|
|
 Originally Posted by rong
In number 2 wouldn't a bunch of people scared of being shot group together and come to a common agreement to live in peace and not shoot each other, maybe even have a punishment for doing so, possibly even write these rules down and agree for all to abide by them and maybe make it so changing the rules would require a vote between all of them, maybe even agree that someone might need to take on the role of protector of the group to guard everyone from the guys who might shoot them (for no reason if they wanted as its perfectly legal to shoot anyone), maybe even pay this protector money because of the risk, possibly ensure that anyone who wants to join your mini society where it's safe from being shot probably has to pay some form of fee to live with you which would cover the cost of arming and paying the protector(s) and possibly the people responsible for finding the protector and administrating his pay.
YES!!
Hold on, isn't that what happened and what led to no 1?
No. There is one difference and it makes all the difference: in your first paragraph, the members still have choice. In option 1, there is no choice because the law is backed by monopoly. In your paragraph, if somebody doesn't want to be a part of that system, he doesn't have to because there is no monopoly of law that requires it of him. In your paragraph, if the community has to deal with a hardass who wants to go against the community, they would end up having to kick him out or buy him out. In option 1, this hardass is put in prison.
I believe we already function the way you described in your paragraph in all sorts of ways that we take for granted and we don't have legal mandates for them.
|
Reply With Quote
