The Official Libertarian/Anarcho-Capitalist Thread

[hog88]

Because you choose them, based on your criteria for what you seek in an arbitrator. The market either values their opinions or they do not. No authority needs to be granted.



People within a community would be represented by various protection agencies. Next door neighbors would have different agencies, so this question doesn't make sense. It'



That's a great argument. The origin of the water would factor into the decision. There would have to be some sort of settlement so that your community is adequately compensated for the water we get.

To answer the question of "who determines what's just?", we have to destroy the notion that our system for handling such cases is not a just system. The idea that someone can determine what justness is, is absurd in the first place. Government is just guessing. And they're corrupt. I hold anarchy to the same standard...it would be an imperfect system beholden to societal standards, IE, we're not going to behead debtors or let rapists off with a slap on the wrist.

No it would be a system beholden to the wealthy, more so than the system we have now.

 

[hog88]

Based on this response, you are either being disingenuous, or you don't follow my arguments at all. Like I said, we are at an impasse.

Obviously I can't wrap my brain around what you are saying.

 

[n_huffhines]

Continuing on, so then you have to institute some sort of licensing board for arbitrators to keep them honest or lose their license and disallow practice by any unlicensed professionals.

I mean at what point do you just cut your losses and admit you're going to wind up right back where you started?

With government you don't get to choose your judge. He may or may not be corrupt, but if he is corrupt then society is probably dealing with his corruption for 30 years.

If a private arbiter is corrupt, people will stop electing to use his services and society will no longer be hurt by his corruption.

 

[Thrasher865]

With government you don't get to choose your judge. He may or may not be corrupt, but if he is corrupt then society is probably dealing with his corruption for 30 years.

If a private arbiter is corrupt, people will stop electing to use his services and society will no longer be hurt by his corruption.

If there are allegations of corruption they would be investigated. How would you expose corruption any better without a governing body than we do currently?

 

[DEFENDTHISHOUSE]

The fact that is being missed about these private arbitrators are they are selling their opinion on who is wronged, or in breach of contract. It's behooves that arbitrator to have a pretty respectable record, else his opinion is worth squat.

 

[volinbham]

Because you choose them, based on your criteria for what you seek in an arbitrator. The market either values their opinions or they do not. No authority needs to be granted.

Why would I even bother to choose one? You are the group that brought suit. What we decide to just say "f it"?

What binds me to going to an arbitrator? What's my incentive to engage or disincentive for not engaging?

Also, what if we choose different ones? I choose the ones I pay for and you choose the ones you pay for.

People within a community would be represented by various protection agencies. Next door neighbors would have different agencies, so this question doesn't make sense.

Yet all of us or the majority of us like the way we are using the water. Wouldn't we expect our agencies to take our side here? Would we have to go to arbitration with other agencies in our community first?

Further, who from your community would bring suit since you to have numerous protection agencies? Would they all have to agree first what the proper action should be? Would they be in conflict with each other and thus need arbitration?

With all this fragmentation who is bringing the suit and who are they bringing it against?

That's a great argument. The origin of the water would factor into the decision. There would have to be some sort of settlement so that your community is adequately compensated for the water we get.

Aren't we (as controllers) the one's who determine what adequate compensation is?

To answer the question of "who determines what's just?", we have to destroy the notion that our system for handling such cases is not a just system. The idea that someone can determine what justness is, is absurd in the first place. Government is just guessing. And they're corrupt. I hold anarchy to the same standard...it would be an imperfect system beholden to societal standards, IE, we're not going to behead debtors or let rapists off with a slap on the wrist.

You are substituting government for smaller chunks of government. Society determining standards is government.

Laws are proxy for justness. They are poor proxies at times but the do form the foundation for exchange and contract. As you reduce the concreteness of laws to societal "norms" you introduce increasing uncertainty into exchange and thus introduce any number of frictions and inefficiencies.

 

[n_huffhines]

If there are allegations of corruption they would be investigated. How would you expose corruption any better without a governing body than we do currently?

Third parties would investigate. Much like today we trust 3rd party investigations from private firms of government corruption.

 

[n_huffhines]

BHAM, if you legitimately want those questions answered, you can read Machinery of Freedom (Milton Friedman's son wrote it), Welcome to Free America (some U of Chicago Econ professor wrote it), and there is one by Robert Murphy, too.

WTFA does a good job of explaining all the reasons people would cooperate with the system. I feel like I am answering your questions clearly, but then you ask me almost the same question slightly modified, so my answer is pretty much going to be the same. Seems like you need to read a book on the subject. It'd be better than getting a book's worth of info from me.

 

[volinbham]

The fact that is being missed about these private arbitrators are they are selling their opinion on who is wronged, or in breach of contract. It's behooves that arbitrator to have a pretty respectable record, else his opinion is worth squat.

I feel like I'm in the Twilight Zone.

Let's say I own a copper mine. People need copper and there aren't a lot of great alternatives.

I'm a polluter as well. As a result, I've contaminated the ground water for a small farm.

The farmer is justifiably upset. He calls up his protection agency and says do something about this.

I say no - tough tit-tays.

Why am I going to arbitration?

Do you really believe that everyone will stop buying my copper because some farmer got harmed?

Now to complicate it more, the people buying my copper are other companies who also have a pollution problem or two.

Am I losing business - particularly enough to change my production system to greatly reduce my pollution?

How did the market help this farmer?

 

[Thrasher865]

Third parties would investigate. Much like today we trust 3rd party investigations from private firms of government corruption.

What is the 3rd party's source of income? Who is paying them?

 

[DEFENDTHISHOUSE]

This stuff really isn't hard. Most things would be done by contract, if you want the service, you'll sign the contract that both parties agree upon. In that contract will be an arbitration agreement that both parties agree upon in case a dispute arises.
If you don't like the terms, don't sign the contract.

 

[Thrasher865]

I feel like I'm in the Twilight Zone.

Let's say I own a copper mine. People need copper and there aren't a lot of great alternatives.

I'm a polluter as well. As a result, I've contaminated the ground water for a small farm.

The farmer is justifiably upset. He calls up his protection agency and says do something about this.

I say no - tough tit-tays.

Why am I going to arbitration?

Do you really believe that everyone will stop buying my copper because some farmer got harmed?

Now to complicate it more, the people buying my copper are other companies who also have a pollution problem or two.

Am I losing business - particularly enough to change my production system to greatly reduce my pollution?

How did the market help this farmer?

Yeah. It's like Walmart. Do the allegations of unfair treatment of workers affect their bottom line? No. And that's WITH government regulation.

 

[Thrasher865]

This stuff really isn't hard. Most things would be done by contract, if you want the service, you'll sign the contract that both parties agree upon. In that contract will be an arbitration agreement that both parties agree upon in case a dispute arises.
If you don't like the terms, don't sign the contract.

The fact that you think it "really isn't hard" shows just how little you understand about the implications.

 

[volinbham]

BHAM, if you legitimately want those questions answered, you can read Machinery of Freedom (Milton Friedman's son wrote it), Welcome to Free America (some U of Chicago Econ professor wrote it), and there is one by Robert Murphy, too.

WTFA does a good job of explaining all the reasons people would cooperate with the system. I feel like I am answering your questions clearly, but then you ask me almost the same question slightly modified, so my answer is pretty much going to be the same. Seems like you need to read a book on the subject. It'd be better than getting a book's worth of info from me.

I'll take a look. I'll tell you why I don't consider your answers as clear as you may think they are; they sound to me like "because that's just how markets work".

It's like Econ 101 where they use (over use) the term ceteris paribus (all other things equal or held constant).

In short, I don't believe the vast array of people and exchanges in which they engage match the characteristics of pure markets or the idealized power of the invisible hand.

I'm a huge believer in capitalism and the power of markets but I recognize that one size does not fit all.

 

[volinbham]

This stuff really isn't hard. Most things would be done by contract, if you want the service, you'll sign the contract that both parties agree upon. In that contract will be an arbitration agreement that both parties agree upon in case a dispute arises.
If you don't like the terms, don't sign the contract.

It's like gumdrop rain and chocolate waterfalls and we lived happily ever after thanks to the magic arbitrator man.

 

[n_huffhines]

I feel like I'm in the Twilight Zone.

Let's say I own a copper mine. People need copper and there aren't a lot of great alternatives.

I'm a polluter as well. As a result, I've contaminated the ground water for a small farm.

The farmer is justifiably upset. He calls up his protection agency and says do something about this.

I say no - tough tit-tays.

Why am I going to arbitration?

Because your protection agency won't protect you if you behave badly. You go to arbitration, or you face the farmer's protection agency.

 

[Thrasher865]

This stuff really isn't hard. Most things would be done by contract, if you want the service, you'll sign the contract that both parties agree upon. In that contract will be an arbitration agreement that both parties agree upon in case a dispute arises.
If you don't like the terms, don't sign the contract.

Also, there are plenty of conflicts that come up without a contract in place. Bham has outlined several.

What about car accidents and other personal injury claims? Who determines fault, etc?

Land disputes?

How do you feel about immigration? What happens when our job markets are absolutely flooded with cheap labor from down south with no incentive for a minimum wage or decent work conditions? You think the 5% of the population (or less) that are going to buy exclusively "responsibly produced" goods is going to matter to big business?

 

[Thrasher865]

Because your protection agency won't protect you if you behave badly. You go to arbitration, or you face the farmer's protection agency.

Why wouldn't they? You're paying them. What's their incentive? That they will lose clients? No, just the opposite. Fighting hard for their clients is going to win them more clients, not the other way around.

Or even if it doesn't, there are going to be shady "protection agencies." There's a market for it.

 

[DEFENDTHISHOUSE]

It's like gumdrop rain and chocolate waterfalls and we lived happily ever after thanks to the magic arbitrator man.

Sure, why not. Else our friends the government will step in to make sure we are using the correct technique for the chocolate waterfall, as well as supply us with baskets upon baskets of regulations meant to shut down a small chocolate waterfall operator.
Because we just cant exist without the government oh my!
That's even without addressing the gum drop rain, I'm sure our friends at the epa will have a basket or two of lovelies for us for our pleasure as well.
Lulz

 

[volinbham]

Because your protection agency won't protect you if you behave badly. You go to arbitration, or you face the farmer's protection agency.

1. Why is this a core assumption? Why are these not like lawyers who protect your rights regardless of what you did? To me this is one the major leaps of faith - that in a free market all such agencies would choose to just operate this way.

1a. Is my pollution behaving badly? Do I have to operate completely pollution free? My agency may say "hmmm, that's not really so bad"

2. What could the farmer's protection agency do to me? What power do they have? Presumably they are some puny little group (one of hundreds). Where does their authority come from and how could it be exercised?

If the authority mechanism is lost business via the market then I'm already covered there.

 

[DEFENDTHISHOUSE]

Also, there are plenty of conflicts that come up without a contract in place. Bham has outlined several.

What about car accidents and other personal injury claims? Who determines fault, etc?

Land disputes?

How do you feel about immigration? What happens when our job markets are absolutely flooded with cheap labor from down south with no incentive for a minimum wage or decent work conditions? You think the 5% of the population (or less) that are going to buy exclusively "responsibly produced" goods is going to matter to big business?

Car accidents? I don't imagine insurance companies would be going away.
Land disputes? Arbitrator to decide, that both parties agree upon.
Immigration? I don't believe in borders.

 

[volinbham]

Sure, why not. Else our friends the government will step in to make sure we are using the correct technique for the chocolate waterfall, as well as supply us with baskets upon baskets of regulations meant to shut down a small chocolate waterfall operator.
Because we just cant exist without the government oh my!
That's even without addressing the gum drop rain, I'm sure our friends at the epa will have a basket or two of lovelies for us for our pleasure as well.
Lulz

1. I do think we can't exist in some reasonable form without SOME government.

2. What you and Huff are arguing is in fact a form of government so you agree with #1 as well.

SOME government does not mean the excessive level of government we have now.

 

[n_huffhines]

Why wouldn't they? You're paying them. What's their incentive? That they will lose clients? No, just the opposite. Fighting hard for their clients is going to win them more clients, not the other way around.

Or even if it doesn't, there are going to be shady "protection agencies." There's a market for it.

Yeah, but you aren't their only client. You pay them to protect you. You don't pay them to be bullies. That's not what they do. They will fight for you if they have to. They don't want to fight, cause fighting is expensive. If you call on them to fight for you when you misbehave, then they will say, "that's not the business we're in."

I'm sure your next question is, "what if the copper company has so much money they are the only client." which is basically the same question as "what if the copper mine had its own army?". Well, If that happened, I am certain all the protection agencies combined would demolish the mine's army. First of all, they outnumber them, and it is what they are built for. I can't imagine a mining company waging war as effective as the professionals.

 

[volinbham]

Immigration? I don't believe in borders.

Do you believe in private property rights?

 

[DEFENDTHISHOUSE]

1. I do think we can't exist in some reasonable form without SOME government.

2. What you and Huff are arguing is in fact a form of government so you agree with #1 as well.

SOME government does not mean the excessive level of government we have now.

But it was limited government that got us here. So, we should try again?