Libertarians and property

[PrimalToker]

There is always a single arbiter. Each party consents to the arbiter instead of being forced by the government monopoly.

To play devil's advocate, isn't that effectively what we currently have?

Granted, we are all born in a country (government) that we didn't voluntarily choose. But thereafter, if the country allows us to emigrate to another country, we can eventually do so.

Isn't that sort of like voluntarily choosing an arbiter (government)? There aren't an infinite number of choices of arbiter, but there is a choice, right?

I'm not necessarily taking a hard position here. Just asking questions and engaging in discussion.

That is correct, that is why us peasants in the US pay our rents to the landlords aka property taxes. What happens if you don't pay property tax? You get evicted. It's rent you pay to the landlord government. We're basically communist with no land ownership, moving from master to master is not freedom.

[PrimalToker]

A while back, tech threw out the idea of title insurance backed by private security.

I found that intriguing.

A service provided by the group you're a member of...paying your fee to get what you want voluntarily. Instead of by force and with no choice in company to provide the insurance or security (government).

[doodle]

So wouldn't that single arbiter then in fact have a monopoly on the use of force and be in essence the government? Why would I consent to their decision if it didn't fall in my favor and what consequences would they be able to bring against me if I ignored them?

The single arbiter was appointed by the monopoly of force, the market. You would consent because even if not in your favor it would be the fair. If you fail to adhere to the decision you would be given a scarlet letter by the market. You backed out of your contract. I wouldn't do business with a liar, would you?

We aren't doing business...we are having a property dispute. Who is lying and who is telling the truth is up for debate. What if I don't care what's fair? Are you presupposing that all humans are rational ethical actors?

I haven’t noticed any shootouts between the Brinks and the Loomis.

Isn't that because if a dispute arose between them they would have recourse with the monopoly holder of force? They dont have to solve the problem by using force between them because they have a larger entity to appeal to...the government and our legal system. If you remove that don't we in essence just have the same anarchy that we have on the world stage? When Germany and Poland weren't agreeing over land I guess they could have both appealed to league of nations but ultimately Germany just decided to roll out the panzers and take what they felt was theirs.

[PrimalToker]

A while back, tech threw out the idea of title insurance backed by private security.

I found that intriguing.

I don't understand the private security thing...can anyone with the means have their own private security force? So are there competing private security companies or is there one company that has a monopoly to use force?

Anyone can start lots of different businesses why would security be different? There would be competition just like any other business. Their monopoly of force would only be over their own property and their members by consent.

[doodle]

A while back, tech threw out the idea of title insurance backed by private security.

I found that intriguing.

I don't understand the private security thing...can anyone with the means have their own private security force? So are there competing private security companies or is there one company that has a monopoly to use force?

Anyone can start lots of different businesses why would security be different? There would be competition just like any other business. Their monopoly of force would only be over their own property and their members by consent.

So what's to keep my better funded and equipped security force from just overrunning a less worthy competitor? In the case of a property dispute would that not just default back to law of the jungle?

[PrimalToker]

So wouldn't that single arbiter then in fact have a monopoly on the use of force and be in essence the government? Why would I consent to their decision if it didn't fall in my favor and what consequences would they be able to bring against me if I ignored them?

The single arbiter was appointed by the monopoly of force, the market. You would consent because even if not in your favor it would be the fair. If you fail to adhere to the decision you would be given a scarlet letter by the market. You backed out of your contract. I wouldn't do business with a liar, would you?

We aren't doing business...we are having a property dispute. Who is lying and who is telling the truth is up for debate. What if I don't care what's fair? Are you presupposing that all humans are rational ethical actors?

Life is business, a contract dispute over property counts. People wouldn't want to enter into a contract with someone that breaks their word when they don't get what they want, you would lose respect of your peers. Peer pressure or honor would force your compliance so you're not shunned from the marketplace.

[doodle]

The United States has been using it's military all over the globe to get what it wants essentially. They make and break treaties, push their weight around, bomb people that they might have disagreements with. Why would having private militaries change this aspect of human behavior? We abhor the idea of contractually limiting the power of our military to UN treaties. Why would anyone think that people would come together and do this in a libertarian society? The United States isn't reviled...people still want to come here to live, visit here, own dollars, etc etc

[PrimalToker]

A while back, tech threw out the idea of title insurance backed by private security.

I found that intriguing.

I don't understand the private security thing...can anyone with the means have their own private security force? So are there competing private security companies or is there one company that has a monopoly to use force?

Anyone can start lots of different businesses why would security be different? There would be competition just like any other business. Their monopoly of force would only be over their own property and their members by consent.

So what's to keep my better funded and equipped security force from just overrunning a less worthy competitor? In the case of a property dispute would that not just default back to law of the jungle?

It would be cheaper to buy them out than go to war. A free market monopoly isn't a bad thing, it means they provide the best value that no competitor can beat. Certain places when efficiency is maximized there will be no more competition because its cheaper to have a monopoly even for consumers.

[PrimalToker]

The United States has been using it's military all over the globe to get what it wants essentially. They make and break treaties, push their weight around, bomb people that they might have disagreements with. Why would having private militaries change this aspect of human behavior? We abhor the idea of contractually limiting the power of our military to UN treaties. Why would anyone think that people would come together and do this in a libertarian society? The United States isn't reviled...people still want to come here to live, visit here, own dollars, etc etc

I thought this is about contract disputes and arbiters. or I suppose you can hijack your own thread into an anti libertarian rant if you want lol

[doodle]

The United States has been using it's military all over the globe to get what it wants essentially. They make and break treaties, push their weight around, bomb people that they might have disagreements with. Why would having private militaries change this aspect of human behavior? We abhor the idea of contractually limiting the power of our military to UN treaties. Why would anyone think that people would come together and do this in a libertarian society? The United States isn't reviled...people still want to come here to live, visit here, own dollars, etc etc

I thought this is about contract disputes and arbiters. or I suppose you can hijack your own thread into an anti libertarian rant if you want lol

I don't understand. Is the UN not a voluntary forum where nation's create contracts (treaties)? Does it not attempt to arbitrate disputes between nation's? Isn't it a good example of what you are trying to create?

[doodle]

A while back, tech threw out the idea of title insurance backed by private security.

I found that intriguing.

I don't understand the private security thing...can anyone with the means have their own private security force? So are there competing private security companies or is there one company that has a monopoly to use force?

Anyone can start lots of different businesses why would security be different? There would be competition just like any other business. Their monopoly of force would only be over their own property and their members by consent.

So what's to keep my better funded and equipped security force from just overrunning a less worthy competitor? In the case of a property dispute would that not just default back to law of the jungle?

It would be cheaper to buy them out than go to war. A free market monopoly isn't a bad thing, it means they provide the best value that no competitor can beat. Certain places when efficiency is maximized there will be no more competition because its cheaper to have a monopoly even for consumers.

I'm confused...so we're back to monopoly on force? How is this private security force then different from the government except that it's not subject to the will of the people?

It's better to have a private security force rather than one beholden to the public?

[Mark Leavy]

Why post hypotheticals?

Private arbitration and private security are both common and widespread and have a high trust value. Today.

Look at the record.

[Mark Leavy]

Why post hypotheticals?

Private arbitration and private security are both common and widespread and have a high trust value. Today.

Look at the record.

[doodle]

Why post hypotheticals?

Private arbitration and private security are both common and widespread and have a high trust value. Today.

Look at the record.

Yes but they are layered on top of a publically accountable government that holds monopoly on force. You can't just remove the foundation from a house and expect the floors and windows to still stay level.

[doodle]

You can't remove a key feature of a system and expect everything else to remain the same.

[doodle]

I don't understand how what you're proposing is any different from the arbitration that was attempted prior to world war 2 with Hitler....except instead of the conflict playing out between nations on an international stage, it would take place between individuals or smaller groups and their private warring security forces. It seems like you just want to subdivide the united states into 300 million sovereign nations.

[Mark Leavy]

I’m proposing a system that is active and working today.

Businesses call Brinks when they want to move cash.

Private Arbitration is the gold standard for justice.

These systems are the default for serious business especially in corrupt countries. Not just the US.

There is history throughout the world in every scenario you can speculate. No need to foment concern.

[doodle]

I’m proposing a system that is active and working today.

Businesses call Brinks when they want to move cash.

Private Arbitration is the gold standard for justice.

These systems are the default for serious business especially in corrupt countries. Not just the US.

There is history throughout the world in every scenario you can speculate. No need to foment concern.

Those are nice...arbitration is great but somewhere along the line there must be enforcement. You are saying you would prefer that enforcement come at the hands of some private entity rather than a publically accountable government?

[Mark Leavy]

I’m proposing a system that is active and working today.

Businesses call Brinks when they want to move cash.

Private Arbitration is the gold standard for justice.

These systems are the default for serious business especially in corrupt countries. Not just the US.

There is history throughout the world in every scenario you can speculate. No need to foment concern.

Those are nice...arbitration is great but somewhere along the line there must be enforcement. You are saying you would prefer that enforcement come at the hands of some private entity rather than a publically accountable government?

Private enterprises are publicly accountable. Have you not heard of Tiffanay’s or Yelp or Brinks or Loomis?

[Mark Leavy]

I was in Laos one time talking to a gal lamenting capitalism.

She was on her way to the black market to exchange some dollars.

She was cute and young so I didn’t point out the obvious.

[doodle]

I’m proposing a system that is active and working today.

Businesses call Brinks when they want to move cash.

Private Arbitration is the gold standard for justice.

These systems are the default for serious business especially in corrupt countries. Not just the US.

There is history throughout the world in every scenario you can speculate. No need to foment concern.

Those are nice...arbitration is great but somewhere along the line there must be enforcement. You are saying you would prefer that enforcement come at the hands of some private entity rather than a publically accountable government?

Private enterprises are publicly accountable. Have you not heard of Tiffanay’s or Yelp or Brinks or Loomis?

Yelp? That is going to be your enforcement mechanism to keep everyone in line?

If I can create my own private title company and print me up a title to your land and then enforce that title with my own private title security force I'm not really sure how Yelp is going to help.

Brinks and Loomis transport money. They don't have their own legal systems with courts and judges and jails...is that what youre proposing? I break into a brinks truck and steal money. How is that adjudicated? Does Brinks get to do with me what they please if they catch me?

[Mark Leavy]

I break into a brinks truck and steal money. How is that adjudicated? Does Brinks get to do with me what they please if they catch me?

You’re a funny man, doodle. I suggest you try it.

[doodle]

I break into a brinks truck and steal money. How is that adjudicated? Does Brinks get to do with me what they please if they catch me?

You’re a funny man, doodle. I suggest you try it.

So they knock on my door and say, we think you may have our money. And I say I don't. What comes next for me? This is getting exciting!

[doodle]

Do they give me a bad review on Yelp?

[Mark Leavy]

Doodle, you are clearly a man of intellect and provenance.

I think Madagascar is ripe for plundering. The government is corrupt. Nothing but private security protecting private property.

You're my man. I'll back you ten cents on the dollar. Bring home the bacon!

Mark