Maximum role of Government?

[AyeYo]

Arbitration agencies can only compete if there is a single set of laws for them to follow.  If you have a single set of laws you have a state.

What makes a state a state is its involuntary nature. There's nothing wrong with everyone voluntarily agreeing not to wear hats or anything else that isn't a violation of rights. The voluntary aspect is the key. Why are you so eager to have something called a state anyways? What are you after other than trying to prove libertarians wrong?

Of course its involuntary.  If 2 reasonable adults have a legitimate dispute as to ownership of a bit of land and a court decided one of them is the true owner, the loser can't say "I am opting out of this involuntary state" and keep the land.

Well, you're half right (I've bolded it). The loser can't opt out, because he voluntarily signed an agreement to abide by the court's decision.

And what entity is going to enforce that agreement?  In order to have enforceable agreements and consistent contract law, you need a central authority because everyone needs to agree on the standard.  The losing party can simply claim the contract isn't binding and tell the court to go pound sand.  Furthermore, why would he even bother to sign the agreement in the first place?  If I have a piece of land registered at land registry A and you register that land at land registry B, I'm just going to shoot you in the face when I see you on my property and I'll get away with it because it's defense of property.

[Hawker]

No-one will enforce it.  As he admits himself, its just an absurd idea.

[NghtRppr]

No-one will enforce it.

Private security firms will enforce it but it's unlikely the problem will arise in the first place. Let's say that there are two very large companies, A and B. If you have a piece of land registered with A and I try to register that land with B there are two possibilities. One possibility is that B is incompetent and will allow it to happen. In which case, people won't trust B and they will go out of business. Insurance companies won't deal with them. Mortgage companies won't deal with them. The other possibility is that B is competent and will notice that the land is already registered with A and tell you to get some sort of documentation from A allowing you to transfer registration from A to B.

Now, let's say that some joker starts up his fraudulent C company that just lets anyone register anything regardless of being registered at A or B. First of all, nobody is going to insure property registered at C, nobody is going to finance property C and only groups of bandits are going to help you take C by force if you have enough money. But suppose you just pay cash to C and get your piece of paper. Now you go to claim your land with your group of bandits. That's when the private security firms get involved. Being smart, A and B already have insurance against this sort of thing. When you register land at A or B, it costs more but if there is a dispute, they will send a private security firm to protect you, enforce any judgements, etc. The private security firms are much bigger, more organized and better armed because they have funds from millions of land owners while C has a tiny fraction of that.

There would be so many safeguards in place to stop things like that from happening because most people don't want that to happen. It's only a minority of people that want to defraud others. The market responds to what people want and prevents such disputes from occurring.

[myrkul]

No-one will enforce it.  As he admits himself, its just an absurd idea.

No, you called it absurd, I said it was sad that it was considered absurd. Nor did I ever say it wouldn't win popular support. I do wish you would stop trying to twist my words.

[JA37]

No-one will enforce it.

Private security firms will enforce it but it's unlikely the problem will arise in the first place. Let's say that there are two very large companies, A and B. If you have a piece of land registered with A and I try to register that land with B there are two possibilities. One possibility is that B is incompetent and will allow it to happen. In which case, people won't trust B and they will go out of business.

Ok, following your logic B will eventually go out of business. That doesn't really solve the immediate problem, does it? You still have a piece of land with two owners.

[NghtRppr]

Ok, following your logic B will eventually go out of business. That doesn't really solve the immediate problem, does it? You still have a piece of land with two owners.

Yes, that happens with our current system as well.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Title_insurance_in_the_United_States

[JA37]

Yes, that happens with our current system as well.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Title_insurance_in_the_United_States

US Problem. The rest of the world have solved it.

[NghtRppr]

I think you missed the point. The point is, the same solution that works in the USA can also work in a libertarian society.

[JA37]

I think you missed the point. The point is, the same solution that works in the USA can also work in a libertarian society.

I got that. I just think that solution is worse than the one adopted by most of the industrialized world.

[NghtRppr]

I got that. I just think that solution is worse than the one adopted by most of the industrialized world.

You're entitled to your opinion (which is all it is) but just don't pretend there isn't a working solution already implemented.

[JA37]

I got that. I just think that solution is worse than the one adopted by most of the industrialized world.

You're entitled to your opinion (which is all it is) but just don't pretend there isn't a working solution already implemented.

If that solution is a good one, how come some US states have switched away from it? So if your definition of "working" is "limping along" then yes, there is a "working" system already implemented.

[NghtRppr]

If that solution is a good one, how come some US states have switched away from it? So if your definition of "working" is "limping along" then yes, there is a "working" system already implemented.

Millions of people, myself included, have used the system and it satisfied their requirements. It's no surprise that coercive governments are willing to abandon a working system for something better regardless of its coercive nature. The point is, there is a solution and instead of just admitting it, you want to claim it's "not good enough" and "unpopular". That's called moving goalposts.

[Hawker]

Ok, following your logic B will eventually go out of business. That doesn't really solve the immediate problem, does it? You still have a piece of land with two owners.

Yes, that happens with our current system as well.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Title_insurance_in_the_United_States

That won't work.  Title insurance requires a measurable risk.  If you have multiple competing claims of ownership and no court system to arbitrate, you can't get insurance.  Title insurance also requires a legal framework - you can't buy it without a state.

myrkul linked to a wiki page on his philosophy where it was explained in 1 paragraph and then followed by several paragraphs of libertarians saying what an absurd idea it is.  If you can't even convince libertarians your idea makes sense, there is no way you will ever get it voted for in an election.  Right now, you live in a democracy so perhaps you'd do better to focus on ideas that might actually be possible in the real world instead of daydreaming of a world where there are no states and multiple competing police agencies.

[myrkul]

That won't work.  Title insurance requires a measurable risk.  If you have multiple competing claims of ownership and no court system to arbitrate, you can't get insurance.  Title insurance also requires a legal framework - you can't buy it without a state.

myrkul linked to a wiki page on his philosophy where it was explained in 1 paragraph and then followed by several paragraphs of libertarians saying what an absurd idea it is.  If you can't even convince libertarians your idea makes sense, there is no way you will ever get it voted for in an election.  Right now, you live in a democracy so perhaps you'd do better to focus on ideas that might actually be possible in the real world instead of daydreaming of a world where there are no states and multiple competing police agencies.

Watch what happens if I rewind this conversation oh, say, 250 years:

"Jefferson linked to a wiki page on his philosophy where it was explained in 1 paragraph and then followed by several paragraphs of liberals saying what an absurd idea it is.  If you can't even convince liberals your idea makes sense, there is no way you will ever get it passed.  Right now, you live in a Monarchy so perhaps you'd do better to focus on ideas that might actually be possible in the real world instead of daydreaming of a world where there are no Kings and multiple competing States."

[Hawker]

That won't work.  Title insurance requires a measurable risk.  If you have multiple competing claims of ownership and no court system to arbitrate, you can't get insurance.  Title insurance also requires a legal framework - you can't buy it without a state.

myrkul linked to a wiki page on his philosophy where it was explained in 1 paragraph and then followed by several paragraphs of libertarians saying what an absurd idea it is.  If you can't even convince libertarians your idea makes sense, there is no way you will ever get it voted for in an election.  Right now, you live in a democracy so perhaps you'd do better to focus on ideas that might actually be possible in the real world instead of daydreaming of a world where there are no states and multiple competing police agencies.

Watch what happens if I rewind this conversation oh, say, 250 years:

"Jefferson linked to a wiki page on his philosophy where it was explained in 1 paragraph and then followed by several paragraphs of liberals saying what an absurd idea it is.  If you can't even convince liberals your idea makes sense, there is no way you will ever get it passed.  Right now, you live in a Monarchy so perhaps you'd do better to focus on ideas that might actually be possible in the real world instead of daydreaming of a world where there are no Kings and multiple competing States."

Jeffersons idea were not new or controversial even when he wrote them.  The Declaration of Independence was read avidly all over the world because it was sensible.

[myrkul]

Jeffersons idea were not new or controversial even when he wrote them.  The Declaration of Independence was read avidly all over the world because it was sensible.

And what is so non-sensible about "keep your hands to yourself"?

[NghtRppr]

That won't work.  Title insurance requires a measurable risk.  If you have multiple competing claims of ownership and no court system to arbitrate, you can't get insurance.  Title insurance also requires a legal framework - you can't buy it without a state.

Markets can determine risk. There can be private courts. Nothing you've said makes a bit of difference.

Right now, you live in a democracy so perhaps you'd do better to focus on ideas that might actually be possible in the real world instead of daydreaming of a world where there are no states and multiple competing police agencies.

I'm sure you would have said the same thing about abolishing slavery.

[JA37]

Millions of people, myself included, have used the system and it satisfied their requirements. It's no surprise that coercive governments are willing to abandon a working system for something better regardless of its coercive nature. The point is, there is a solution and instead of just admitting it, you want to claim it's "not good enough" and "unpopular". That's called moving goalposts.

I thought the goal was to create something better? A mule is a solution to a transportation problem, but I think most people would prefer a car. Same thing here, there is a solution that does "work", but most people would want something better. And they already have it.

And "millions of people have used it"? Does numbers matter now? If so, then billions of people have used the other system. What's your point?

[NghtRppr]

I thought the goal was to create something better?

The goal is to make a system based on keeping your hands off of other people and their property unless you have their permission i.e. a system compatible with libertarianism. If that's how you define "better" then we agree.

And "millions of people have used it"? Does numbers matter now? If so, then billions of people have used the other system. What's your point?

My point is that it works. It's not perfect but it's a solution and one that's compatible with keeping your hands to yourself.

[The Script]

I think you missed the point. The point is, the same solution that works in the USA can also work in a libertarian society.

I got that. I just think that solution is worse than the one adopted by most of the industrialized world.

Which is what? I'm curious.