Criticisms?

[FirstAscent]

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.

Incorrect. There is no guarantee that the parties will come to agreement. In fact, in your NAP-Land, due to a general "anything goes", we can be certain that it will be very common that both parties will not come to agreement. It's all about guns and money.

I suspect that a lot of those who do come to 'agreement' will be because one party is very intimidating.

[Hawker]

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.

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.

[myrkul]

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.

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.

[FirstAscent]

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.

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.

In NAP-Land, that's all it boils down to (violence and intimidation). Nothing else.

[Hawker]

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?

...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.

[myrkul]

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.

[Hawker]

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.

[myrkul]

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.

[Hawker]

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?

[myrkul]

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

[Hawker]

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

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?

[FirstAscent]

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

What part of this don't you get?

From Wikipedia:

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.

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

[Hawker]

...snip...

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

What part of this don't you get?

From Wikipedia:

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.

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

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

[myrkul]

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?

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.

[myrkul]

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

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

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

[FirstAscent]

Arbitration is not enforced by violence.

In your NAP-Land, that is what it's enforced by. That, or threat and intimidation by someone who can back it up with violence.

[Hawker]

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?

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.

He hasn't broken any law.  He has the money to pay the defence agency.  In a city like London, where Russian oligarchs and Arab despots are welcome, you can't seriously think that someone will worry about being an "outlaw." Get real!

What you need is a way for them to force him to accept arbitration.  For example, some form of subpoena.  Without that, they have no justice.  And if your system means that half of all families won't get justice, it fails from day 1.

[Hawker]

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

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

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

By providing a way to force a person to accept arbitration.  If you don't have that, you don't have anything.

[FirstAscent]

Classic example of NAP actually working here and abroad: the Mafia.

[myrkul]

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.