them in order to gain power, and then, after achieving public office, will immediately break faith and pursue their own corrupt agendas, enforcing their wills through the police and the military. (This is the current situation in democracies, of course.) Thus the government remains the greatest prize to the most evil men, who will quickly gain control over its awesome power – to the detriment of all good souls – and so the government cannot be permitted to exist in this scenario either.

It is clear, then, that there is no situation under which a government can logically or morally be allowed to exist.

We dont teach people how to think, we teach them what to think and not ask questions. We breed dependence and preach dependence as a moral virtue and we eventually get no one that can live for themselves independently...without initiating force might I add :)

No, I mean things like the interstate commerce clause, by which the US federal government has gained at least half of its current mass.

So when you say it needs to "reach out of its cage to be effective", are you saying that the commerce clause made the government more effective? Maybe we would have been better off with a much less vague commerce clause, requiring states to reach mutual agreements instead.

I don't think many minarchists will proudly stand by that clause.