Do We Need Government?

[Hawker]

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.

[DeathAndTaxes]

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.

No I am not.  Today you and your siblings could be located in different countries and that is totally immaterial. The only relevant decision is the one made by the courts where your parents chose to be bound (by citizenship and domicile).  All law is backed by the threat of force having those laws and enforcement by private entities wouldn't change anything.

Today:
Your father has $10M in assets held in a US bank in state of VA.  The jurisdiction is the courts of VA.  You live in WY and your sister lives in France.  Say the will is in dispute due to vague language.  What the courts of France say is immaterial unless they intend to use force to reclaim the assets for your sister.  What matters is what the state of VA says and unless someone is willing to go to war over it that is the only court that matters.

Hypothetical future w/ private courts:
Your father has $10M in assets secured by Alliance Security and his will indicates Alliance Security Courts is the arbitrator in any disputes. The jurisdiction is the Alliance Security Courts. You have accepted to be bound by the statutes of Union Systems.  Your sister has accepted to be bound by the statutes of the Confederation for the Common good.  Say the will is in dispute due to vague language. What the courts of the COCG says is immaterial unless they intend to use force to reclaim the assets for your sister.  What matters is what the Alliance Security Courts say and unless someone is willing to go to war over it that is the only court that matters.

[Hawker]

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.

Over a period of time, even if you start with 100 courts each of which has its own set of laws, you will end up with 1 because the others failed to enforce their judgement.

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

[DeathAndTaxes]

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.

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.

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

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.

[Hawker]

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.

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.

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

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.

[DeathAndTaxes]

If your parents have died intestate, then any of the competing courts can adjudicate.

Adjudicate what?  Parents assets are secured by company X, parents have contract w/ company X, parent's will says company X is to handle any disputes.  Sure court abc could say anything it wants.  It could rule that Parents assets are the work of the devil and order them destroyed but without force they couldn't do anything.

  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.

Sure much like the United States could disagree with a court decision made by France and launch a military strike to force a different outcome because it has superior military force.  Countries, companies, and other entities have contractual disputes everyday and rarely does it result in a war.

So yes THAT COULD HAPPEN but it doesn't.  The cost of the war (and the risk of losing when multiple competitors band together to stop the aggressive court's belligerence) has to be weighed against the benefit of the conflict.  Wars are almost never economically profitable.  If economics was a serious consideration we would have much less not more conflict in the last couple centuries.

No what would happen is via the contract your parents security company would secure their assets upon their death and assets would be split according to the will.  If there was a dispute it would be handled by the companies court.  If you didn't like that outcome your option would be to go to war.

Pretty much exactly the same outcome as today except entities would be structured by choice rather than by citizenship.

[Bind]

we do need government.

we do not need the government we have though.

[Hawker]

deathandtaxes - the US and France are separate jurisdictions.  You are proposing competing legal systems in the same jurisdiciton.

When people die intestate, that means they have not made a will.  Your answer doesn't make sense because it assumes there is a will.  Try again.

[DeathAndTaxes]

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.

[Hawker]

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.

[DeathAndTaxes]

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.  I never said no other court can make a decision I said it was irrelevant. Really no different than a US court finding in your favor but it being unenforcable because the assets are outside the reach of the court.  The US court might agree with you but that doesn't mean the military might of these United States is going to help you enforce that claim.  If that happens are you going to renounce your citizenship?  If the US going to collapse because it can't enforce every claim made by every citizen against entities outside it control?

It happens everyday.  Another example: A mother has custody.  Father takes the child and flees to Saudia Arabia.  Mother files in US court and they find the father broke the law, a warrant is issued for his arrest on the charge of kidnapping.  Without enforcement it is useless. Of course the mother has a right to file a claim.  Of course the court will rule on it.  If the court of Saudi Arabia rule against her do you think the United States is going to go to war to being the child back?

Wait a conflict in rulings.  That must lead to war (your flawed conclusion) eventually every country will go to war with every other country until only a single country has survived.  Err. wait that hasn't happened.  Yet somehow if the legal entities were corporations instead of governments then war is unavoidable.  A logical fallacy or at best an unproven claim.

It HAPPENS EVERYDAY RIGHT NOW.  There is no material difference if the artificial lines are countries, borders, and citizenship or corporations, contracts, and customers.  If the court can enforce your claim then great.  If they can't then hopefully there is an intra-court solution (a court may enforce a ruling from another court because of reciprocity agreements).  If not then you are SHIT OUT OF LUCK ... just like today.

[Hawker]

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...

Ah good - progress.  You now acknowledge that the courts will indeed adjudicate.

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

[DeathAndTaxes]

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.

[Hawker]

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?

[DeathAndTaxes]

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.

It is no different now.  If your assets exist outside the law then no court can help you protect them. Try owning a factory in Somalia or $20M in illegal drugs in the US and see how much use the courts are in enforcing any claim.  

You seem to forget the parents have the CHOICE to protect their assets.  They also have the chocie to live outside the law.  With freedom comes responsibility.  There is no moral hazard.  If they want their assets protected they can do so.  If they chose to not protect their assets well that is their choice.  No different than say parents in one family protecting their children by buying life insurance and parents in another family not doing so.  Should the government also collect life insurance premiums from every citizen to ensure all children have an asset when their parent dies?  

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?

Nobody would be robbing orphans except negligent parents who decide to live outside the law.

If I recall your argument wasn't that private courts were undesirable your argument was:
conflict in court rulings -> armed conflict -> only one survives -> dictatorship.

If you accept that claim is unfounded and private courts are simply a future you don't like well that is a huge step forward in opening your eyes to alternatives and away from the mindwashing that govt services are essential.  They are a choice not essential.

[Hawker]

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.

It is no different now.  ...snip...

I know of no state that doesn't have provision for intestacy.  Its as basic an essential as the law on murder.  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. 

[DeathAndTaxes]

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

Failed states certainly don't not in practice.

Still that point is irrelivent.  The topic was about no govt = no state.  Obviously the state wouldn't exist in a non-state solution.

Today STATE COURTS  & LAW ENFORCEMENT OFFICERS OF THE STATE protect rights (including inheritances)
Under a non-state solution PRIVATE COURTS & PRIVATE LAW ENFORCEMENT OFFICERS would protect rights (including inheritances).

Not a whole lot changes except freedom of choice. 

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.

This has nothing to do with wills.  Kids would inherit the property of the parents according the statutes of the courts that they are contractually bound to.  No different than today.  My US citizenship and VA domicile binds me to the statutes of the state of VA and federal court when it comes to inheritances, property, contractual obligations, etc.   In a private court system I would choose a court that is aligned w/ my personal values and contract for security and law enforcement.  My rights would be protected by that private security and disputes handled by that private court. 

The only significant change would be FREEDOM OF CHOICE.  Under a private court system if I died for any reason, anywhere in the world my children's inheritances would be protected by the private court just like the state does now.

Really I'm serious - if you want to change the system, please come up with something better than what we have now.  

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").  

[Hawker]

...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").  

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.

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. 

[DeathAndTaxes]

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.

[Hawker]

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.

Explain your " Likely none of the kids get anything because the parents were too stupid to secure their assets. " suggestion then.  

Be honest - the real issue here is that your idea is bad.  Think of something better and post again.