SPC (and other libertarians) Political Views Discussion Thread

[Хahar 🤔]

Anarchist court doctrine is where we left off, I think.

How would you ensure that courts stay impartial if they are privately funded?

[Хahar 🤔]

Let's say that Private Security Corporation A is losing its business to Private Security Corporation B, so it springs a surprise attack and murders Private Security Corporation B's employees. The owner of the destroyed corporation sues the owner of Private Security Corporation A. However, the owner of Private Security Corporation A is very rich and buys out the court with donations. How does the law prevail here?

[Хahar 🤔]

It seems more direct than buying off politicos like rich people do today.  Is it worse?  I don't know.

Well, our courts are still reasonably fair, even if the laws they enforce aren't always.

[Хahar 🤔]

Let's say that Private Security Corporation A is losing its business to Private Security Corporation B, so it springs a surprise attack and murders Private Security Corporation B's employees. The owner of the destroyed corporation sues the owner of Private Security Corporation A. However, the owner of Private Security Corporation A is very rich and buys out the court with donations. How does the law prevail here?

First off, if the owner of Private Security Company A is very rich, why would he care so much about losing business as to order an attack on the other companies' employees? Second, you act as if similar situations don't happen under monopoly government. I don't believe that any of the ATF agents involved with Waco or Ruby Ridge had a day of jail time. Third, if the court is corrupt, they will never have any clients again, thus being a net monetary loss.

Let's say he's paranoid and wants to destory all potential competition.

People get destroyed over much smaller things here. Have you ever heard of Watergate?

Or, the corruption attracts other rich people, who bring their cases their to buy out the court. How is the authority of a court guaranteed, at any rate?

[Хahar 🤔]

Don't you think it would be more likely that people would use force against rulings with which they disagreed?

[Хahar 🤔]

How come no government-less communities have succeeded to date?

First of all, it is a false premise, Somalia has lacked a government for 17 years, although they still have clan governments. Second, that would probably be there hasn't been much opportunity for a government-less community to present itself.

Would you like to live in Somalia?

This shows what appears to me to be the inevitable results of anarchy: feudalism. People will crowd around strong men, who will protect them under the stipulation that the commoners serve him.

[Хahar 🤔]

Don't you think it would be more likely that people would use force against rulings with which they disagreed?

Since insurance companies defend entirely on voluntary customers, I doubt they would risk losing customers by disobeying a neutral judge.

What about private armies? It wouldn't be too hard for a rich man to get one.

Also, disobedience would probably gain customers, because people doing questionable things would go to a service which would help them at any cost.

[Хahar 🤔]

Don't you think it would be more likely that people would use force against rulings with which they disagreed?

Since insurance companies defend entirely on voluntary customers, I doubt they would risk losing customers by disobeying a neutral judge.

What about private armies? It wouldn't be too hard for a rich man to get one.

Also, disobedience would probably gain customers, because people doing questionable things would go to a service which would help them at any cost.

Hiring a disobedient insurance company is a double-edged sword. While you could in the short-run, get away with a crime, you would also be more vulnerable to crime yourself, since your insurance company couldn't defend its clients.

On the contrary, it would be very good at defending its clients, even when such defense was illegal.

[Хahar 🤔]

So, where would courts get their authority? Would it stem from force?

[Хahar 🤔]

Unfortunately, not everyone has the same amount of money. So you suggest that what is most valuable to the rich should be rewarded the most.

[Хahar 🤔]

Unfortunately, not everyone has the same amount of money. So you suggest that what is most valuable to the rich should be rewarded the most.

But the rich only became the rich by either acquring the most "votes" over time or being the heir to someone acquiring the most "votes" over time. Thus, the public chose them to have most votes over what is of value because the public thought that they produced the most valued goods.

Your argument is fine, until you reach the last sentence. Money does not come from the public; it comes heredetarily, and at the beginning it is derived from force. The idea that the public has any say in the disposal of money is quite unfounded.

[Хahar 🤔]

Unfortunately, not everyone has the same amount of money. So you suggest that what is most valuable to the rich should be rewarded the most.

But the rich only became the rich by either acquring the most "votes" over time or being the heir to someone acquiring the most "votes" over time. Thus, the public chose them to have most votes over what is of value because the public thought that they produced the most valued goods.

Your argument is fine, until you reach the last sentence. Money does not come from the public; it comes heredetarily, and at the beginning it is derived from force. The idea that the public has any say in the disposal of money is quite unfounded.

Well, actually, money is the result of evolution from the more primitive version of trade, barter. At some point in early human history, people realized that they could get more of what they needed by trading items with their neighbors. With this, the division of labor became necessary. However, since not all goods are divisible, it was difficult to make direct trade with their neighbors. Thus, people started using divisible goods in scarce supply in order to make indirect trade. Eventually, these items of indirect trade became more frequently used until society only used a few, which would be called money.

Fair enough. But cannot money also be acquired through force? More importantly, has forcible expropriation not been implemented enough during the history of money for its original purpose to be impossibly corrupted?

[Хahar 🤔]

Unfortunately, not everyone has the same amount of money. So you suggest that what is most valuable to the rich should be rewarded the most.

But the rich only became the rich by either acquring the most "votes" over time or being the heir to someone acquiring the most "votes" over time. Thus, the public chose them to have most votes over what is of value because the public thought that they produced the most valued goods.

Your argument is fine, until you reach the last sentence. Money does not come from the public; it comes heredetarily, and at the beginning it is derived from force. The idea that the public has any say in the disposal of money is quite unfounded.

Well, actually, money is the result of evolution from the more primitive version of trade, barter. At some point in early human history, people realized that they could get more of what they needed by trading items with their neighbors. With this, the division of labor became necessary. However, since not all goods are divisible, it was difficult to make direct trade with their neighbors. Thus, people started using divisible goods in scarce supply in order to make indirect trade. Eventually, these items of indirect trade became more frequently used until society only used a few, which would be called money.

Fair enough. But cannot money also be acquired through force? More importantly, has forcible expropriation not been implemented enough during the history of money for its original purpose to be impossibly corrupted?

Yes, money has been, unfortunately, acquired forcefully throughout history. However, I do not hold a person responsible for their grandfather's crimes. To start again from scratch would be devastating for society.

However, money is hereditary. Four of the richest people in the United States are Sam Walton's children. What have they done that comes even close to being proportionate to their wealth?

[Хahar 🤔]

Unfortunately, not everyone has the same amount of money. So you suggest that what is most valuable to the rich should be rewarded the most.

But the rich only became the rich by either acquring the most "votes" over time or being the heir to someone acquiring the most "votes" over time. Thus, the public chose them to have most votes over what is of value because the public thought that they produced the most valued goods.

Your argument is fine, until you reach the last sentence. Money does not come from the public; it comes heredetarily, and at the beginning it is derived from force. The idea that the public has any say in the disposal of money is quite unfounded.

Well, actually, money is the result of evolution from the more primitive version of trade, barter. At some point in early human history, people realized that they could get more of what they needed by trading items with their neighbors. With this, the division of labor became necessary. However, since not all goods are divisible, it was difficult to make direct trade with their neighbors. Thus, people started using divisible goods in scarce supply in order to make indirect trade. Eventually, these items of indirect trade became more frequently used until society only used a few, which would be called money.

Fair enough. But cannot money also be acquired through force? More importantly, has forcible expropriation not been implemented enough during the history of money for its original purpose to be impossibly corrupted?

Yes, money has been, unfortunately, acquired forcefully throughout history. However, I do not hold a person responsible for their grandfather's crimes. To start again from scratch would be devastating for society.

However, money is hereditary. Four of the richest people in the United States are Sam Walton's children. What have they done that comes even close to being proportionate to their wealth?

Well, Sam Walton made all of that money by being a successful entrepeneur, in other words, he helped inprove the lives of millions of people. Thus, Sam Walton thought his money would be used best in the hands of his next-of-kin.

And what about Bhumibol Adulyadej?

[Хahar 🤔]

Unfortunately, not everyone has the same amount of money. So you suggest that what is most valuable to the rich should be rewarded the most.

But the rich only became the rich by either acquring the most "votes" over time or being the heir to someone acquiring the most "votes" over time. Thus, the public chose them to have most votes over what is of value because the public thought that they produced the most valued goods.

Your argument is fine, until you reach the last sentence. Money does not come from the public; it comes heredetarily, and at the beginning it is derived from force. The idea that the public has any say in the disposal of money is quite unfounded.

Well, actually, money is the result of evolution from the more primitive version of trade, barter. At some point in early human history, people realized that they could get more of what they needed by trading items with their neighbors. With this, the division of labor became necessary. However, since not all goods are divisible, it was difficult to make direct trade with their neighbors. Thus, people started using divisible goods in scarce supply in order to make indirect trade. Eventually, these items of indirect trade became more frequently used until society only used a few, which would be called money.

Fair enough. But cannot money also be acquired through force? More importantly, has forcible expropriation not been implemented enough during the history of money for its original purpose to be impossibly corrupted?

Yes, money has been, unfortunately, acquired forcefully throughout history. However, I do not hold a person responsible for their grandfather's crimes. To start again from scratch would be devastating for society.

However, money is hereditary. Four of the richest people in the United States are Sam Walton's children. What have they done that comes even close to being proportionate to their wealth?

Well, Sam Walton made all of that money by being a successful entrepeneur, in other words, he helped inprove the lives of millions of people. Thus, Sam Walton thought his money would be used best in the hands of his next-of-kin.

And what about Bhumibol Adulyadej?

Hans-Hermann Hoppe wrote a great book about democracy vs. monarchy, that I hope to read sometime. It's called Democracy: The God That Failed

I hope to read it, but it doesn't answer my question.

[Хahar 🤔]

Unfortunately, not everyone has the same amount of money. So you suggest that what is most valuable to the rich should be rewarded the most.

But the rich only became the rich by either acquring the most "votes" over time or being the heir to someone acquiring the most "votes" over time. Thus, the public chose them to have most votes over what is of value because the public thought that they produced the most valued goods.

Your argument is fine, until you reach the last sentence. Money does not come from the public; it comes heredetarily, and at the beginning it is derived from force. The idea that the public has any say in the disposal of money is quite unfounded.

Well, actually, money is the result of evolution from the more primitive version of trade, barter. At some point in early human history, people realized that they could get more of what they needed by trading items with their neighbors. With this, the division of labor became necessary. However, since not all goods are divisible, it was difficult to make direct trade with their neighbors. Thus, people started using divisible goods in scarce supply in order to make indirect trade. Eventually, these items of indirect trade became more frequently used until society only used a few, which would be called money.

Fair enough. But cannot money also be acquired through force? More importantly, has forcible expropriation not been implemented enough during the history of money for its original purpose to be impossibly corrupted?

Yes, money has been, unfortunately, acquired forcefully throughout history. However, I do not hold a person responsible for their grandfather's crimes. To start again from scratch would be devastating for society.

However, money is hereditary. Four of the richest people in the United States are Sam Walton's children. What have they done that comes even close to being proportionate to their wealth?

Well, Sam Walton made all of that money by being a successful entrepeneur, in other words, he helped inprove the lives of millions of people. Thus, Sam Walton thought his money would be used best in the hands of his next-of-kin.

And what about Bhumibol Adulyadej?

Hans-Hermann Hoppe wrote a great book about democracy vs. monarchy, that I hope to read sometime. It's called Democracy: The God That Failed

I hope to read it, but it doesn't answer my question.

Well, being a monarch, if he became wealthy through theft/taxation, then that money deserves to be given back to its rightful owners. Same with those who use corporate welfare.

However, as he has an army that he can keep loyal with his immense wealth and godlike status, that is extremely unlikely.

[Хahar 🤔]

After the fall of the roman empire we had anarchocapitalism and in Somalia today we have it. Based on those models of what an AnCap/libertarian society looks like in practice..

After the Roman Empire, there was barbarian tribes as the government. Somalia is a bad situation, but it was worse under the communist government. It should also be added that Somalia has tribal governments and is at war with Ethiopia and the U.S., so if those problems were gotten rid of, it would be better.

But an argument could be made (and I will in fact make that argument) that feudalism is the inevitable result of anarchy.

[Хahar 🤔]

After the fall of the roman empire we had anarchocapitalism and in Somalia today we have it. Based on those models of what an AnCap/libertarian society looks like in practice..

After the Roman Empire, there was barbarian tribes as the government. Somalia is a bad situation, but it was worse under the communist government. It should also be added that Somalia has tribal governments and is at war with Ethiopia and the U.S., so if those problems were gotten rid of, it would be better.

But an argument could be made (and I will in fact make that argument) that feudalism is the inevitable result of anarchy.

No, because libertarians allows for people to climb up the social ladder. In feudalism, the social ladder is fixed at birth.

You ignored my point.

Feudalism is an inevitable result of anrarchy, as people without resources will appeal to people with resources.

[Хahar 🤔]

Courts of law.

[Хahar 🤔]

Courts of law.

Interesting. I've gained greater knowledge of this issue through reading The Market for Liberty by the Tannehills. It states that contracts would often specify which court would decide in the event that there was a dispute between the two parties regarding the contract.

I'm interested. Explain.

[Хahar 🤔]

To sum up this thread, SPC gave everyone a drubbing.

OK, then, little imperialist anarchist. You explain how courts could make impartial decisions if funded by donations.