Law Without Government. Robert P. Murphy. 

Is an anarchist Blocks free speech Mfw

@@walleras tell me why you think opposing a violent territorial monopoly implies allowing anything people post on your RU-vid video to stay up.

@@bitbutter You do like authoritarianism! You just want everyone to do it!

@@walleras If you want to call it authoritarian to exclude unproductive antagonistic speech from your home/website/RU-vid channel, sure. want to publish your address so that people can enjoy free speech at your home?

@@bitbutter Yes it is authoritarian. By definition. If that isn't a faulty comparison then I don't know one. RU-vid is the public square. You are choosing which dissent to allow to be voiced in the public square, at least the corner of it you control. That is quite different from your house. But no I won't dox myself because that is comparable to allowing free speech on youtube.

I'm glad to hear it!

@Ruby Badilla the difference between a leader and an authority is that a leader doesn't steal from its followers. An authority is an entity that you cannot question and are not allowed to resist theft by it. Leaders are voluntarily appointed and respected, while authorities are forced upon its subjects whether you voted for them or not.

Ruby Badilla unfortunately there are otherwise intelligent people who are unable to make a distinction between leadership and authority lol

Radical notion eh.

Groups of people can also "organize and associate" into forming a government for themselves, if they want. Or join an existing government in a "government free market". Which makes the forceful imposition of government even more suspicious.

Thanks for that Tyler. Comments like this certainly help.

Same here buddy. Your video on taxation helped my mum and sister to understand immediately in a way that my 5 years of extensive study / research could not. Because they're too familiar with me. They needed to hear it from a good quality production (kind of like an authority figure effect).

Couldn't agree more. Thank you for these amazing videos

The same here, bitbutter. Respect to you and thank you so much for this valuable content.

thank you, glad you like them!

Thanks!

That's great to hear! Thanks.

Me too. I think Friedman's lecture is more complete, hits the main objections. This is a more accessible intro.

you could hire people to do that, kinda like how you pay taxes for the police to do that

@@bitbutter link to friedman lecture please

@@UltraRik ru-vid.com/video/%D0%B2%D0%B8%D0%B4%D0%B5%D0%BE-jTYkdEU_B4o.html

Welcome! Thanks for taking a look. I've seen a big spike in my views from the Corbett item, that was a nice surprise.

NP. Thanks again for taking the time to put forward your views.

Njorunn Fjölvarr Give to OP and all the commenters!

Thanks! (a share is worth 1000 likes ;))

Thanks, so am I!

Thanks l!

I'd like to do that someday. If you want to encourage me more strongly you can consider becoming a patron ;) www.patreon.com/tomaszkaye

You're not describing a flaw, you're describing how you'd prefer the system to work.

No, in literally all cases, the burden of proof is on the accuser. If you accuse me of a crime, it's your job to prove it, not my job to disprove it. That's pretty basic stuff.

Johnny Kronaz you're still doing it.

And you'd prefer a system of guilty-until-proven-innocent?

Guilt established beyond reasonable doubt before restorative measures are taken seems reasonable to me. The market pressure for courts to cleave to this standard would be strong. The scenario in the video qualifies in my view.

Glad you like it! I plan to keep making stuff as I'm getting support from excellent patrons (www.patreon.com/tomaszkaye)

"This video does not address any of the significant flaws in privatizing law enforcement" You're committing the appeal to ignorance fallacy - presupposing that your ignorance about how problem X would be handled under this arrangement indicates that X is a serious problem for this proposal. A better way of framing your comment would be just to ask questions about how your concerns would be likely handled. 1a. The question is about how poor people would have access to justice. It's worth remembering that currently, poor people have inferior access to law than rich people do. The poor rely on welfare in this context in the form of state-provided legal services. If democracy is working as it should, these services are a product of a prevailing sentiment in society that charity for the poor is important. There's no reason to suppose that this sentiment would go away under ancap conditions. But the donations would be routed through private charities rather than the bloated and wasteful welfare state. 1b. Copied from a reddit comment "Poor people today can often find (what would otherwise be expensive) legal representation if they prove they have a good case. That is, lawyers will often front the capital for the case due to their expectation of a larger payout at the conclusion of the proceedings. Absent government, there would likely be a thriving market for "Poor Torts™."" www.reddit.com/r/Anarcho_Capitalism/comments/5zlxwd/law_without_government_robert_p_murphy/dezzj1e/ 2. Your concern is that some laws wouldn't pre profitable to enforce, which would lead to a sub optimal amount of law enforcement and hence sub optimal deterrent for certain crimes. I think your worry is misplaced. Studies show that humans reliably exhibit 'costly punishment behavior', where they are willing to bear additional personal cost in order to prevent a cheat from enjoying their unfairly gained benefits. I would pay some non zero fee to prevent a thief from enjoying my stolen bike even though it wouldn't get me the bike back. This willingness to punish, even at cost, would be reflected in the policies and subscription fees of defence agencies. 3. Your worry is about what would happen when wealthy people break the law. As usual its important to notice what currently happens. In many cases they likely get away with it. Either through superior legal workers, or through corruption. "But the company has lots of money, so they can hire their own goons for protection, and tell the towns people to just suck it up." This company would be entering a war against a coalition highly trained defence agencies, (trained in the use of violence) with the support of the entire population. Meanwhile it would become common knowledge that this firm was a bad actor. Their market share would suffer accordingly - remember that they would not have access to taxation to endlessly fund a violent conflict, and finding investors to back them in their belligerence would probably be difficult, given their low chance of success. A stigma may be attached to remaining one of their customers. Suffice to say it'd be a very bad business move. The firms that manage to stay in existence for long won't make such mistakes.

No one has the right to take other people's property or make them work for them against their will unless they did something equally wrong to deserve such a punishment, so anarchists propose voluntary solutions to the problem of poverty and wealth inequality in an anarchist legal system. Namely tort investment and restitution, mutual aid and charity. Tort investment and restitution in particular serves the purpose of making wrongdoers pay for their own prosecution and all the costs that come along with it while providing victims with immediate reparations.

I agree with the ideal: nobody has the right to make others work for them; but do not see how anarchism would achieve that at all, especially not with regard to wage slavery. I would like everyone to be perfectly free and happy, but to require that as a basic tenant of my real world political ideology would be absolutist. It is a matter of optimization, you cannot just have everything you wish for. Taxation is a lesser evil; and empirically the most prosperous and happy societies are the social democracies here in Europe. Having wrongdoers pay for their own prosecution is not going to happen if they are sufficiently powerful, because there is nothing to enforce their compliance. Responding to part of bitbutter's reply above: "it would become common knowledge that this [powerful] firm was a bad actor. Their market share would suffer accordingly", that will not happen: huge companies already engage in exploitative and immoral behavior, but their market share is doing just fine. Consumers can only punish companies if the have accurate information and alternative products to choose from. But corporate media is motivated by profit, not accuracy in reporting. And those powerful companies and individuals could be advertising or funding any corporate media. And some things cannot be boycotted: if a monopoly formed on some essential product like utilities, by what mechanism do you expect to get rid of that? They are rich and powerful and ruthless, that little startup down the road is going to get literally murdered. And the journalist reporting on it, also murdered. This is why the leviathan was invented, to stomp out this kind of corruption. You cannot claim that consumer boycotts would solve the problem when we can already see empirically that it does not. And what about ideologically motivated judges and goons? If they held the somewhat common feminist position: men accused of rape are generally guilty, even when it cannot be proven either way, and they are likely to offend again, so imprisoning all of them indefinitely is justified; do you really want to live in that world? In a proportionally representative democracy the government and by extension law enforcement will always be somewhat centrist. But there would likely be multiple profitable "niches" in a privatized justice system. What about homosexuality, animal rights, drugs, euthanasia, abortion, reparations, or sharia laws? Extremists would be enforcing their own opinions all over the place. You end up having to create charities to patch up all these holes in the system; but this is simply a tax on conscience: only the people willing to pay for others legal fees and protection get to foot the bill. Assholes will choose not to spend on these charities, and are monetarily rewarded for their anti-social behavior. And charities are not equitable: the charity that can advertise better will get more money, not the one which actually improves the world most. And what about cases nobody wants to defend? Which charity would redirect their strained budget and attorneys away from representing molested children, so they can defend their rapists instead? Any dependence on charities creates a zero sum game. The general question is: what to do in cases where it becomes more profitable to flaunt the law? In societies where government military force ultimately backs the justice system, they can arbitrarily increase the punishment until there is compliance. But in a privatized justice system the extent of retribution is limited to the funds and charity which can be raised to deal with the problem.

"nobody has the right to make others work for them; but do not see how anarchism would achieve that at all, especially not with regard to wage slavery." 'Wage slavery' is a dysphemism for 'labour under conditions I don't like'. It's not actual slavery, no one is coercing anyone else, or 'making others work for them'. So it's not clear where you think the problem is here. "and empirically the most prosperous and happy societies are the social democracies here in Europe." At one time the most happy and prosperous societies were the ones that practiced slavery. This is not a good defense of slavery. Your defense of taxation fails for the same reason. "Having wrongdoers pay for their own prosecution is not going to happen if they are sufficiently powerful, because there is nothing to enforce their compliance. " Sure. Posit a sufficiently powerful aggressor and _no_ political system can handle that situation well. What's your point? "Consumers can only punish companies if the have accurate information and alternative products to choose from." Under ancap conditions there would be alternate providers of law and defense services to choose from. That same competition would provide more accurate information than we have about state provided law and abuses, because the firms in competition are motivated to act as each others watchdogs (also because a rival firm gone rogue would be an existential threat). "And some things cannot be boycotted: if a monopoly formed on some essential product like utilities,:" Almost all known monopolies have been enabled by the state, the biggest monopoly. Natural monopolies are extremely rare. But if you spell out a scenario in more detail I'll take a shot at predicting what might happen. "This is why the leviathan was invented, to stomp out this kind of corruption." That's an empirical claim that you can't support. NB. The leviathan is the biggest and most corrupt entity the world has known. "And what about ideologically motivated judges and goons? If they held the somewhat common feminist position: men accused of rape are generally guilty, even when it cannot be proven either way, and they are likely to offend again, so imprisoning all of them indefinitely is justified; do you really want to live in that world?" You're not thinking this through. Would men patronise such a judge? (or a defense firm who did?). No. So this problem simply doesn't occur. "Extremists would be enforcing their own opinions all over the place." Only to the extent that there was general agreement in the population with the values of the judge, which would mean those views were not actually extreme at all. "And charities are not equitable: the charity that can advertise better will get more money, not the one which actually improves the world most." Do you believe there is _no_ correlation between the amount of good a charity does in the world and how effectively it can advertise? I'd say that donators care a good deal about actual benefit when choosing a charity. More generally, why do you assume that the situation is better if that charitable giving is channeled through the welfare state instead? "The general question is: what to do in cases where it becomes more profitable to flaunt the law? " Give me an example of where you think it would be.

acdenh 1. you can extend poor people to your plan (maybe) 2.of course there would be a benefit in stopping bicycle thief's he could steal something again. 3.the best thing to do is assassinate the guy who ordered the dumping of toxic chemicals

Thanks! Glad you liked it.

Thank you very much!

You might be interested in David Friedman's recent book, Legal Systems Very Different from Ours. www.amazon.com/Legal-Systems-Very-Different-Ours-ebook/dp/B07MTPZVX9 review: slatestarcodex.com/2017/11/13/book-review-legal-systems-very-different-from-ours/

I'm new to anarcho-capitalism, and I just can't wrap my head around it.

@@tyzu8015 thats okay! maybe to begin with it's helpful to notice that people from different countries are able to interact and settle disputes without there being one government that they agree on. Robert Murphy's short booklet Chaos Theory is available as a free PDF here, it's very accessible and covers this question: mises.org/library/chaos-theory

Yes, they can be submitted here: ru-vid.com_video?v=A8pcb4xyCic&ref=share

Yes, please make this happen! Or at least post the whole drawing as a picture so we can print it ourselves!

Hopefully nobody minds imgur.com/a/1jVrLF4

Thanks! Did you composite this? Let me know which name to credit this to in the info box. I'll add the imgur as a link.

Yeah, I spliced the thing using frames from your video. At one point the video zooms in slightly (I didn't notice it while watching) so I had to scale down the first few frames some 7% so they would align well with the rest. The end result is not pixel perfect, but sometimes you just have to say "to hell with it, pixel perfection is overrated anyhow." You can credit the image to "mkey" but I made it in hopes of helping your work reach wider audience, if someone ends up printing these to posters that would make me one happy puppy. Anyway, thanks for your splendid work, I'm trying to invest more into my logical thinking process and videos such as these, along with your comments in the comments section, help with that. Undoing damage done by the public schools system is a lot of hard, thankless work.

This comes close to what you're asking about. A vid i did together with Learn Liberty ru-vid.com/video/%D0%B2%D0%B8%D0%B4%D0%B5%D0%BE-DvxT7fryE3Q.html&

> What is the consequences of me [killing someone], if the family to the victim dosent press charges? I think the most likely outcome is that in case like this there would be effectively a 'free floating right to restitution' that can be homesteaded. So if someone can demonstrate to a reputable judge (to that judge's satisfaction beyond reasonable doubt) that they know who committed a given murder will obtain the backing of that court to go ahead and apprehend the criminal - and claim whatever restitution is due for themselves. In effect the person has now homesteaded the right to restitution. Perhaps this might even include the right to enslave the criminal if they cannot pay the restitution in other ways. So there'd be an economic incentive for carefully carried out 'bounty hunting', even when the victim had no heirs interested in pursuing the case.

But what does the private feerms get from enslaving a murdurer?(If hee is poor and cant give somthing back) So a rich person does not get punishment beacuse he can pay off the bounty hunters? Can the bounty hunters dicide the punishment? Like death Or does the crime equals the punishment? But i do understand that the bounty hunters is a god sulution. It whould then create manny feerms that do this to earn money, and competision will happen, and fewer crime will happen. The state sucks inn everething it touches, so i have more belife in this. But what i like in this curent system is that the killers get punished, and gets manny years in prison. (sadly its a maximum of 21 years in Norway) I just think we need some laws, and let the bounty hunters enforce it? If u answer this i am hooked. PS: Sorry for bad English! Not my main language.

> But what does the private feerms get from enslaving a murdurer?(If hee is poor and cant give somthing back) The product of his slave labour (e.g. something he makes, or some service he can provide from inside a 'labour camp'). > So a rich person does not get punishment beacuse he can pay off the bounty hunters? Justice is more about restitution, than punishment, in my view. That said, decentralised justice might see zones with penalties like execution - it will all depend on the values of the clients (subscribers). > But what i like in this curent system is that the killers get punished, and gets manny years in prison. (sadly its a maximum of 21 years in Norway) I understand. More important to me, is that the victims are compensated. This doesn't happen under the state. In fact, the victims pay (via taxes) to house and feed those who wronged them!

hmm... Okey i understand som more. The factories wil then buy "slaves- from the bounty hunters, then the bounty hunters need more "slaves, then they go catch more bad guys to sell again. "Justice is more about restitution, than punishment, in my view." -Sure restitution is importent, but if my whole family got killed, and i get 50 million in restitution, and the murdurer is still free i whould still not be happy about it, and he diserves to get prison, or somthing else. "That said, decentralised justice might see zones with penalties like execution - it will all depend on the values of the clients (subscribers)." -Dont realy understand. So if i kill a rich person i most defently get a death sentence, but if a rich person kills me, he only needs to pay som "fines? That sound OFF. And not justice. I realy hate the state, but i realy dont see how the free world would fix this in a just way.

> So if i kill a rich person i most defently get a death sentence, No. You may or may not get the death sentence. (just as the right person may or may not get the death sentence). You'd know in advance whether you could expect the death sentence based on the agreements your DRO had with other local DROs. See 'the machinery of freedom illustrated summary' (i see it in the side bar on this page), there's a section that talks about the death penalty.

"How would you argue against claims that this would centralize power and corruption more than a governmental system?" I'd begin by asking how this would happen. Seems like the opposite is more likely to me. NB. In my view, David Friedman's presentation is also important for a more in-depth view looking at some challenges to how this could work. ru-vid.com/video/%D0%B2%D0%B8%D0%B4%D0%B5%D0%BE-jTYkdEU_B4o.html

MrSkyFear, Because you have choices.

*wary -- unless you're tired of them, of course.

♫ "God knows. God knows I want your TV"

@@bitbutter lmao

If your TV is stolen, and you have no way to know who did it, then that's the end of the case. If you had no insurance on that TV, that money is gone. And this is true with or without a government. If you had a previously signed contract with an insurance company, they will pay you for that TV. Right there you see the incentive for insurance companies to not have people stealing your stuff. If unidentified people keep stealing from you, your insurance company may send patrol cars around your neighborhood, they may install a camera on your porch, they may put electric fences around your house, who knows? But the fact that there are incentives for insurance companies to stop thefts from continuing taking stuff, remains. And you can still do things to prevent that from happening, like putting a fence, getting a dog, buying a gun, installing cameras, etc. If you saw your neighbor taking the TV, then the video explains how the situation will likely be resolved. The adjudicators fee may be paid by the insurance company with whom the victim previously signed. If there is no insurance over the TV, the adjudicators may agree to take a portion of the compensation that the victim will receive from the criminal, as payment. If you cannot pay them, the adjudicators may also choose to pursue that criminal anyway, because it is costing money for their clients to have their stuff stolen and that will increase their reputation. The adjudicators, security agencies and insurance companies have lots of incentives to keep their clients (and potential clients) safe; and to keep criminals at bay. Who in this system would pay the cost of investigating and adjudicating the murder of a homeless person? Once again, there is an incentive for security agencies to not have murderers around, so one of them may choose to follow up on that case even when there is no money to be received. The reputation of a company who solves the case of a homeless man will also be highly benefited. So there are some incentives for private security companies to solve cases, even when there is no immediate money payment.

Not that I'm aware of.

"how can one say a dictionary of commonly accepted definitions can be codified by a group of professionals yet law should not be codified by an institution of lawyers" Anglo-saxon common law was the result of a codified body of law. Some more background practicallawandjustice.liberty.me/the-de-evolution-of-anglo-saxon-law/. 'The law' as we know it today includes much from common law, but is composed primarily of legislation, which is quite different - the top-down imposition of rules by government.

I read through the article to the best of my understanding, so if I make mistakes I'm happy to hear your input. Respectfully, modern globalized democracies don't really have any codified laws. Much of Western Law Culture is influenced by decrees (eg: Hammurabi's Code, the 10 commandments, etc). Interestingly, the cases in which law was codified among community members happened because of the lack of agreeable historical precedent, not because of it. As precedent was established, decrees and legislation occurred, and only in the most remote, uncivilized, and primitive cultures can "codified" law be viable in today's globalized, modern, multicultural world. In modern democracies, for example, the United States Constitution and Bill of Rights are decrees, legislated by a minority to represent the laws of the land for all citizens. Every law that exists in the US has been legislated, including the right to assemble, the right to bear arms, even the ability of free speech. The distinction between "codifying" and "legislating" become further muddled if one is to look at the synergy of legislators acting on request of citizen concerns. Did US Supreme Court Judges "decree" or "codify" Roe v Wade to legalize abortions? Is the fact that precedent must exist a necessary condition for codification? If so, how might one explain that the decision to legalize gay marriage as a valid social contract, which has no historical precedent in human history, is a codified rather than legislated law? Was there no human endeavor to codify it, or was the legislation simply a reflection of human desire or a rejection of human desire? Now, I understand where the ancap or anarchist position lies on government existence. Where possible, government should either be eliminated or non-existent. My problem lays more with the formation of government. It seems that every human group in human history has eventually organically evolved a system of government or institution to dictate laws and regulations. I've spoken with folks who seem to assume that a government was undesirably imposed on every culture and not a natural outgrowth of human desire to group together.What if government was 'codified' into existence by the sheer necessity of human will?

"My problem lays more with the formation of government. It seems that every human group in human history has eventually organically evolved a system of government or institution to dictate laws and regulations." That might be true. But appeal to (lack of a) precedent isn't a strong case for or against anything. At one time there were no societies who'd successfully freed and assimilated large numbers of slaves, for instance. This is very weak evidence for the thesis that chaos was a necessary result of doing just that. There are some important things going on right now, and that could happen in the near future, that are either unprecedented or dramatically different than in any time in human history. A combination of these things could provide the necessary starting conditions for successful anarchy. A few examples: The internet exists and its reach is expanding (more than ever before people can easily query any socio political assumption and find eloquent counter-arguments). Crypto-currencies are getting started. Global government debt is higher than ever and looks to be an unsustainable situation. Seasteading is getting started. Trust in government in the US is at an all time low since polling began (I'd wager the same is true for many other countries). More fundamentally, the state got its start in symbiosis with organised religion. It took hold in an extremely gullible and superstitious population, and the institution of the state has not been seriously scrutinised by any large part of humanity ever since. That moment can happen, and when it does it's far from clear that the result will turn out the same.

what do you believe it is that enables poor and destitute people to access legal protection under statism?

@@bitbutter Don’t misunderstand me, I meant that as an honest question, as someone unfamiliar with ancap I really don’t know. And to answer your question, I suppose one who is prosecuted by the state must legally be granted free legal defense. Although I recognize that that is very limited. I have a related follow-up question. What happens with third party crimes? If a murdered John Doe were discovered, who would investigate the murder? How would justice be done and what incentive would a large corporation have in investigating the murder of a nobody? The argument that the state doesn’t do much of a better job is only half an answer, the answer must also include how Ancap could do it better.

@@magepunk2376 no worries. i find it helpful to ask about the situation under statism because the answers give clues about the situation under ancap. yeah states often have something like a legal right to state-funded legal defense. but state funded really means taxpayer funded. and tax payer obligations (at least in theory) are subject to the 'will of the people' under representative democracy. so in states with 'free' legal defense, there's a sense in which some critical proportion of the population wants this provision. so we can expect that some large part of an ancap population would want that too. except without the state as a middle person, the legal help would be provided via private charities instead. there's no reason i know of to suppose that the impulse to help the needy that we see under repdem would go away under ancap.

"If a murdered John Doe were discovered, who would investigate the murder?" first of all the property owner would be strongly incentivised to have the murder investigated, as would any rights enforcement agencies with clients living in the area; a murderer on the loose is a big risk for both.

Can you elaborate on that idea.

@@bitbutter It's a common problem with evolutionary arguments. If the strategy/ representation that you use for seeking/ searching is hill climbing (i.e. like a crude natural selection ... which is not how we think evolution works anymore but is often used in social darwinistic style arguments), then your search method can leave you on a small hill on a landscape, thinking that you've found the best answer. But the real answer is to descend and climb another, bigger hill. Again, modern biological evolution has ways of dealing with this but people that use evolution as an argument in social discussions still fall pray to it. See en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Local_optimum

@@bitbutter in other words, employees still might rise up and stop signing these arbitration agreements. If that happens then where was the strength located in the argument? Another example, at one point the serfs accepted their lot on life ... You could have used an evolutionary argument at the time and said if serfdom was inefficient, the people would not accept it. Now with hind sight you can clearly see that argument is not deductive but the real issue is it was never even a sound *inductive* argument. That is to say that it was never even *probably* the case, if the argument was presented in a evolutionary way like previously stated. This is because you have to consider the landscape and local optima

Sorry, I still don't follow. In the claim I made I'm taking for granted a backdrop of a modern economy and attitude towards commerce and markets. "You could have used an evolutionary argument at the time and said if serfdom was inefficient, the people would not accept it" The case of feudal serfdom is different to a modern economy in a few important ways - probably most important is that lords could use violence against serfs with impunity (thanks to widely accepted ideological beliefs having partly to do with religion). An inefficient situation can continue if coercion of this sort is part of the picture.

I understand what a local optimum is, but still don't understand how this applies to my claim here "if arbitration always ruled on the side of business, the employees wouldn't agree to it'", which (at least absent systematic threats of violence e.g. feudal serfdom) doesn't seem too controversial to me.

There's a lot of overlap. I have several Friedman videos on my channel too.

I, along with hundreds of millions of other Americans, have never consented to their authority.

@@mynamesjudge if I am on your land then I have implicitly agreed to your rules when I entered your property. That would include consenting to the authority of the arbiter of your choice. There's no explicit contact with me. My physical presence is my consent. Likewise, if you come to my house, you follow my rules, but what if we meet in public, on public land? IMHO, on public land we implicitly consent to the authority of the public and the judges they choose to govern that jurisdiction. Alternatively, you might claim that land is "nobody's" and therefore we are under nobody's authority. Personally, I want to live in a society that holds the former interpretation. If you prefer a society with the latter interpretation, you can seek that out but IMHO it would be anarchy. The point is, what you have or have not consented to entirely depends upon the answer to the question, who owns the space you occupy? Nobody, or somebody?

'you dont want private armies pitting themselves against each other' since you've posited that a private army exists, maybe you *do* want this army to be opposed. for instance by the united rights enforcement agencies (who recognise this army as an existential threat, and who have perfect professional justification for opposing it, since it's violating the rights of its customers). at least, it's not clear why *not* opposing this private army would be preferable in this case.

@@bitbutter " for instance by the united rights enforcement agencies" The rights enforcement agencies are exactly the private armies I'm talking about dude.

@@billyte1265 successful REAs get that way by being savvy businesspeople. savvy businesspeople understand that physical conflict is bad for business.

"Arbitration is not objectively fair" Of course. Nothing is objectively fair. "and the argument that employees and employers enter into it on equal footing is also not true." Has this claim been made? "Are you going to turn down a job you need because a company is forcing you to waive your rights to legal action?" Well, since you've used 'Forcing you' and 'need' in your question, it answers itself. In reality, alternatives could exist that a worker could make use of (alternative offers of employment or a paid period of job-seeking with the help of a mutual aid society). And the ability of a firm to treat its workers poorly would be limited by market discipline (think about the threat of bad PR, and competition from rival firms to hire workers). "Do the employees or the employee choose the arbiter?" I don't know. Perhaps the mutual aid society that the worker is a member of has a list of pre-approved arbitrators, and the employer also has such a list, and they settle on one that appears on both lists. Again; firms cannot get away with treating employees arbitrarily poorly (think of all the perks that firms currently offer, and the wages they offer that are in excess of the legally mandated minimum). And pre-committing to a mutually agreeable arbitration process is one way employers can make their offering attractive to potential employees.

"Ancaps have accepted good economics, but have no ethical base" No. Ancaps have a variety of ethical foundations including deontology (including religious belief), rationalist ethics, and varieties of utilitarianism. "rights are the building blocks, goods and services are not." "the market would fell apart without a government" Videos like this one challenge exactly these assumptions. You're wasting everyones time with unsupported assertions like this here.

@@bitbutter *"Videos like this one challenge exactly these assumptions...."* No, your video derives politics from economics. Ancap's assertion: _a market for freedom,_ is to turn things upside down because _freedom is fundamental to the market._ I.e., the hierarchical order of how concepts are dependent on each other is broken. Is like saying: _property is theft,_ like socialists do, omitting the fact that _theft,_ in order to be understood is dependent on _property._

"Ancap's assertion: a market for freedom, is to turn things upside down because freedom is fundamental to the market" Your mistake is assuming that gov is necessary for (or even compatible with) 'freedom'. You assert that it is, but don't attempt to support that assertion.

" freedom is fundamental to the market. I.e., the hierarchical order of how concepts are dependent on each other is broken." The assumption you're depending on: The state is more able than any other arrangement of securing 'freedom' for it's subjects, however that word is defined. It's far from clear that this is true.

@@bitbutter Maybe you're right, that the state is not the best arrangement, though I see no other solution. However, the market cannot secure our freedom exactly for the reason I give above - a market is dependent on freedom, in the first place, in order to work properly.

"a profit driven judicial system seems like a terrible idea to me because there are numerous ways to maximise that profit that doesn't mean providing a better or safer country, let alone community." Your comment doesn't establish that. You've asked questions that you don't currently know the answers to. But ignorance of those answers doesn't mean that no such answers exist. What stops a person looting in general: defense agencies (who have agreements between themselves to share 'blacklists' of offenders) and the prospect of being subject to legal penalty. "Who then pays for the prisons?" One option: prisons are work camps. The labour of the prisoners is used to fund their upkeep, another portion of the revenue is used to pay to the prisoners victims as restitution. Convicted persons contract with such a camp because they know they will have a hard time in the rest of society until restitution has been paid. The camps then, compete with one another to attract the business of convicts (e.g. humane working /living conditions).

@@bitbutter "What stops a person looting in general: defense agencies (who have agreements between themselves to share 'blacklists' of offenders) and the prospect of being subject to legal penalty. " You're literally just describing the state. Or are we speaking purely of private interests because in that instance, what's to stop me getting more power than you and deciding I want your stuff? "One option: prisons are work camps. The labour of the prisoners is used to fund their upkeep, another portion of the revenue is used to pay to the prisoners victims as restitution. Convicted persons contract with such a camp because they know they will have a hard time in the rest of society until restitution has been paid. The camps then, compete with one another to attract the business of convicts (e.g. humane working /living conditions)." so, slavery? because slaves had a such a great time and were totally able to choose where they worked as slaves. What's to stop this judicial system not turning into a system where people are lumbered with unfair punishments just for the free labour? The way I see it is that some systems naturally need to be monopolies and need to be centrally run. Being profit based is just dangerous in some aspects because it doesn't lead to a "better service" when you have a captive audience and has frequently lead to lower standards and a poorer service as profits are chased. Medical in the US is a great example. It will never work because when you're sick and need help, the primary focus should be getting better, not "shopping around for the best deal"

"You're literally just describing the state." No. The state is a geographical monopoly on the right to use violence. "what's to stop me getting more power than you and deciding I want your stuff?" My rights enforcement agency. And what's to stop that agency from doing the same? The other agencies it would need to defeat (a 'war against society' that a rogue agency would almost certainly lose). "so, slavery?" No. Indentured servitude. And far better than the status quo because: 1. You avoid the moral abomination of having victims pay (through taxes) for the board and lodgings of convicts, including their abusers. 2. Convicts pay restitution to their victims until they are 'made whole'. "and were totally able to choose where they worked as slaves." Slaves couldn't, obviously. And I'm not describing slavery, but a totally different system so it's not clear why you think this is relevant. "What's to stop this judicial system not turning into a system where people are lumbered with unfair punishments just for the free labour?" Courts trade on their reputation for impartiality. Unlike a state-provided court system, they go out of business if they issue rulings that the public believe are unfair. "The way I see it is that some systems naturally need to be monopolies and need to be centrally run." I see no good reason to suppose this is true. "Being profit based is just dangerous in some aspects" It's not clear how being 'taxes based' is preferable. It creates perverse incentives that market competition mitigates against (e.g. its not in the interest of a tax funded police force to eradicate crime, because their budget will shrink). "It will never work because when you're sick and need help, the primary focus should be getting better, not "shopping around for the best deal"" You sound unaware of the friendly societies in the US. See ru-vid.com/video/%D0%B2%D0%B8%D0%B4%D0%B5%D0%BE-fFoXyFmmGBQ.html

@@bitbutter given how poorly corporations are functioning for global society, I really don't see this working at all. All that would happen is those with, would exploit those without. The "reputation" of courts and judges wouldn't really matter when the powerful media empires decide who should and shouldn't be heard from. Even with things like the internet, the fringe will get drowned out by the powerful. As for natural monopolies, ok, I want to get a train from A that arrives at B at a specific time, how is competition possible if the point between A and B only has a single piece of track? Or I want to have water piped into my home. If I want to switch to a different water company, do they need to run different pipes to my house? Or I live in a country and another country threatens us with war, is the other country going to wait around for me to find the best military to hire? There's a load of instances where a monopoly isn't a bad thing as long it's a non-profit and is regulated by someone. The whole idea of a "rights enforcement agency" just sounds like putting profit ahead of purpose and I can see a plethora of ways where it'd get horribly abuse more so than the current systems in use. Also, who decides on what your rights are?

@@nonegiven2830 "given how poorly corporations are functioning for global society" Corporations are providing goods and services that people want (good for global society), while exploiting the state's failure to protect property rights (pollution externalities, bad for global society). From your replies so far - your unwillingness to concede that any of your concerns have been addressed, I believe you're not asking these questions in good faith. So I'm not going to invest more time answering them.

not at all. but the society described makes corruption less likely (by decentralizing political power)

@@bitbutter political corruption isn't the only kind of corruption. Business people can collude to make cartels and control prices. In the absence of a state, corporations would take on the roles of states. They would consolidate to increase their power and territory, they would form private security forces to maintain law and order over the territory they control. Furthermore criminal elements that currently have to operate under the radar would be free to operate openly in the absence of a state. They would be used by the business elite to carry out espionage, sabotage and assassinations, among other things.

@@lolo2556 you're just asserting things. not interesting. you need to also provide argument demonstrating why these outcomes would be more likely under a polycentral legal order than similar harms are under a state (bearing in mind all the terrible abuses carried out by states)

@@bitbutter because there would not be any central body regulating business activity and essential services, such as security and infrastructure, would be maintained by unaccountable businesses.

@@lolo2556 no central regulation doesn't mean no regulation in the broad sense (discipline of repeated dealings, voluntary certification).

cool story