Select Page
Poker Forum
Over 1,291,000 Posts!
Poker ForumFTR Community

Why libertarianism is so dangerous.

Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 12
Results 76 to 108 of 108
  1. #76
    a500lbgorilla's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2004
    Posts
    28,082
    Location
    himself fucker.
    Quote Originally Posted by Renton View Post
    I think my point about 3rd world countries can seem cherrypicky but I wasn't intending to definitively state that those countries were better off. Only that the crime has a lot more to do with the incentives for committing them than for the justice system that punishes them. For example, the third world countries that make all the heroin (afghanistan, burma, etc) are pretty fucked up. The fact that Afghanistan and Burma are not developed countries has less to do with this than the fact that they are vital to black markets.
    Yeah, "seem fine"

    edit alright, now I'm just being a douche. Sorry.
    Last edited by a500lbgorilla; 07-26-2015 at 06:00 PM.
    <a href=http://i.imgur.com/kWiMIMW.png target=_blank>http://i.imgur.com/kWiMIMW.png</a>
  2. #77
    Renton's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Posts
    8,863
    Location
    a little town called none of your goddamn business
    Seem fine are your words, not mine. Cambodia has a fraction of the violent crime of the U.S. but I definitely wouldn't consider the conditions here to be "fine." Merely better in that single regard.
  3. #78
    a500lbgorilla's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2004
    Posts
    28,082
    Location
    himself fucker.
    My point about states and their existence isn't concerned with crime rates. States are selfish. They want to form and continue to exist.

    edit if crime rates were a thing that overthrew states, then crime rates would be super low.
    Last edited by a500lbgorilla; 07-26-2015 at 06:16 PM.
    <a href=http://i.imgur.com/kWiMIMW.png target=_blank>http://i.imgur.com/kWiMIMW.png</a>
  4. #79
    Renton's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Posts
    8,863
    Location
    a little town called none of your goddamn business
    Quote Originally Posted by a500lbgorilla View Post
    States are selfish. They want to form and continue to exist.
    https://mises.org/library/wouldnt-warlords-take-over

    Bob Murphy has a few talks on youtube about related topics as well, but this article is a short distillation of his views on that.
  5. #80
    a500lbgorilla's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2004
    Posts
    28,082
    Location
    himself fucker.
    ... I understand how to argue, Renton. Why do you think someone else's argument would move me? Argument is empty.

    Let me hit you back.

    48 laws of power, thinking fast and slow, flim flam.

    edit It's like claiming atheism and being greeted with, "well, if you'd just talk to my pastor."

    edit edit It's seriously austrian economics. A whole school of thought born on first principles. You hear someone say they'd bet against first principles every time and you hit them with a link to the mises institute. "If you'd just chug on this gatorade for a bit..."
    Last edited by a500lbgorilla; 07-26-2015 at 06:39 PM.
    <a href=http://i.imgur.com/kWiMIMW.png target=_blank>http://i.imgur.com/kWiMIMW.png</a>
  6. #81
    a500lbgorilla's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2004
    Posts
    28,082
    Location
    himself fucker.
    Well, at least he's not drowning in gatorade. He's got libertarian/anarchocap-colored glasses firmly affixed to his face, but he seems to know where he's guessing.

    My first point still stands. This is a guy trying to lay out an argument, and argument is empty.
    <a href=http://i.imgur.com/kWiMIMW.png target=_blank>http://i.imgur.com/kWiMIMW.png</a>
  7. #82
    Renton's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Posts
    8,863
    Location
    a little town called none of your goddamn business
    Not a lot of people out there talking about stateless societies other than anarcho-capitalists. Seeing as that is the topic, I don't know what you expect me to link. If you linked me to a guy with keynesian-socialist colored glasses on, I'm pretty sure I would have attempted to digest its points and made a response with minimal snark. I didn't respond to the Sapolsky stuff because I've seen it before and found it quite interesting, though not particularly relevant to this topic.
  8. #83
    Quote Originally Posted by a500lbgorilla View Post
    This is exactly why. It's critical of ALL initiation of violence, and finds that in its critical analysis of violence that there's no reason for it. I can find reason.
    Rilla, you're still strawmanning the NAP. I'm not saying it's obvious though, because the majority of NAP claimants make the same mistake.

    The NAP does not say "there is no reason for violence; therefore there would be no violence in Libertopia."

    What the NAP says is that if you espouse the NAP, you are obligated to engage in violence only as self-defense. This accounts for any who do not espouse the NAP since any NAP adherent who is threatened is within the rights of his chosen philosophical framework to meet his aggressor in kind.

    There WOULD be violence in Libertopia. You can bet every Boba Fett card you have that I would far more effectively use violence against lethal threats than I do in the United States, where I am largely a victim to unfair self-defense laws. I once nearly got mugged outside my school, but I escaped by my chinny chin chin. The would-be muggers then waited for me to return later in the week and sabotaged my car, costing thousands in damages. Had this been Libertopia, either where I parked my car would have been protected by security or I would have carried a firearm. In the case of the latter, instead of risking my life by running from the would-be muggers, their brains would have Monet'd the asphalt (or mine would).

    This is not to say the solution to conflict in Libertopia would become more violence. It would likely become about less violence since the capacity and incentive for cooperation would increase. I'm only making this statement to show that Libertopia is not the pacifism you're describing it as.
  9. #84
    euphoricism's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Posts
    5,383
    Location
    Your place or my place
    Keller ruling means youre allowed to carry a concealed firearm in all 50 states, wuf. You were not punished by muggers using self defense laws?? you were the victim? the self defense laws protect YOU!

    The best point in favor of arming everyone is the "wild" west -- it was not wild at all. The reason the Gunfight at the OK Corral is famous is because it was so absurdly rare that a group of armed people would willingly confront another group of armed people and just start shooting.

    Three people died in the most famous gunfight of the Wild west.
  10. #85
    Quote Originally Posted by euphoricism View Post
    Keller ruling means youre allowed to carry a concealed firearm in all 50 states, wuf. You were not punished by muggers using self defense laws?? you were the victim? the self defense laws protect YOU!
    There is a great fear among many people that lethal self-defense has a big risk of resulting in aggressive prosecution. The reason I do not and probably never will carry is because I fear the chance of getting in serious trouble by doing the right thing is too high.
  11. #86
    For example, in the situation I cited, I would have shot the would-be mugger before he even touched me. I don't actually know if he was going to mug me, but he was chasing me and screaming at me and was acting every bit as gangster as you possibly could. No witnesses except his thug friend who for sure would have lied and said I was the aggressor.

    Hard to fucking prove self-defense in court. I'd much prefer being insured by an agency of top notch negotiators who assume self-defense is reasonable in that situation, but in the world we live in, I would have gotten a public defender and probably an aggressive prosecution, especially since the guy I would have killed was probably poor, young, and Mexican.
  12. #87
    euphoricism's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Posts
    5,383
    Location
    Your place or my place
    Honestly, thats entirely backward. The odds are overwhelmingly in your favor. Maybe im biased by where I live, Florida, which baaically has a shoot first and ask questions later. Wheres Chardrian where we need him?
  13. #88
    Quote Originally Posted by euphoricism View Post
    Honestly, thats entirely backward. The odds are overwhelmingly in your favor. Maybe im biased by where I live, Florida, which baaically has a shoot first and ask questions later. Wheres Chardrian where we need him?
    I agree the odds are probably in my favor. The thing is that even if 5% of the time, lethal self-defense results in wrongful prosecution, it's a major disincentive to use lethal self-defense as a solution. Which is the way social justice enthusiasts want it. Too many people think perps are victims of circumstance and victims should have shown more restraint.
  14. #89
    JKDS's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Posts
    6,780
    Location
    Chandler, AZ
    Public defenders are usually better than non-public defenders. Its actually a really competitive thing.

    Also, affirmative defenses of defendants either 1) need to be disproved Beyond a reasonable doubt (like zimmerman), or proved by a preponderance. The standard is lower.

    And when arguing whether it makes sense or not, you shot a guy. If anytime someone died, the killer could just say "trust me", we'd have some problems.
  15. #90
    JKDS's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Posts
    6,780
    Location
    Chandler, AZ
    Btw, I was discussing the minimum wage stuff with some law school buddies.

    I described ya'll as "internet people, who are borderline treasonous". They guessed the belief without missing a beat, and I laughed.

    Im not dissing or anything, I just thought it was funny and wanted to share it.
  16. #91
    Borderline? These united states were founded on treason!
  17. #92
    JKDS's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Posts
    6,780
    Location
    Chandler, AZ
    Last thing:

    I think its naive to believe that things will be better by changing the system, when people are the problem. In cases of crime and being property defended, the issue is that most people think the defendant is guilty merely by being brought into a court room. This belief wont change just by having companies with insurance plans or whatever. People will still have the belief that the person is a criminal, and isnt entitled to jack shit. That will negatively impact the fairness of anyone insured.

    Just like an asshole playing clue is still an asshole when he plays monopoly. Game changes, players stay the same.
  18. #93
    Quote Originally Posted by JKDS View Post
    In cases of crime and being property defended, the issue is that most people think the defendant is guilty merely by being brought into a court room.
    Couldn't this be because "the people" are bringing the charge? The prosecution represents the state, which is supposed to represent the people. Contrast this to a civil case (which all market law would be). Now there isn't a democratically backed state coming down on one lonely defendant. Instead it's one party backing one claim and another backing a different claim. Even in the case of Shotgun Wuf v Thuggie, my insurance company would be representing me while his insurance company would be representing him. There would be no automatic assumption that I'm guilty because there would be no assumption that there is a democratically backed government that extended resources to put somebody they believe to be guilty away. Instead Teh Thuggie's insurance company would be doing its due diligence to get the best result that would most satisfy its customers, while mine would do the same.

    I think the assumption of guilt you describe is a product of the system itself. The crux for why is that the state system has embedded in it the assumption of rightful prosecution in the eyes of the masses. I think this effect would disappear without this state monopoly.
    Last edited by wufwugy; 07-29-2015 at 02:04 AM.
  19. #94
    JKDS's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Posts
    6,780
    Location
    Chandler, AZ
    Its not. People assume the only people who are charged with crimes are guilty of crimes. Its not so much that theres "a representative of the people", so much as people generally find police officers credible. Their job is to fight crime, and they said some guy did it.

    A problem with the system itself is the fact that the prosecutor/plaintiff gets to go first. And last. Primacy and recency generally decide what people remember, and many people have already made up their minds by the time the prosecutor/plaintiff (civil) finishes his opening statement.

    As far as guilt, its part of a system sure, but it penetrates deeper than the legal one. If you were to conduct a survey asking people if "murder was wrong", it would be one sided. There is a core set of "wrongs" that are common to most everyone, and violating such a wrong creates animosity.

    People HATE murderers. They hate rapists. They hate people who harm children. If you are 'accused' of such a wrong, whether that be a formal accusation or just a hearing for liability, you are starting at a significant disadvantage.

    ----

    A different point: the insurance agents will be arguing in front of some fact finder. The agents will essentially become lawyers, because they will be the people who are best trained at persuasion, understanding of the rules regarding liability, etc. But you need a fact finder because you have two competing interests. Sometimes, they will agree with each other (negotiation/settlement), other times, someone is gonna have to decide. If you think it should be by the people, they hate you for killing/raping/torturing/whatever you are saying you didnt do. If you think it should be by someone detached and neutral who is also trained in liability rules and such, you run the risk of emotional arguments falling flat, and the judge becoming numb to issues hes seen a billion times. (not another pothead, let me guess, they weren't your pants?) (note, most suppression motions are not granted, even if they seem valid...dont want to let a criminal get away / judge's reputation at stake).

    Regardless of what you chose, you cannot eliminate the bias.

    Then the next issue of what kinds of punishments are available. If its only ever liability, as with a typical insurance company, then you have just allowed Bill Gates (is he even 'rich' anymore? Idk) to murder whoever he wants, whenever he wants. You have permitted contract killing. That isnt to say that prison must exist though; studies show that prison doesnt really do much (doesnt stop crime (increases it), doesnt rehabilitate, etc). If death is an option (or loss of limb, or something), well those are really serious punishments, so I'd hope that the burden of proof is pretty high and there are appropriate standards of fairness.

    All in all, you're gonna end up with a judiciary.
  20. #95
    JKDS's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Posts
    6,780
    Location
    Chandler, AZ
    Also, and perhaps this goes without saying, but there is a huge benefit to having a common system of laws (ie, a need for a legislature).

    I have certain beliefs about wrongful conduct. To me, its ok to do drugs of any kind (though I dont). Dont kill no body. Gays get to be happy.

    I do NOT want to live or be responsible to the beliefs of ... lets say Putin. His beliefs about gays are...different than mine.

    If a dispute came between us, who wins? Can his insurance company come after me because of his policy of not allowing gays? Whose belief is superior? Maybe I dont understand the insurance idea, but I feel like there needs to be more than just companies we pay to protect our specific beliefs (like self defense), because there will still be conflicts in beliefs (what if the dead guy had a "cant shoot me in self defense' policy?)

    So there is going to have to be some set of standards regarding what kinds of policies are enforceable, and which ones work the best. These standards are gonig to apply to everyone, else whats the point? Then you just change the name and we have laws.
  21. #96
    Quote Originally Posted by JKDS View Post
    Its not. People assume the only people who are charged with crimes are guilty of crimes. Its not so much that theres "a representative of the people", so much as people generally find police officers credible. Their job is to fight crime, and they said some guy did it.

    A problem with the system itself is the fact that the prosecutor/plaintiff gets to go first. And last. Primacy and recency generally decide what people remember, and many people have already made up their minds by the time the prosecutor/plaintiff (civil) finishes his opening statement.
    This still looks to me like arguing in the contemporary frame. In a law market, if I killed somebody, there wouldn't be any police for people to identify with. All security agents would work on contract and there would be no assumption that they serve the people.

    Courts would be little like they are today. We may not even have courts. There would likely be no juries, so no people to irrationally pass the judgment you say. Negotiation in business is already far more efficient than the monopoly judicial proceedings and far more capable of addressing consumers' desires.

    Also, if "people have already made up their minds" is true, you've made as good a point as any against the current system. This one relies more directly on non-expert, average people than a market would.


    As far as guilt, its part of a system sure, but it penetrates deeper than the legal one. If you were to conduct a survey asking people if "murder was wrong", it would be one sided. There is a core set of "wrongs" that are common to most everyone, and violating such a wrong creates animosity.

    People HATE murderers. They hate rapists. They hate people who harm children. If you are 'accused' of such a wrong, whether that be a formal accusation or just a hearing for liability, you are starting at a significant disadvantage.
    Fantastic argument against the need for law monopolies.

    A different point: the insurance agents will be arguing in front of some fact finder. The agents will essentially become lawyers, because they will be the people who are best trained at persuasion, understanding of the rules regarding liability, etc. But you need a fact finder because you have two competing interests. Sometimes, they will agree with each other (negotiation/settlement), other times, someone is gonna have to decide. If you think it should be by the people, they hate you for killing/raping/torturing/whatever you are saying you didnt do. If you think it should be by someone detached and neutral who is also trained in liability rules and such, you run the risk of emotional arguments falling flat, and the judge becoming numb to issues hes seen a billion times. (not another pothead, let me guess, they weren't your pants?) (note, most suppression motions are not granted, even if they seem valid...dont want to let a criminal get away / judge's reputation at stake).
    I think it would be rare that the insurance companies would choose a third party arbitrator, but it would happen at times. There are a bunch of differences in how this sort of thing is already handled compared to the judiciary. Some similarities too. The point is that the companies would have little choice but to make fair deals in order to maintain their legitimacy with consumers and other businesses.

    Regardless of what you chose, you cannot eliminate the bias.
    Well I'm not sure I said we could eliminate bias. We've already got mountains of bias in the current system. Cutting down just some of that would make things much better.

    Then the next issue of what kinds of punishments are available. If its only ever liability, as with a typical insurance company, then you have just allowed Bill Gates (is he even 'rich' anymore? Idk) to murder whoever he wants, whenever he wants. You have permitted contract killing. That isnt to say that prison must exist though; studies show that prison doesnt really do much (doesnt stop crime (increases it), doesnt rehabilitate, etc). If death is an option (or loss of limb, or something), well those are really serious punishments, so I'd hope that the burden of proof is pretty high and there are appropriate standards of fairness.
    It wouldn't only ever be liability. Prisons would most likely exist and violent aggressors would be sent there. If the evidence showed that Gates murdered somebody, the incentive for his company to get a favorable deal would be small and the incentive for the victim's company to get an incredible deal would be huge. The amount of customers a company that can't get a murderer put away would lose would be gigantic. Like you said, people really really really hate murderers and rapists already. Gates' company would also probably lose customers just by appearing to defend murder instead of say, self-defense. But also it would still be required to get a fair deal. Its customers would hate murder but they would also hate to see undue punishment of murderers.

    It should also be noted that peoples' prejudices aren't so black and white like you say. The Zimmerman case was cut down the middle. Those who care about self-defense gave him the benefit of the doubt, and those who hate guns and racial outcomes did not.

    Also when you say just being held liable for somebody like Gates is a slap on the wrist, I think that is the case in our current system. It's all too easy for the wealthy to get slaps on the wrists because consumers have little power. Additionally any company that couldnt get severe liabilities that truly hurt Gates would probably be incompetent.

    Also, and perhaps this goes without saying, but there is a huge benefit to having a common system of laws (ie, a need for a legislature).

    I have certain beliefs about wrongful conduct. To me, its ok to do drugs of any kind (though I dont). Dont kill no body. Gays get to be happy.

    I do NOT want to live or be responsible to the beliefs of ... lets say Putin. His beliefs about gays are...different than mine.

    If a dispute came between us, who wins? Can his insurance company come after me because of his policy of not allowing gays? Whose belief is superior? Maybe I dont understand the insurance idea, but I feel like there needs to be more than just companies we pay to protect our specific beliefs (like self defense), because there will still be conflicts in beliefs (what if the dead guy had a "cant shoot me in self defense' policy?)

    So there is going to have to be some set of standards regarding what kinds of policies are enforceable, and which ones work the best. These standards are gonig to apply to everyone, else whats the point? Then you just change the name and we have laws.
    I can probably respond better to this later, but the one point I want to make is this: how does a monopoly change this? We already live in a world of egregious mistreatment of people. How badly have gays been treated and for how long? Like 99% of history and real real bad. Contrast this to the business world, where there really is not any money to be made in oppressing gays. A market world would have found gays to be first class citizens forever ago. Putin doesn't get his power to oppress gays from wealth, he gets it from his monopoly. People have all sorts of bad opinions, but when they go to the market, they die. It's when there is no market that bad opinions get endorsed.

    As somebody who always focuses on economics, one of the things I hate the most about democracy is its ignoring of costs. It is NOT cost effective for businesses to discriminate against gays. It is in government that discrimination of gays gains any legitimacy or traction. This is probably because at that point it becomes cost-effective to maintain power status of a monopoly for that special interest. It's destruction of resources in total, but it keeps happening because everybody wants to keep the monopoly running.
  22. #97
    euphoricism's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Posts
    5,383
    Location
    Your place or my place
    Reset button:

    Does the NAP prohibit eating meat? Can non humans be aggressed against?
  23. #98
    Renton's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Posts
    8,863
    Location
    a little town called none of your goddamn business
    Well there's an entire animal rights movement that is attempting to push us in that direction. I suspect that most people will be against butchering animals once we are able to grow prime cuts in a laboratory for a comparable cost.

    For me, it seems like we should solve the problems of the human world before we start extending all of the libertarian arguments to every possible sentient lifeform.
  24. #99
    Everything eats something. Everything gets eaten. Eating meat is not wrong; mistreating animals is wrong. Eating animals is not mistreatment.
  25. #100
    euphoricism's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Posts
    5,383
    Location
    Your place or my place
    You both dodged the question.
  26. #101
    Renton's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Posts
    8,863
    Location
    a little town called none of your goddamn business
    https://mises.org/library/rights-animals

    Here's what Rothbard (arguably the inventor of the NAP, certainly the first person to write a lot of words about it) thought about animals.
  27. #102
    I didn't think I dodged the question. I tried to sidestep the meaningless ideology stuff and get straight to the utility stuff.

    The NAP requires some arbitrary restrictions to not contradict itself. I'm not a fan of this approach because it always ends up being deficient. I do not agree with Rothbard's assessment of natural rights.

    The world itself operates on the principle of self-interest. Therefore that's what I propose. Free markets are just liberalization of self-interest.
  28. #103
    BTW I want to say JKDS I like some of the points you bring. They're different than most and have gotten me thinking.
  29. #104
    JKDS's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Posts
    6,780
    Location
    Chandler, AZ
    Sorry Euph, but I want to continue this convo with wuf a little.

    Instead of a quote wall, I have 2 main points I wanted to respond with.

    First: The State is a complete non-issue in regards to how people see criminals. If you are so much as suspected of doing a crime, the world treats you like a pariah. The best examples are probably how businesses treat those with felony convictions, how colleges hold witch hunts with rape accusations, and how even reckless gossip can destroy friendships.

    You can take the past riots as an example as well. All it takes is some redditors or a news organization, and all of a sudden a potential "criminal" is a big fucking deal and needs to be crucified. (The State is the alleged bad guy in this example, but it shows how we treat the accused).

    This "negative opinion" (huge understatement) will impact how much businesses care about their customer.

    Second: The Judiciary branch is a necessity. There will always be two sides to every story, and lawyers can probably make it seem like theres 80 different sides. The point is that past events are never black and white. Its true that many cases can reach resolution without a 3rd party's action, but many others cant.

    Take a traffic accident. Ralph says Steve was speeding. Steve denies it, and says Ralph ran a red light. Ralph claims the light was green. (Note, even without traffic laws, the above would matter in liability because they impact how 'reasonable' each person's actions were)

    ^^This kind of discrepancy happens everywhere, even when people think they're telling the truth. In such a case, you need a fact-finder (jury, or judge) to determine (based on some evidentiary standard) what the actual facts where. You can't settle or negotiate a case without agreeing about what happened (assuming the disagreement is material).

    Take a different example. Company A and Company B have a contract. Company A believes B isnt fulfilling his end of the deal. Company B says "screw you, I'm doing exactly as required". This type of situation will not be resolved without a 3rd party's aid in interpreting the agreement (judge). But the 3rd party's aid is completely meaningless if it didnt have the power to bind the parties.

    Regardless of whether you are arguing over laws, policies, contracts, or morals, there will always be situations where two sides just refuse to agree. At that point, you either say "meh, go home", "lets flip a coin / compromise down the middle", or you need to have someone else decide. If you do any option that doesnt require someone else to decide, then you encourage disputes to occur because its gametheory optimal to deny it at that point.

    But then take the representative system as a whole. Because there are two sides to every story, I want the company to represent MY side. Screw the injured parties interpretation, I want everything to be thought of in the best light for me. Put on some rose colored glasses, and give me the benefit of the doubt. If I commit a murder, say "I didnt do it", and the company ignores me...what was the point in having them as a representative? I want them to believe me, or I might as well not pay.

    But if they are acting as your agent, acting in your best interests that is, then what you've done is create a lawyer. You now have a judiciary, capable of enforcing whatever rules govern the business style market. If there isnt something called a "law", then you are correct in that a formal judiciary doesnt exist by definition. But if you're just talking about a body whose function is to interpret rules and perform biding dispute resolution, then you've got a judiciary in everything but strict definition. Then its just a rose by another name.
  30. #105
    JKDS's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Posts
    6,780
    Location
    Chandler, AZ
    Additonally: You'll have a police system as well. Some body of people who are responsible for enforcing the decisions of these negotiating companies.

    If company B says "sorry, you're wrong here, you owe the victim $5,000", and the accused says "LOL, nope"...someone has to pry it from him. That could mean breaking into his house, flipping over his mattress and taking his secret stash, all the while hes up to his armpits in guns going GET OFF MY PROPERTY OR ILL KILL YA. This "police" needs to have some kind of immunity from liability as well, otherwise striking the accused, taking his property, or breaking into his house might hold them liable for something (idk what rules would exist, but no one would enforce them if it meant breaking more rules; this is why actual police are permitted to commit batteries, and even homicide).

    But how far that protection extends, and how far this body is able to go to recover owed judgments needs to have restrictions itself. Surely, the body couldnt burn down the house in order to "smoke out" the money. Surely they couldnt threaten the accused's family until he coughs up the dough. But what can they do? People will have different opinions on that, so there needs to be some uniformity in whats going on.

    Now we're circling back to why laws need to exist again. (though not necessarily the gigantic amount we have now)
  31. #106
    Renton's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Posts
    8,863
    Location
    a little town called none of your goddamn business
    Quote Originally Posted by JKDS View Post
    This "police" needs to have some kind of immunity from liability as well, otherwise striking the accused, taking his property, or breaking into his house might hold them liable for something (idk what rules would exist, but no one would enforce them if it meant breaking more rules; this is why actual police are permitted to commit batteries, and even homicide).
    What? Isn't the fact that the police have this immunity a big part of the reason why the U.S. police system is currently so broken?

    I don't want to intrude into your sparring with wuf too much, but libertarians are in favor of cops and laws. Even anarcho-capitalists are in favor of police and laws, they just believe there shouldn't be a monopoly on force. There's plenty of material put out by ACists about how police and even laws could be completely privatized and function better than state monopoly law enforcement.
  32. #107
    JKDS's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Posts
    6,780
    Location
    Chandler, AZ
    @Renton: The issue in the current system is the extent of the immunity, and when it triggers. The biggest issue is when Deadly Force can be authorized. At the moment, it could be used "to effectuate the arrest of a felon". Ok...so that means that anytime a felon is resisting arrest, deadly force is an option, even though the scope of what a "felony" is has increased dramatically. That seems pretty clearly ridiculous, and incredibly wrong. Carrying pot isnt an offense where you should be able to be shot.

    But lets take a different example, in the US currently. John commits murder, someone witnessed it and calls 911. Police officers come to arrest. BUT, if they dont have immunity, they cannot physically arrest John. All they can do is try and persuade, and if that fails, go home. This is because if the officer used force, he, by definition, committed a battery (some jurisdictions call it an assault) against John. Regardless of whether John is sent to jail, he would have a criminal and civil case against the officer, and would almost certainly win. The risk of jail or the risk of a huge civil judgment would heavily compromise the officer's ability to do his job. Our system deals with that issue by giving them immunity. Battery is only for "unlawful" force, and the immunity made the battery lawful. They cant be sued for that now, and that, in contrast, seems pretty reasonable.

    So its not that officers have immunity that is fucking up our current system. Its that they have an absurd amount of it.
    Last edited by JKDS; 07-30-2015 at 08:26 PM.
  33. #108
    Quote Originally Posted by JKDS View Post
    Sorry Euph, but I want to continue this convo with wuf a little.

    Instead of a quote wall, I have 2 main points I wanted to respond with.

    First: The State is a complete non-issue in regards to how people see criminals. If you are so much as suspected of doing a crime, the world treats you like a pariah. The best examples are probably how businesses treat those with felony convictions, how colleges hold witch hunts with rape accusations, and how even reckless gossip can destroy friendships.

    You can take the past riots as an example as well. All it takes is some redditors or a news organization, and all of a sudden a potential "criminal" is a big fucking deal and needs to be crucified. (The State is the alleged bad guy in this example, but it shows how we treat the accused).

    This "negative opinion" (huge understatement) will impact how much businesses care about their customer.
    I don't disagree with this, but I do disagree that it would be that relevant in a law market. Cases would be civil, and your proposition breaks down in that case. Otherwise we'd be seeing plaintiffs having a higher rate of success than defendants than the evidence merits. If you disagree with this and you think the system wouldn't change fundamentally in this way in a law market, we'll have to leave it here.

    Second: The Judiciary branch is a necessity. There will always be two sides to every story, and lawyers can probably make it seem like theres 80 different sides. The point is that past events are never black and white. Its true that many cases can reach resolution without a 3rd party's action, but many others cant.

    Take a traffic accident. Ralph says Steve was speeding. Steve denies it, and says Ralph ran a red light. Ralph claims the light was green. (Note, even without traffic laws, the above would matter in liability because they impact how 'reasonable' each person's actions were)

    ^^This kind of discrepancy happens everywhere, even when people think they're telling the truth. In such a case, you need a fact-finder (jury, or judge) to determine (based on some evidentiary standard) what the actual facts where. You can't settle or negotiate a case without agreeing about what happened (assuming the disagreement is material).

    Take a different example. Company A and Company B have a contract. Company A believes B isnt fulfilling his end of the deal. Company B says "screw you, I'm doing exactly as required". This type of situation will not be resolved without a 3rd party's aid in interpreting the agreement (judge). But the 3rd party's aid is completely meaningless if it didnt have the power to bind the parties.

    Regardless of whether you are arguing over laws, policies, contracts, or morals, there will always be situations where two sides just refuse to agree. At that point, you either say "meh, go home", "lets flip a coin / compromise down the middle", or you need to have someone else decide. If you do any option that doesnt require someone else to decide, then you encourage disputes to occur because its gametheory optimal to deny it at that point.
    I don't think this would be a problem. In order to maintain legitimacy in the field, businesses would have to come to agreements. It would be common for ones that cannot do so themselves to contract a mutually trusted third party on the regular. The bottom line is that even law operates on the same fundamentals as other aspects of the economy. I don't think there is reason to believe that standard business practice works in a multitude of other fields yet somehow the techniques wouldn't in law.

    Keep in mind that the judiciary exists on legitimacy already. The need to be viewed as a legitimate authority even goes so high as SCOTUS. This judicial monopoly has to make deals and they have to be viewed as fair otherwise it loses its power.

    But then take the representative system as a whole. Because there are two sides to every story, I want the company to represent MY side. Screw the injured parties interpretation, I want everything to be thought of in the best light for me. Put on some rose colored glasses, and give me the benefit of the doubt. If I commit a murder, say "I didnt do it", and the company ignores me...what was the point in having them as a representative? I want them to believe me, or I might as well not pay.
    Right. Best not commit murder.

    Not everybody would pay. Some people would go without law insurance. The vast majority would buy from the company that they think most values the same things they value. Companies would also adjust their policies to match their customers. The only real reason why in our current system we absolutely need attorneys to fully defend murderers is because the state has nearly unlimited incentive and power to prosecute people. However, in a market, "prosecution" would be weighted by benefit-cost analysis. I think it would be a fantastically effective way to get fairness.

    This is really complex though and can go much deeper. There's a video out there that I can't find that gives some good examples about how this stuff would work. Renton originally posted it. It involves MS Paint figures on an island IIRC.

    But if they are acting as your agent, acting in your best interests that is, then what you've done is create a lawyer. You now have a judiciary, capable of enforcing whatever rules govern the business style market. If there isnt something called a "law", then you are correct in that a formal judiciary doesnt exist by definition. But if you're just talking about a body whose function is to interpret rules and perform biding dispute resolution, then you've got a judiciary in everything but strict definition. Then its just a rose by another name.
    I think the crux is that there would be bodies instead of a body. This was something you recently acknowledged about my arguments, that I'm arguing that a monopoly is less efficient and effective than a market.

    Maybe we would have judiciaries, emphasis on plural. The point is that without a tax-backed monopoly, we would have a system of laws just like we currently do except that they would exist by consumer choice instead of taxes. I'm not sure why law only works if people are forced to pay for them and then mold them through votes instead of able to choose them and mold them through market behavior. I don't think choice or the values of the the people are any more relevant in either system, but I think a non-tax one is far more effective at reflecting the values of the people.

    Additonally: You'll have a police system as well. Some body of people who are responsible for enforcing the decisions of these negotiating companies.

    If company B says "sorry, you're wrong here, you owe the victim $5,000", and the accused says "LOL, nope"...someone has to pry it from him. That could mean breaking into his house, flipping over his mattress and taking his secret stash, all the while hes up to his armpits in guns going GET OFF MY PROPERTY OR ILL KILL YA. This "police" needs to have some kind of immunity from liability as well, otherwise striking the accused, taking his property, or breaking into his house might hold them liable for something (idk what rules would exist, but no one would enforce them if it meant breaking more rules; this is why actual police are permitted to commit batteries, and even homicide).

    But how far that protection extends, and how far this body is able to go to recover owed judgments needs to have restrictions itself. Surely, the body couldnt burn down the house in order to "smoke out" the money. Surely they couldnt threaten the accused's family until he coughs up the dough. But what can they do? People will have different opinions on that, so there needs to be some uniformity in whats going on.

    Now we're circling back to why laws need to exist again. (though not necessarily the gigantic amount we have now)
    This can all be done through insurance and contracts. If somebody murders somebody and goes rogue, the company of the victim would have quite the obligation to apprehend him and probably imprison him. They'd contract it out to their trusted security firm, probably one that specializes in SWAT type tactics, and bring the culprit in. The company's choices to do this would all be about benefit-cost analysis. They would do things like how much they would lose in customers if they didn't or how it affects their legitimacy. This practice may sound on the surface like it would make it easy to get away with things, but I think the opposite. It would give the poor an incredible amount of power. Notice how the government doesn't give a shit what the costs are to jail people for taking drugs, they have unlimited funds and have done it millions of times. But in a legal market, you wouldn't get this sort of abuse because it just wouldn't be cost-effective. Bringing murderers to justice would however be very cost-effective.
    Last edited by wufwugy; 07-31-2015 at 01:53 AM.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •