3 ms·

> including no lawsuits Are there are "free market types" who actually believe there shouldn't be any form of sanctions whatsoever for causing harm? I've talke

by Canada 10y ago

> including no lawsuits Are there are "free market types" who actually believe there shouldn't be any form of sanctions whatsoever for causing harm? I've talked to quite a few hardcore libertarians, and I've yet to encounter anyone who takes it that far.

fullshark 10y ago
Yeah if anything lawsuits/courts are central to their argument, that the owners of property will use legal recourse to settle damages to them, and that mechanism serves most of the functions of gov't regulation.
vel0city 10y ago
In Robert Nozick's Anarchy, State, and Utopia he argues the minimal state would be "limited to the narrow functions of protection against force, theft, fraud, enforcement of contracts, and so on." I'd imagine most libertarians would agree basic contract laws and some level of lawsuits should be acceptable to a functioning society.
dmix 10y ago
Even anarcho-capitalists, the most hardcore libertarians, believe heavily in the court system. So I'm not sure what the OP means "without lawsuits". Because lawsuits would most likely be their answer here. Also maybe competition from other email vendors who take your security seriously and doesn't leak 1 billion emails? Or pressure from investors not to create that type of liability? Pretty obviously a strawman, it's far easier to win such an argument with silly caricatures of libertarians as an opponent... someone who believes that all companies should be able to do whatever they want, without any consequence! Only the most extreme niche of the already niche group of anarcho-capitalists believe in private courts or private law enforcement. Which does not at all reflect mainstream libertarian thought. Who instead wish for a "minimal" state, which at a very minimum means centralized courts. I've heard economists argue that economies and societies do not exist without some form of a legal system (chiefs, kings, courts, etc). It's the very core of human co-existence to be able to resolve disputes in a fair and just way.
- cmurf 10y ago
  Seems that anarchy is contrary to government, and out of necessity a government is needed to have a court. Those pure free market types I'm referring to self describe exactly as anarcho capitalists and say all disputes are resolved by insurance, exactly zero government. If there's a court, maybe that's a venue the insurance companies all agree upon. But if you don't have insurance or don't have good enough insurance you don't get as much representation or as much of a payout and that's your choice, sometimes life is unfair and you get screwed over. And as it's describe to me I almost immediately start thinking of Gangs of New York and axes. It's such a total departure from anything remotely civil I can only imagine this leading to a bunch of heads being chopped off. But hey, there's insurance for that too I guess.
  - dmix 10y ago
    Quoting Mises who is the Marx of anarcho-capitalism: > To be opposed to the state is then not necessarily to be opposed to services that have often been linked with it; to be opposed to the state does not necessarily imply that we must be opposed to police protection, courts, arbitration, the minting of money, postal service, or roads and highways. Some anarchists have indeed been opposed to police and to all physical coercion in defense of person and property, but this is not inherent in and is fundamentally irrelevant to the anarchist position, which is precisely marked by opposition to all physical coercion invasive of, or aggressing against, person and property. and > An important point to remember is that any society, be it statist or anarchist, has to have some way of resolving disputes that will gain a majority consensus in society. There would be no need for courts or arbitrators if everyone were omniscient and knew instantaneously which persons were guilty of any given crime or violation of contract. Since none of us is omniscient, there has to be some method of deciding who is the criminal or lawbreaker which will gain legitimacy; in short, whose decision will be accepted by the great majority of the public. https://mises.org/library/society-without-state https://mises.org/library/society-without-state (Note: not defending this stuff, just pointing it out for sake of discussion). Elsewhere someone pointed out the book "Anarchy, State, and Utopia" which has a better overview of what libertarians believe in. Which is a "night-watchman" state, a minimalist government which includes courts, police, and border control. https://www.amazon.com/Anarchy-State-Utopia-Robert-Nozick/dp/0465051006/ https://www.amazon.com/Anarchy-State-Utopia-Robert-Nozick/dp...
jwatte 10y ago
No, but there are libertarians who believe that risk mitigation skills never be required up front, no matter how unable the party at fault would be to restore whatever was lost. (Note: Some things cannot be restored at all; lives and disability being the obvious cases) The point of government is to mitigate external and unacceptable risks, and we have grown this system based on experience over hundreds of years. Some super free market types seem to argue that we should throw all that away and then institute systems that, over time, will just reinvent the same things. My guess is they believe they will personally come out on top during the reset period through whatever strength/privilege they inhabit.
acdha 10y ago
There are many who view contacts as a holy right but would also allow you to sign away anything in a contract – so if you accepted a EULA which makes it hard to sue, it's your fault. There's a certain consistency to that position but it completely ignores the scale of the power differential.

by Canada 10y ago

fullshark 10y ago

Yeah if anything lawsuits/courts are central to their argument, that the owners of property will use legal recourse to settle damages to them, and that mechanism serves most of the functions of gov't regulation.

vel0city 10y ago

In Robert Nozick's Anarchy, State, and Utopia he argues the minimal state would be "limited to the narrow functions of protection against force, theft, fraud, enforcement of contracts, and so on." I'd imagine most libertarians would agree basic contract laws and some level of lawsuits should be acceptable to a functioning society.

dmix 10y ago

Even anarcho-capitalists, the most hardcore libertarians, believe heavily in the court system. So I'm not sure what the OP means "without lawsuits". Because lawsuits would most likely be their answer here. Also maybe competition from other email vendors who take your security seriously and doesn't leak 1 billion emails? Or pressure from investors not to create that type of liability? Pretty obviously a strawman, it's far easier to win such an argument with silly caricatures of libertarians as an opponent... someone who believes that all companies should be able to do whatever they want, without any consequence! Only the most extreme niche of the already niche group of anarcho-capitalists believe in private courts or private law enforcement. Which does not at all reflect mainstream libertarian thought. Who instead wish for a "minimal" state, which at a very minimum means centralized courts. I've heard economists argue that economies and societies do not exist without some form of a legal system (chiefs, kings, courts, etc). It's the very core of human co-existence to be able to resolve disputes in a fair and just way.

cmurf 10y ago
Seems that anarchy is contrary to government, and out of necessity a government is needed to have a court. Those pure free market types I'm referring to self describe exactly as anarcho capitalists and say all disputes are resolved by insurance, exactly zero government. If there's a court, maybe that's a venue the insurance companies all agree upon. But if you don't have insurance or don't have good enough insurance you don't get as much representation or as much of a payout and that's your choice, sometimes life is unfair and you get screwed over. And as it's describe to me I almost immediately start thinking of Gangs of New York and axes. It's such a total departure from anything remotely civil I can only imagine this leading to a bunch of heads being chopped off. But hey, there's insurance for that too I guess.
- dmix 10y ago
  Quoting Mises who is the Marx of anarcho-capitalism: > To be opposed to the state is then not necessarily to be opposed to services that have often been linked with it; to be opposed to the state does not necessarily imply that we must be opposed to police protection, courts, arbitration, the minting of money, postal service, or roads and highways. Some anarchists have indeed been opposed to police and to all physical coercion in defense of person and property, but this is not inherent in and is fundamentally irrelevant to the anarchist position, which is precisely marked by opposition to all physical coercion invasive of, or aggressing against, person and property. and > An important point to remember is that any society, be it statist or anarchist, has to have some way of resolving disputes that will gain a majority consensus in society. There would be no need for courts or arbitrators if everyone were omniscient and knew instantaneously which persons were guilty of any given crime or violation of contract. Since none of us is omniscient, there has to be some method of deciding who is the criminal or lawbreaker which will gain legitimacy; in short, whose decision will be accepted by the great majority of the public. https://mises.org/library/society-without-state https://mises.org/library/society-without-state (Note: not defending this stuff, just pointing it out for sake of discussion). Elsewhere someone pointed out the book "Anarchy, State, and Utopia" which has a better overview of what libertarians believe in. Which is a "night-watchman" state, a minimalist government which includes courts, police, and border control. https://www.amazon.com/Anarchy-State-Utopia-Robert-Nozick/dp/0465051006/ https://www.amazon.com/Anarchy-State-Utopia-Robert-Nozick/dp...

jwatte 10y ago

No, but there are libertarians who believe that risk mitigation skills never be required up front, no matter how unable the party at fault would be to restore whatever was lost. (Note: Some things cannot be restored at all; lives and disability being the obvious cases) The point of government is to mitigate external and unacceptable risks, and we have grown this system based on experience over hundreds of years. Some super free market types seem to argue that we should throw all that away and then institute systems that, over time, will just reinvent the same things. My guess is they believe they will personally come out on top during the reset period through whatever strength/privilege they inhabit.

acdha 10y ago

There are many who view contacts as a holy right but would also allow you to sign away anything in a contract – so if you accepted a EULA which makes it hard to sue, it's your fault. There's a certain consistency to that position but it completely ignores the scale of the power differential.