2 ms·

(Note, I'm not dismissing libertarianism, I just want to understand this idea) I understand the public services part of the idea, but the public services is no

by tinco 13y ago

(Note, I'm not dismissing libertarianism, I just want to understand this idea) I understand the public services part of the idea, but the public services is not what I hear libertarians complain about. What I hear complains about are the public restrictions, and their enforcements. Suppose I live in Birmingham Alabama, and I do not want to be mugged. I would want to subscribe to the restaurant that offers me protection from muggers. But these muggers are smart, they subscribe to the restaurant that do not do anything to muggers. What happens now? Will my restaurant use force to protect me from them, infringing on the rights of the muggers? Or will they simply not be able to offer such a service? The result of that would be that a mugger simply is an outcast as no restaurant would openly service muggers?

baddox 13y ago
> But these muggers are smart, they subscribe to the restaurant that do not do anything to muggers. What happens now? That's a very common and intelligent question that immediately gets raised. I believe that such a restaurant would not exist, at least for very long. Assume that it does exist. Firstly, every customer of that restaurant is also vulnerable to being mugged without consequence, which many muggers might quickly realize is not ideal. Secondly, every other restaurant would probably use force to protect its customers from the muggers, like you ask here: > Will my restaurant use force to protect me from them, infringing on the rights of the muggers? I don't tend to use the concept of "rights" in my arguments, but if you please, then yes, the anti-mugger restaurants would infringe on the right of the mugger to mug people. > The result of that would be that a mugger simply is an outcast as no restaurant would openly service muggers? Restaurants would probably service people who have mugged, but not in the sense that they would enable the mugger to mug. Perhaps a serial and unrepentant mugger would eventually be completely outcast, but more likely, they would receive punishment for mugging and either stop mugging or suffer lots of punishment (e.g. forced reparation or imprisonment). That brings up the notion of prisons in a polycentric legal system, which is another big subtopic. But in short, I do think that prisons could and would exist in such a system.

by tinco 13y ago

baddox 13y ago

> But these muggers are smart, they subscribe to the restaurant that do not do anything to muggers. What happens now? That's a very common and intelligent question that immediately gets raised. I believe that such a restaurant would not exist, at least for very long. Assume that it does exist. Firstly, every customer of that restaurant is also vulnerable to being mugged without consequence, which many muggers might quickly realize is not ideal. Secondly, every other restaurant would probably use force to protect its customers from the muggers, like you ask here: > Will my restaurant use force to protect me from them, infringing on the rights of the muggers? I don't tend to use the concept of "rights" in my arguments, but if you please, then yes, the anti-mugger restaurants would infringe on the right of the mugger to mug people. > The result of that would be that a mugger simply is an outcast as no restaurant would openly service muggers? Restaurants would probably service people who have mugged, but not in the sense that they would enable the mugger to mug. Perhaps a serial and unrepentant mugger would eventually be completely outcast, but more likely, they would receive punishment for mugging and either stop mugging or suffer lots of punishment (e.g. forced reparation or imprisonment). That brings up the notion of prisons in a polycentric legal system, which is another big subtopic. But in short, I do think that prisons could and would exist in such a system.