4 ms·

The justice system, administered by the State. (I think you may be confusing market-anarchism with minarchist-Libertarianism).

maxxxxx 11y ago
That's something I have been wondering about for a long time. Wouldn't pure libertarianism require a huge justice system and give a lot of power to courts? In absence of regulation every dispute would have to go to court.
- duncan_bayne 11y ago
  Firstly, minarchist-Libertarianism doesn't preclude legislation. We only support legislation that is rights-respecting (e.g. no forcing people to do business with customers they don't want), reality-based (e.g. no environmental legislation without provable harm), and consistently administered (e.g. no free passes for particularly rich criminals). Secondly, even in an hypothetical absence of regulation, mediation would be preferable to court action in a lot of cases. That's true even now; private mediation is frequently used to resolve disputes before they ever see a courtroom. Edited to add: Also, in a rights-respecting State, the list of criminal acts would be a lot, lot smaller than it is now. No censorship (obscenity, blasphemy, etc.), no war on drugs, etc. etc. It's likely that justice system workloads would drop significantly.
  - maxxxxx 11y ago
    I really would like to see a set of laws and government regulations that libertarians would support. Has anybody ever created such a thing? Would there be regulations on cigarettes, selling alcohol to 10 year olds or lead paint? Who would prove the harm if there is no EPA? Who has the money to go against big corporations and their paid experts? It took forever to get a shared understanding that smoking is really harmful. I don't want to be dismissive but most libertarians I talk to seem to live in a dream world and avoid real-world scenarios.
    - duncan_bayne 11y ago
      I really would like to see a set of laws and government regulations that libertarians would support. Has anybody ever created such a thing? Not to my knowledge :) But that has more to do with a combination of factionalism, incorrect philosophy (e.g. religious 'Libertarians' who'd like to ban gay marriage), and utopianism. Would there be regulations on cigarettes Other than prohibitions on fraud ("cigarettes are healthy!") or selling to minors, no. selling alcohol to 10 year olds Yes. lead paint Depends. Perhaps there would be cases where lead paint would be okay; I don't know that much about it. Who would prove the harm if there is no EPA? Who has the money to go against big corporations and their paid experts? Lawyers working on behalf of those bringing class-action suits against the manufacturers. And why do you presume there would be no EPA (or an equivalent)? (Some) environmental laws are valid. I'm not American, but I'm pretty sure the Constitution doesn't grant the Federal Government the power to create something like the EPA. But the States surely do have that power. It took forever to get a shared understanding that smoking is really harmful. Not at all. It took forever for the justice system to overcome the massive lobbying and corruption that was protecting the tobacco industry from lawsuits over their fraudulent advertising.
      - jakeogh 11y ago
        "prohibitions on fraud"? You mean have a group of people who decide what is true? Isn't that better known as Not-Libertarianism?
        maxxxxx 11y ago
        That's the question I always ask and never get an answer.
        duncan_bayne 11y ago
        Maybe you're asking anarchists ;)
        jakeogh 11y ago
mdpopescu 11y ago
Or the justice system, administered by private courts (in market-anarchism).

maxxxxx 11y ago

That's something I have been wondering about for a long time. Wouldn't pure libertarianism require a huge justice system and give a lot of power to courts? In absence of regulation every dispute would have to go to court.

duncan_bayne 11y ago
Firstly, minarchist-Libertarianism doesn't preclude legislation. We only support legislation that is rights-respecting (e.g. no forcing people to do business with customers they don't want), reality-based (e.g. no environmental legislation without provable harm), and consistently administered (e.g. no free passes for particularly rich criminals). Secondly, even in an hypothetical absence of regulation, mediation would be preferable to court action in a lot of cases. That's true even now; private mediation is frequently used to resolve disputes before they ever see a courtroom. Edited to add: Also, in a rights-respecting State, the list of criminal acts would be a lot, lot smaller than it is now. No censorship (obscenity, blasphemy, etc.), no war on drugs, etc. etc. It's likely that justice system workloads would drop significantly.
- maxxxxx 11y ago
  I really would like to see a set of laws and government regulations that libertarians would support. Has anybody ever created such a thing? Would there be regulations on cigarettes, selling alcohol to 10 year olds or lead paint? Who would prove the harm if there is no EPA? Who has the money to go against big corporations and their paid experts? It took forever to get a shared understanding that smoking is really harmful. I don't want to be dismissive but most libertarians I talk to seem to live in a dream world and avoid real-world scenarios.
  - duncan_bayne 11y ago
    I really would like to see a set of laws and government regulations that libertarians would support. Has anybody ever created such a thing? Not to my knowledge :) But that has more to do with a combination of factionalism, incorrect philosophy (e.g. religious 'Libertarians' who'd like to ban gay marriage), and utopianism. Would there be regulations on cigarettes Other than prohibitions on fraud ("cigarettes are healthy!") or selling to minors, no. selling alcohol to 10 year olds Yes. lead paint Depends. Perhaps there would be cases where lead paint would be okay; I don't know that much about it. Who would prove the harm if there is no EPA? Who has the money to go against big corporations and their paid experts? Lawyers working on behalf of those bringing class-action suits against the manufacturers. And why do you presume there would be no EPA (or an equivalent)? (Some) environmental laws are valid. I'm not American, but I'm pretty sure the Constitution doesn't grant the Federal Government the power to create something like the EPA. But the States surely do have that power. It took forever to get a shared understanding that smoking is really harmful. Not at all. It took forever for the justice system to overcome the massive lobbying and corruption that was protecting the tobacco industry from lawsuits over their fraudulent advertising.
    - jakeogh 11y ago
      "prohibitions on fraud"? You mean have a group of people who decide what is true? Isn't that better known as Not-Libertarianism?
      - maxxxxx 11y ago
        That's the question I always ask and never get an answer.
        duncan_bayne 11y ago
        Maybe you're asking anarchists ;)
        jakeogh 11y ago

mdpopescu 11y ago

Or the justice system, administered by private courts (in market-anarchism).