6 ms·

So if some group decided I was a criminal by their standards (say if I insulted them on the street, or something), they could come to my home in the night and s

So if some group decided I was a criminal by their standards (say if I insulted them on the street, or something), they could come to my home in the night and summarily execute me?

aaronem 13y ago
Your common or garden libertarian will construct all manner of complex arguments as to how that isn't so, but there's really nothing in the philosophy which forbids it.
- baddox 13y ago
  You're right. Proponents of polycentric law don't claim that something fundamentally forbids this from happening. But the same goes for proponents of centralized (government) law. What needs to be analyzed is which system makes this more likely to happen.
  - res0nat0r 13y ago
    Ask Somalia.
    - baddox 13y ago
      I'm no expert on recent Somalian history, but I have heard people suggest that Somalia improved during its period of "anarchy," while others contend that it wasn't really anarchy, but rather a battleground of neighboring states and factions battling to be the "one government." Also, Somalia's government before it failed in 1991 was a military dictatorship; hardly something even most advocates of government would advocate. http://www.independent.org/newsroom/article.asp?id=1880 http://www.independent.org/newsroom/article.asp?id=1880
      - res0nat0r 13y ago
        Feel free to list your choice of countries without any government and we will see what their quality of life ranking is vs. standard countries with functional government. Here is a handy chart: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_inequality-adjusted_HDI http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_inequality...
        baddox 13y ago
        Which of those countries doesn't have a government? And which of those countries has a society like what I'm advocating? Note that I'm not simply advocating that we have anything so long as it's not government. I'm advocating a specific alternative to government.
        res0nat0r 13y ago
        Any examples of countries worth moving to that have these alternatives? Or is this really just a pipe dream?
        baddox 13y ago
        Do you have any examples of countries where there is no murder? Would you prefer to live in a country with no murder? You're claiming that no improvements can be made to a society that haven't already been tried in some other society. This is an absurd claim.
        res0nat0r 13y ago
        > Do you have any examples of countries where there is no murder? No, because there aren't any. I'm asking for actual evidence that there is a current place where this libertarian ideal exists, and is better than the government we already have in place here in the USA. If you don't have any examples then it is still just internet fantasy talk and not of much use.
- quadlock 13y ago
  Wow! That's one of the two basic things. "reject the use of force or fraud to compel others except in response to force or fraud."
  - arg01 13y ago
    Yes that's great if everyone abides by your philosophy. But if we're doing that and expecting others to abide by it why is the statement not just "reject the use of force or fraud to compel others". The whole catch 22 is there is no central authority to enforce the philosophy unless you're expecting people to be angels but then you could say something similar about communism being a better system.
    - mpyne 13y ago
      And of course, "expecting people to be angels" is what led to $4.3 million worth of Bitcoin being stolen from a bunch of suckers by a con artist.
    - quadlock 13y ago
      Libertarians don't expect other to abide by it. Enforcing non-initiatory use of force and fraud is one of the legitimate purposes of the government.
      - arg01 13y ago
        I'm sorry I misread what you were saying as the thread came from one saying government control of force is not rquired as an open market on force is an alternative. I find a libertarian position much more defensible (at least as something that doesn't implode) with a caveat that there is some form of monopoly on force that is external to the market.
- tinco 13y ago
  .. so their answer to a single central government is a multitude of smaller governments? How is that better?
  - logicchains 13y ago
    Because it's much easier to move if your government sucks?
  - Woben 13y ago
    They don't want a multitude of smaller governments they want corporations. corporations with no regulation or oversight other then "If you don't like them don't buy from them! they'll go away really!"
justinpombrio 13y ago
Couldn't they do that as things stand now? Your only protection is that they would not do so for fear of reprisal from the state. Perhaps it could be similarly effective to rely on fear of reprisal from other vigilante groups.
- mpyne 13y ago
  Which other vigilante groups would engage in reprisal though? A theory of deterrence (via punishment) requires a credible threat to retaliate and the means to do so. When you don't even know whether there is another group(s) trying to deter you it's that much less clear whether you should refrain from that action or not. Even when you can identify a threat vigilante group, would they really start a war with your group over a single person? Just as in international politics, the answer is not obviously yes.
baddox 13y ago
Right now, there is one group that can decide you are a criminal by their standards. It's a group that you have virtually no control over, and it's funded via force.
- ewoodrich 13y ago
  Exactly. I only have to worry about being declared a criminal by one rather than [arbitrary number] of groups that I have literally no control over.
  - baddox 13y ago
    You would have much more control over a competitive market of groups. Your claim is like saying that you'd rather there only be a single restaurant available rather than a group of restaurants, because then you only have to worry about one restaurant poisoning you or otherwise providing bad service.
    - ceejayoz 13y ago
      > You would have much more control over a competitive market of groups. I'm sorry, a competitive market of private organizations trying to lynch me gives me control... how?
      - baddox 13y ago
        In informal language, the market chooses winners and losers by "voting with their dollars." Obviously, no single individual has absolute control over any aspect of society in either system.
        mden 13y ago
        I'm not sure I understand how that gives you personally more control. It seems to give more control to whoever wants to hurt you as he is the one purchasing the services. So with one body of force, I only need to worry about them coming after me, but with multiple bodies, I have less control as any one of them can come after me (even worse, without my knowledge of their existence in the first place). What am I missing?

So if some group decided I was a criminal by their standards (say if I insulted them on the street, or something), they could come to my home in the night and summarily execute me?

aaronem 13y ago

Your common or garden libertarian will construct all manner of complex arguments as to how that isn't so, but there's really nothing in the philosophy which forbids it.

baddox 13y ago
You're right. Proponents of polycentric law don't claim that something fundamentally forbids this from happening. But the same goes for proponents of centralized (government) law. What needs to be analyzed is which system makes this more likely to happen.
- res0nat0r 13y ago
  Ask Somalia.
  - baddox 13y ago
    I'm no expert on recent Somalian history, but I have heard people suggest that Somalia improved during its period of "anarchy," while others contend that it wasn't really anarchy, but rather a battleground of neighboring states and factions battling to be the "one government." Also, Somalia's government before it failed in 1991 was a military dictatorship; hardly something even most advocates of government would advocate. http://www.independent.org/newsroom/article.asp?id=1880 http://www.independent.org/newsroom/article.asp?id=1880
    - res0nat0r 13y ago
      Feel free to list your choice of countries without any government and we will see what their quality of life ranking is vs. standard countries with functional government. Here is a handy chart: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_inequality-adjusted_HDI http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_inequality...
      - baddox 13y ago
        Which of those countries doesn't have a government? And which of those countries has a society like what I'm advocating? Note that I'm not simply advocating that we have anything so long as it's not government. I'm advocating a specific alternative to government.
        res0nat0r 13y ago
        Any examples of countries worth moving to that have these alternatives? Or is this really just a pipe dream?
        baddox 13y ago
        Do you have any examples of countries where there is no murder? Would you prefer to live in a country with no murder? You're claiming that no improvements can be made to a society that haven't already been tried in some other society. This is an absurd claim.
        res0nat0r 13y ago
        > Do you have any examples of countries where there is no murder? No, because there aren't any. I'm asking for actual evidence that there is a current place where this libertarian ideal exists, and is better than the government we already have in place here in the USA. If you don't have any examples then it is still just internet fantasy talk and not of much use.
quadlock 13y ago
Wow! That's one of the two basic things. "reject the use of force or fraud to compel others except in response to force or fraud."
- arg01 13y ago
  Yes that's great if everyone abides by your philosophy. But if we're doing that and expecting others to abide by it why is the statement not just "reject the use of force or fraud to compel others". The whole catch 22 is there is no central authority to enforce the philosophy unless you're expecting people to be angels but then you could say something similar about communism being a better system.
  - mpyne 13y ago
    And of course, "expecting people to be angels" is what led to $4.3 million worth of Bitcoin being stolen from a bunch of suckers by a con artist.
  - quadlock 13y ago
    Libertarians don't expect other to abide by it. Enforcing non-initiatory use of force and fraud is one of the legitimate purposes of the government.
    - arg01 13y ago
      I'm sorry I misread what you were saying as the thread came from one saying government control of force is not rquired as an open market on force is an alternative. I find a libertarian position much more defensible (at least as something that doesn't implode) with a caveat that there is some form of monopoly on force that is external to the market.
tinco 13y ago
.. so their answer to a single central government is a multitude of smaller governments? How is that better?
- logicchains 13y ago
  Because it's much easier to move if your government sucks?
- Woben 13y ago
  They don't want a multitude of smaller governments they want corporations. corporations with no regulation or oversight other then "If you don't like them don't buy from them! they'll go away really!"

justinpombrio 13y ago

Couldn't they do that as things stand now? Your only protection is that they would not do so for fear of reprisal from the state. Perhaps it could be similarly effective to rely on fear of reprisal from other vigilante groups.

mpyne 13y ago
Which other vigilante groups would engage in reprisal though? A theory of deterrence (via punishment) requires a credible threat to retaliate and the means to do so. When you don't even know whether there is another group(s) trying to deter you it's that much less clear whether you should refrain from that action or not. Even when you can identify a threat vigilante group, would they really start a war with your group over a single person? Just as in international politics, the answer is not obviously yes.

baddox 13y ago

Right now, there is one group that can decide you are a criminal by their standards. It's a group that you have virtually no control over, and it's funded via force.

ewoodrich 13y ago
Exactly. I only have to worry about being declared a criminal by one rather than [arbitrary number] of groups that I have literally no control over.
- baddox 13y ago
  You would have much more control over a competitive market of groups. Your claim is like saying that you'd rather there only be a single restaurant available rather than a group of restaurants, because then you only have to worry about one restaurant poisoning you or otherwise providing bad service.
  - ceejayoz 13y ago
    > You would have much more control over a competitive market of groups. I'm sorry, a competitive market of private organizations trying to lynch me gives me control... how?
    - baddox 13y ago
      In informal language, the market chooses winners and losers by "voting with their dollars." Obviously, no single individual has absolute control over any aspect of society in either system.
      - mden 13y ago
        I'm not sure I understand how that gives you personally more control. It seems to give more control to whoever wants to hurt you as he is the one purchasing the services. So with one body of force, I only need to worry about them coming after me, but with multiple bodies, I have less control as any one of them can come after me (even worse, without my knowledge of their existence in the first place). What am I missing?