Criticisms?

[Hawker]

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? 

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

So a mob hangs a guy for raping a little girl.  She identified him.  Turns out she got it wrong. 

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

[myrkul]

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.

[Hawker]

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. 

[myrkul]

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.

[Hawker]

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 ?

[myrkul]

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?

It's not so much changed my mind, as changed assumptions. Arbitration, as I said, can be compelled, if you had previously agreed to bring all disputes to arbitration, and agreed to being compelled to show up if you were reluctant. 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. Thus, under that contract, if it specified (and I see no reason why it would not) that he - or the mob members - would bring any disputes before arbitration, he could be compelled to show up, as could they. But while not all contracts with REAs would specify "If you don't come to arbitration, we can force you," all would say something along the lines of "You agree to take all disputes to arbitration," so if he did not, he would be in breach of contract, resulting in the same consequences as I outlined before. This is why I posted this thread, to help me see the holes, not in the theory, but in my defense and understanding of it.

Without violent harm being done, and without a prior contract specifically allowing it, there's no justification to compel someone to appear at arbitration. Even with violent harm being done, you're taking a bit of a risk in doing so (which I suppose you could take even without violent harm, if you really wanted your money back) because you're violating his rights in using force against him, and the arbiter could come down on his side of things, or just order that he be paid restitution for the harm you've done him. At best, that would cut into your judgment, at worst, you may end up owing him a hefty restitution.

As for "jail", nothing so barbaric. Flight risks would be detained, but at a facility either of their choosing, or as specified in their contract with their REA. These facilities, since they are in market competition with one another, would be competing for customers - both people wishing to make sure the person doesn't escape, and people wishing a pleasant experience while confined. Thus, "Bob's Bed, Breakfast, and Bail-bonds" would be a much nicer place to stay than the county lock-up.

As for a jury (and here I assume that that first "punished" was intended to be "proven"), if you really desire 12, or 15, or any number other than one arbiter to decide your case, you can have that, but that will be more expensive. The idea behind arbitration is that you select someone whose judgment you trust to decide your case. A jury is there to back up the fallibility of a single, court-appointed judge. Since both sides come to an agreement about the judge they think will best decide the case, a jury is not necessary to backstop that. But yes, of course any crime needs to be proven before a judgment is made against someone, to do otherwise would be idiotic. Thank you for highlighting another difference between court and arbitration for me.

[Hawker]

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.

[myrkul]

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.

No, no such implied contract.  If you can point out where that is stated, I would appreciate it.

[Hawker]

"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."

[myrkul]

"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.

[Hawker]

"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. 

[myrkul]

"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. 

Yes, actually. although it actually happens long before that, when they hire them.

[Ragnar17]

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

[myrkul]

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."

[Ragnar17]

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."

You are right "gov protects individuals from the use of force by the use of force" I just think that  Gov can be made that can protect individuals better and eliminate the use of force (from invaders, criminals, and worst the gov) if run correctly.

The US was supposed to do this (only country that tried) but the majority of people were able to vote themselves a government that didnt follow this at all and the government had way to much power to actually restrict rights. The US tried and screwed up for two reasons. It held to an ideal (capitalism) that was not the moral/ethical values of people then and even more so now (unfortunately) and gave the Government way too much central power to be able to use power against the citizens.

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.

[myrkul]

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.

Exactly. They tried limiting government, but government escaped those restrictions, and grew to the proportions we have now. 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.

What I propose is a simple concept: If limited government is good, might no government be better? Could not those essential services which government does provide, justice, investigation (policework), and protection, be provided by market competition? Is there a valid reason why we must give a regional monopoly to one organization for those services?

[Ragnar17]

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?

[myrkul]

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?

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.

[Explodicle]

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.

[myrkul]

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.

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.