What pre-conditions/ingredients are needed for a republic and a market economy?

[murphy_p_t]

What pre-conditions/ingredients are needed for a democratic republic and a market economy?

I'll speculate on some necessary ingredients, in no particular order

1 rule of law
2 common world view / religious framework
3 common language
4 stable middle class (this is kind of a chicken/egg thing?)
5 informed / educated populace
6 honesty / integrity in relations
7 dominant, common heritage



My hypothesis is that without the fertile ground of many of the above, the idyllic libertarian world  would not even become a dream.

One point of evidence is that HB was an American who gained many benefits from growing inside the US, which contained many of listed items above, when he grew up.

[Libertarian666]

A market economy does not require a government at all. In fact, any government necessarily interferes with a market economy.

This has been explained very well in Rothbard's "Man, Economy and State".

[moda0306]

A market economy does not require a government at all. In fact, any government necessarily interferes with a market economy.

This has been explained very well in Rothbard's "Man, Economy and State".

I would agree that it would be relatively simple for free people to trade services with each other, but without the state, who decides who holds ownership to the massive amount of natural resources below our feet?

Without natural resources, you have a very, very limited market economy.

Without government, recognition of these resources as one person's vs another's is now up to whoever can lay the most coercive claim on it, and will likely be disagreed upon.  Disagreement about ownership without a final arbiter (government) would likely be hugely damaging to a would-be-effective market economy.

There is really no mechanism for perfect liberty on Earth.  We are all on this rock together, and any claim on resources by one person is a limitation on my freedom and everyone else's.  Put differently, withholding vital resources for somebody else's labor is by its very nature confiscatory and coercive.

[Libertarian666]

A market economy does not require a government at all. In fact, any government necessarily interferes with a market economy.

This has been explained very well in Rothbard's "Man, Economy and State".

I would agree that it would be relatively simple for free people to trade services with each other, but without the state, who decides who holds ownership to the massive amount of natural resources below our feet?

Without natural resources, you have a very, very limited market economy.

Without government, recognition of these resources as one person's vs another's is now up to whoever can lay the most coercive claim on it, and will likely be disagreed upon.  Disagreement about ownership without a final arbiter (government) would likely be hugely damaging to a would-be-effective market economy.

There is really no mechanism for perfect liberty on Earth.  We are all on this rock together, and any claim on resources by one person is a limitation on my freedom and everyone else's.  Put differently, withholding vital resources for somebody else's labor is by its very nature confiscatory and coercive.

That's an interesting argument, but it proves far too much, because government does not solve the problem of coercion; it institutionalizes it. Economically speaking, government is the owner of everything under its control, as it can confiscate anything it wants, or charge the "owner" whatever it wants.

So if the problem of the allocation of natural resources cannot be solved without government, it cannot be solved with government either.

Fortunately, there is a solution to that problem, which is also explained in ME&S: first appropriator of a natural resource (e.g., enclosing a pasture) is the original owner. I'm not claiming this is always easy or simple, but at least it is understandable and non-discriminatory.

[Pointedstick]

Libertarian666 brings up a great point. If it's problematic for everyone to appropriate their own property on the basis of force, then it should be even more problematic for a single entity to appropriate ALL property on the basis of force and then parcel it out according to who it likes the most.

[moda0306]

I am not claiming that government "solves" the problem of natural resources, so much as it has a tendency to solve the problem of us continuing to battle over them and simply get a job and enjoy what we have.

In fact, I think the government recognition of resources as private property, while helpful from a stability standpoint, is unnatural to the degree it's been taken and unfair to the non-beneficiaries of the practice unless there is an equal and opposite allocation of real value to them.  This is how I view the social contract as it exists today... "Fine Mr. Oil Man, you can have that oil, but everyone gets a socia safety net.  Deal?"

And what I'm saying is that beyond some small plot of land big enough to live in a home and maybe raise some crops, there is no "natural" way to define property as someones, especially in the modern era, where people lay clame to vast swaths of land and natural resources.  It's no more theres than it is mine.

And that's a very "convenient" solution to the problem of taking natural resources as your own... "whoever can build a fence around it and grow corn the fastest, it's there's."

Very convenient for those cultures that build fences and grow corn .

Beyond a home-stead (natural as a bird's nest in a tree), I see claiming natural resources as your own to be inherantly coercive and confiscatory, and I really don't think any "well I built a fence!" argument will change that.  It's essentially a property "owner's" way of institutionalizing coercion, but he is king of that institution .

Libertarian666 brings up a great point. If it's problematic for everyone to appropriate their own property on the basis of force, then it should be even more problematic for a single entity to appropriate ALL property on the basis of force and then parcel it out according to who it likes the most.

But what you speak of is essentially what we have.  Our country was essentially built on the government saying "move west and take what you can... on and grow corn and let our railroad through... thanks much!"

Either way, whether decided at the behest of the government or some guy who built a fence around 50 acres of land, private property on the scale it is used today, and would likely be used in any kind of "libertarian utopia," is wholly unnatural and confiscatory in nature.  Unless we're going back to a pre-agriculture economy, some people will win, and be able to trade their winnings for other people's labor so the other people can feed themselves. 

I guess it all comes down to this... We are NOT just entities floating through space.  We're shipwrecked on this island together.  Perfect liberty is impossible.  Any attempt to create it will essentially mean liberty+ for some and coercion for others, with the wonderful side-effects of lower productivity, security, fairness, and prosperity. (last part, of course, is IMHO)

[Pointedstick]

Libertarian666 brings up a great point. If it's problematic for everyone to appropriate their own property on the basis of force, then it should be even more problematic for a single entity to appropriate ALL property on the basis of force and then parcel it out according to who it likes the most.

But what you speak of is essentially what we have.  Our country was essentially built on the government saying "move west and take what you can... on and grow corn and let our railroad through... thanks much!"

Yes, exactly. Maybe what you're saying is that having a government is beneficial because at a certain point, it becomes so powerful that we realize we can't get away with taking things from it, and we settle down and cooperate rather than building fences around our oil fields and. There's merit to this argument... but it presupposes the supremacy of violence over cooperation, saying that cooperation will only emerge once we calculate that violence isn't going to solve our problem. Am I right?

[Libertarian666]

Libertarian666 brings up a great point. If it's problematic for everyone to appropriate their own property on the basis of force, then it should be even more problematic for a single entity to appropriate ALL property on the basis of force and then parcel it out according to who it likes the most.

But what you speak of is essentially what we have.  Our country was essentially built on the government saying "move west and take what you can... on and grow corn and let our railroad through... thanks much!"

Yes, exactly. Maybe what you're saying is that having a government is beneficial because at a certain point, it becomes so powerful that we realize we can't get away with taking things from it, and we settle down and cooperate rather than building fences around our oil fields and. There's merit to this argument... but it presupposes the supremacy of violence over cooperation, saying that cooperation will only emerge once we calculate that violence isn't going to solve our problem. Am I right?

What actually happens is that the government takes from us whatever they want. They generally grow more and more rapacious as their cumulative stealing increases their wealth relative to that of the rest of society. Eventually you wind up with an open dictatorship.

I'd rather take my chances with people who don't have the implied sanction of "sovereign immunity" and a monopoly on massive violence.

[moda0306]

The government stealing our wealth is a bit of a fuzzy concept.  Where does the wealth to?

The government can do either of these things:

- Destroy wealth (war, make work projects that burn fuel)

- Transfer wealth (to either SS recipients or (possibly undeserving) government employees)

- Reform wealth into (hopefully) assets that will facilitate in the creation of even more wealth (roads, military protection, sewer).

The government is not a sentient being. While it has the capacity to be extremely powerful, for the most part, it's accountable to whatever the majority may want to hold it accountable to. And by it I mean the people who run it.

But government can't be rapacious (greedy).  Greed is a desire.  A government can no more have a desire than a tree stump.  The people within government vary in their greed, but I guess I don't see much more now than when government agents would force you at gunpoint to go fight a war if you were a young man. Or government agents who managed the expansion of the US westward in less than peaceful ways.

We should ways look for ways to expand liberty and debate them. However, looking fondly on past roles of government is probably not logically consistent.

[moda0306]

Libertarian666 brings up a great point. If it's problematic for everyone to appropriate their own property on the basis of force, then it should be even more problematic for a single entity to appropriate ALL property on the basis of force and then parcel it out according to who it likes the most.

But what you speak of is essentially what we have.  Our country was essentially built on the government saying "move west and take what you can... on and grow corn and let our railroad through... thanks much!"

Yes, exactly. Maybe what you're saying is that having a government is beneficial because at a certain point, it becomes so powerful that we realize we can't get away with taking things from it, and we settle down and cooperate rather than building fences around our oil fields and. There's merit to this argument... but it presupposes the supremacy of violence over cooperation, saying that cooperation will only emerge once we calculate that violence isn't going to solve our problem. Am I right?

Pretty close I think.  Even I'm not sure where I'm going with this... but I'll repeat one point made in the past.

If our actions within the U.S. were primarily driven by the fear of coercion and not cooperation, we wouldn't flock and pay ungodly rents to live in the most coercively-designed social arenas there are (big cities), and with all the talent and intelligence we have in this country a Galtian utopia would have started on some island somewhere.

We've hit on this in the past, but at some point there's diminishing returns (for most people) beyond a given amount of liberty.  I mean you live in California of all (God-forsaken) places!  There is a degree of cooperation that we give to this, even if we're subject to "inescapable federal powers."  We have so many options, though some still have the creativity and verbosity to make it seem like we're living in a gulag.

But yes there's a lot of things we might feel like we're entitled to that but for the existence of government we don't take from others, even if we had a legitimate right to.  Instead, we just abide by the rules.  However, government, or our social environment, or what have you... does enough good things that we stay.  We don't flee to rural Mississippi to be "free!"

I really see it as a type of symbotic relationship.  I look outside the window in my office and find it utterly asinine to imagine a purely private system handling itself well based on the interactions I see.  Some anarchist might look out and see something totally different, but you know what?  The anarchist still drives, listens to American music, goes biking in his neighborhood, uses the internet, would call the police if he saw someone getting raped, and doesn't try to flee to some bumb-f*ck nowhere place (for the most part... not everyone) to obtain his "freedom."  Our government has an insane amount of power, but as long as 51% of people maintain a semblance of a conscience, bombing our own domestic citizens won't happen due to the political nightmare brought on by people trying to get elected by that 51% of people.  Yeah some cops might beat a guy to within an inch of his life here or an old lady loses her house to the city there, but even so they still stay.  Nobody's forcing them to. And if the government started to try to, there'd be a public outrage, and a mechanism for that outrage to change the way government works.

By no means am I saying "This is 'Merca... if you don't like it get the hell out."  I'm simply stating that the fact that people aren't leaving should tell both the libertarians and the hippies something.  So there may not be a transmission mechanism for one man's plight to change how government works, but when the will of 51% of a generally moral public notices something wrong, changes happen.  So this idea that government will do naturally whatever it wants (even though a government can't "want" anything) misinterprets the nature of the beast. 

[Pointedstick]

Maybe what you're saying is that having a government is beneficial because at a certain point, it becomes so powerful that we realize we can't get away with taking things from it, and we settle down and cooperate rather than building fences around our oil fields and. There's merit to this argument... but it presupposes the supremacy of violence over cooperation, saying that cooperation will only emerge once we calculate that violence isn't going to solve our problem. Am I right?

Pretty close I think.  Even I'm not sure where I'm going with this...

That's what I thought. Let me paste in a passage from The Private Society which you've asked me to write. 


Now, this would not be problematic if the government was populated by enlightened souls with the wisdom to use this power in a manner that furthered the interests of every individual. In the real world, this is never the case. Undemocratic governments acquire leaders primarily from among of those ruthless enough to grab hold of power--the most greedy and violent segments of society--while democratic governments elect lawmakers who are at best average, given that they are chosen by a population who collectively are average by definition.

If the leaders of government are people just like those found in the rest of society, then government's performance will likely be no higher than the rest of the population when organized into other types of groups. And if instead the government's leaders are overrepresented by warlords, thieves, liars, or idiots, then its actions will likely be either less effective, or more detrimental to the host society.

And even if having a violence monopolist were desirable to forestall private violence, it enables government violence on a massive scale. And historically, governments have used their violence monopolies for horrific purposes all the way up to mass murder, genocide, and human medical experimentation. We cannot just sweep this under the rug. It seems implausible that the amount of private violence prevented by governments has not been exceeded many times over by the violence that they have committed against their own citizens and those of other governments.



Regarding the rest of your point, I think you have it backwards: very few people move to NYC or California because they like the governments of those areas; rather, they want the good jobs that are available there and don't mind the government enough to leave (which perhaps is your point).

Personally, I do not see my job as having been either created or enabled by government; rather, it appears to me that government is able to grow larger here due to the fantastic private wealth stream. Someone making 200k (not me, I wish) who pays 60k in taxes still takes home a ridiculously large amount of money. And the government becomes extremely wealthy on all of this tax money. Of course it's going to grow and do more. That doesn't imply that the government had anything at all to do with fostering an environment full of 200k/yr jobs.

There's an analogue to MR here: I think we can both agree that a prosperous enough society that produces large amounts of wealth can sustain a large government without collapsing. But that in no way implies that a large government is a prerequisite of a prosperous society; the causation goes in the opposite direction.

[Pointedstick]

Also, tangentially, if you saw someone being raped, wouldn't you rush to help? I know that's what I'd be doing. Someone already on the scene beats a faraway cop any day of the week.

[moda0306]

PS,

I see the government as facilitating the creation of vast amounts of wealth, and then, obviously, having the ability to grow as a result of great wealth creation.  It's a back-and-forth that's been going on since the first societies developed within cave-man communities.  Security and organization beget production, and vice-versa.

Production does indeed come before government, though.  Totally agreed.  But $14 Trillion of GDP doesn't just come before government.... just enough prodution to feed a small government, which facilitates more production, which facilititates a larger government, etc until you grow this economy to $14 Trillion... it's a symbiotic thing.  We could say "the people don't have a choice so it's not symbiotic," but we stay an love it here ... so close enough for my sloppy definition.

However, without any government, I don't think there would be a snowflakes chance in hell for anywhere near the productivity we have today.  Of course, I can't prove this, other than to point at the complete lack of no-government or minescule-government societies in existence that are also economic power-houses, or anywhere close to.

That's why I'd love to see an anarchistic experiment tried on an island somewhere.  I'd love to see the non-governmental quasi-legal and quasi-infrastructural and quasi-policing forces they put into play without those forces essentially being "government" or someone being coerced.

There's an analogue to MR here: I think we can both agree that a prosperous enough society that produces large amounts of wealth can sustain a large government without collapsing. But that in no way implies that a large government is a prerequisite of a prosperous society; the causation goes in the opposite direction.

it can sustain a large government up to a point, but it cannot sustain an ever expanding one without the effect of government intrusion killing the goose that lays the golden egg, large numbers of government employes looking for new areas to meddle in and new things to spend tax dollars on will tend towards waste corruption and incompetence to justify ever bigger budgets and result in loss of liberty's, there is probably a sweet spot after which escalating diminished returns start taking effect,
how to find the sweet spot and freeze governments size, demanding old jobs get finished and old programs disbanded before new ones are allowed is a toughie

[doodle]

Moda,

You express my feelings on this issue much more clearly and creatively than I ever could. I also applaud your willingness to engage in these dialogues because I think if they are approached with an open mind a lot can be learned. Nevertheless, they are taxing and exhausting which is why I have been so silent here in the last month.

When I think of government, I immediately think of my condominium which is a microcosm of the larger society. In order for this group of 100 people living together to function and deal with maintenance, rules violations etc. a board of directors is elected and it is given certain powers to make decisions. While this means that my freedoms are curtailed in certain respects, it makes for a relatively easy and peaceful place to live. In an environment of anarchy, my hunch (based on all the problems and issues I see arise in board meetings) is that this building would be a disorganized mess.

Arguments that a condo government is not the same as the federal government because in the former case I can leave and live somewhere else miss the point entirely which is that anytime you bring people to live together problems and disagreements will arise to which decisions have to be made that will effect everyone. In order for a decison to be made and enforced there must be some coercive agent. In our society this coercive agent is comprised of elected officials and formed into an entity called government.

If you dont like government you can move to areas of the country where it is less prevalent just as I can move from a condo to a rural neighborhood. Nevertheless, although I can reduce governments involvement in my life I can not escape the fact that I am tied to this planet with 7 billion other people and that somewhere along the line disagreements will arise. These disagreements can be dealt with in one of two ways: might equals right, or some form of government which operates at least based on some commonly held legal principles and codes.

[Pointedstick]

Nevertheless, although I can reduce governments involvement in my life I can not escape the fact that I am tied to this planet with 7 billion other people and that somewhere along the line disagreements will arise. These disagreements can be dealt with in one of two ways: might equals right, or some form of government which operates at least based on some commonly held legal principles and codes.

Your argument is very reasonable, doodle. But I'd like to draw attention to this particular assertion and point out that we never escape "might makes right": that's the only principle that government operates under! A government does not abolish the problem of "might makes right"; it simply sets itself up as the mightiest and thus the strongest, wealthiest, most propertied entity in all of society.

When we set up a government, we empower a group of people whose might automatically wins, thus setting the stage for a conflict over who controls government. Greedy, violent, and rapacious people will find it difficult to resist the lure of such concentrated power over others.

Now, a government monopoly on ultimate violence may be viewed by many as a superior state of affairs to the world of violence on a small, distributed scale, but let's not kid ourselves about the existence of implicit or explicit violence in society. Creating a government to forestall private violence is only accomplished by enabling far greater government violence.

We as Americans have the privilege of living during a time when our government is not very violent to most of us. Most humans living now and throughout history didn't have that luxury. And it wasn’t so very long ago that our own government forced teenagers to murder strangers, developed the most dangerous weapons in history, enforced the buying, selling, and dehumanization of human beings, and accomplished the near-genocide of the natives of our land.

[Benko]

we never escape "might makes right": that's the only principle that government operates under!

Important point. 

Now that might may be in service of "fairness", or it might be applied with the all too usual gov't incompetence. 

[doodle]

we never escape "might makes right": that's the only principle that government operates under!

Important point. 

Now that might may be in service of "fairness", or it might be applied with the all too usual gov't incompetence. 

I like the way that Thoreau describes incompetence in Civil Disobedience. He calls it the "friction" which is inherent to any mechanism. It can be reduced, but never eliminated.

Nevertheless, although I can reduce governments involvement in my life I can not escape the fact that I am tied to this planet with 7 billion other people and that somewhere along the line disagreements will arise. These disagreements can be dealt with in one of two ways: might equals right, or some form of government which operates at least based on some commonly held legal principles and codes.

Your argument is very reasonable, doodle. But I'd like to draw attention to this particular assertion and point out that we never escape "might makes right": that's the only principle that government operates under! A government does not abolish the problem of "might makes right"; it simply sets itself up as the mightiest and thus the strongest, wealthiest, most propertied entity in all of society.

When we set up a government, we empower a group of people whose might automatically wins, thus setting the stage for a conflict over who controls government. Greedy, violent, and rapacious people will find it difficult to resist the lure of such concentrated power over others.

Now, a government monopoly on ultimate violence may be viewed by many as a superior state of affairs to the world of violence on a small, distributed scale, but let's not kid ourselves about the existence of implicit or explicit violence in society. Creating a government to forestall private violence is only accomplished by enabling far greater government violence.

We as Americans have the privilege of living during a time when our government is not very violent to most of us. Most humans living now and throughout history didn't have that luxury. And it wasn’t so very long ago that our own government forced teenagers to murder strangers, developed the most dangerous weapons in history, enforced the buying, selling, and dehumanization of human beings, and accomplished the near-genocide of the natives of our land.

Government is merely an entity comprised of people. Government, doesnt do anything....people do things through the entity of government. If the agents and officers of government refuse to act, then government is powerless. It is not an entity unto itself.

The powerful will always try to find a way to subjugate and take advantage of the weak, they will do this by organizing themelves into groups based on some commonality....color, religion, culture, language etc. Im not saying this is good, but it has been the way we have behaved through history....from Viking Hordes to Germanic Barbarbians. Today we organize ourselves based on the manufactured concept of nationality and organize ourselves based on a market based capitalistic economy. These are the rules of the game that we set for ourselves. They are not somehow universal rules of how humans should live, but a rather present fad. Humans have existed under many different systems of organization. Ours happens to have the advantage that it creates a stable base from which great technological development can take place. Our government rightly or wrongly underpins the stability of this whole wealth creation system by providing and enforcing property rights based on some ideas that happened to appeal to a bunch of wealthy white men during the enlightenment period. You can not remove the keystone of government from this system and still think that the arch that it holds together will remain standing. Who is going to enforce decisions during disputes? Based on what legal code do they make such a decision? Anarchy is fine position to advocate for if you are all for returning to living in caves and beating each other over the heads with clubs. A technologically advanced society of 7 billion people cannot self regulate and organize. My condo association of 100 people is a constant battle to keep people from going at each others throats. Without a board of directors to make decisons, nothing would function. We would just be engaged in endless bickering and no one would have the authority to make a decision.

[doodle]

If we are looking for a society with minimal government, then I think the most reasonable model is something like this.

jeff Grupp is a philosophy prof. At Univ. of Michigan and I believe he coined the term "Thoreavian Self Sufficiency"

Maybe this will Be of interest to some http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uC1EQrCc ... ata_player

[Pointedstick]

doodle, I notice that you keep trying to compare your condo association to a government. But it's not a government. The members of its board of directors don't claim total authority over every decision you make within your condo, nor do they have the power to imprison you, or kill you, or force you to do labor against your will. Nor can they change the terms of your lease without you agreeing to the change. All they can do to you is take from you that which you yourself have given them power over.

There are real, substantive differences here. If governments were like condo associations, I'd probably be a liberal democrat! 

Now, if you wanted to say that the difference is purely a matter of size, and that a condo association that owned all property in the United States would basically be a government, then I wouldn't necessarily disagree with you. But that's just the thing: it's more about the monopoly than it is the authority. If we had many tens of thousands of small government units the size of condo associations, we'd be a lot closer to my idea of a Private Society.

But nobody's suggesting that there be no social organization. We're a social species. We will always desire each other's company, and will therefore always come into conflict over scarcity, regarding space, food, goods, time, you name it. Your condo association is actually a great example of how peaceful people can form organizations that arbitrate conflicts like these without resorting to claiming a monopoly of violence or ownership of everyone's bodies.

[doodle]

doodle, I notice that you keep trying to compare your condo association to a government. But it's not a government. The members of its board of directors don't claim total authority over every decision you make within your condo, nor do they have the power to imprison you, or kill you, or force you to do labor against your will. Nor can they change the terms of your lease without you agreeing to the change. All they can do to you is take from you that which you yourself have given them power over.

There are real, substantive differences here. If governments were like condo associations, I'd probably be a liberal democrat! 

Now, if you wanted to say that the difference is purely a matter of size, and that a condo association that owned all property in the United States would basically be a government, then I wouldn't necessarily disagree with you. But that's just the thing: it's more about the monopoly than it is the authority. If we had many tens of thousands of small government units the size of condo associations, we'd be a lot closer to my idea of a Private Society.

But nobody's suggesting that there be no social organization. We're a social species. We will always desire each other's company, and will therefore always come into conflict over scarcity, regarding space, food, goods, time, you name it. Your condo association is actually a great example of how peaceful people can form organizations that arbitrate conflicts like these without resorting to claiming a monopoly of violence or ownership of everyone's bodies.

Yes, but when my neighbor is beating up his girlfriend I dont call my condo association. At some point, physical coercion must take place if rules are to be enforced. If my condo association evicts someone because they keep trying to set the building on fire and this person refuses to leave, then what? Thats where a higher power has to step in and use coercive measures. Absent government, i guess we could band together as an association and forcibly beat down the residents door and throw him out. As Moda said, we are not free floating independent entities. We are tied together for better or worse to the same limited surface area on this rock. At some point disputes will arise that need to be dealt with. What exactly do you propose to deal with these problems in a non coercive manner? Rules without consequences are merely suggestions...

[doodle]

I dont disagree that one option would be smaller little tribal entities. We've been there before in human history. Societies like that are generally simple...not complex and technologically advanced like ours is today. In all cases where we see great technological and economic development....egypt, india, rome etc... There has been relatively entrenched power structures and government.

[Pointedstick]

Yes, but when my neighbor is beating up his girlfriend I dont call my condo association. At some point, physical coercion must take place if rules are to be enforced. If my condo association evicts someone because they keep trying to set the building on fire and this person refuses to leave, then what? Thats where a higher power has to step in and use coercive measures. Absent government, i guess we could band together as an association and forcibly beat down the residents door and throw him out. As Moda said, we are not free floating independent entities. We are tied together for better or worse to the same limited surface area on this rock. At some point disputes will arise that need to be dealt with. What exactly do you propose to deal with these problems in a non coercive manner? Rules without consequences are merely suggestions...

I suggest that these problems be dealt with in a very much coercive manner: with force. I just advocate that private individuals such as yourself be empowered to carry it out without facing punishment from the powers that be.

After all, what moral difference does it make whether you beat down your neighbor's door and save his girlfriend's life or health or you telephone someone else to do it? He's still left with a broken door and faced with someone forcibly stopping him.

And if you're okay with outsourcing the necessary violence to a third party, why not a private third party? There's no magic behind a policeman kicking down the door. I bet Domestic Violence Prevention International LLC could do just as good a job--probably better, since that's what they're paid exclusively to do and if they do a lousy job, they get sued and can go out of business. In fact, perhaps in the Private Society, your condo association has already entered into a contract with DVPI and paid them to have officers ready for dispatch.

So what's the diff?

[doodle]

Yes, but when my neighbor is beating up his girlfriend I dont call my condo association. At some point, physical coercion must take place if rules are to be enforced. If my condo association evicts someone because they keep trying to set the building on fire and this person refuses to leave, then what? Thats where a higher power has to step in and use coercive measures. Absent government, i guess we could band together as an association and forcibly beat down the residents door and throw him out. As Moda said, we are not free floating independent entities. We are tied together for better or worse to the same limited surface area on this rock. At some point disputes will arise that need to be dealt with. What exactly do you propose to deal with these problems in a non coercive manner? Rules without consequences are merely suggestions...

I suggest that these problems be dealt with in a very much coercive manner: with force. I just advocate that private individuals such as yourself be empowered to carry it out without facing punishment from the powers that be.

After all, what moral difference does it make whether you beat down your neighbor's door and save his girlfriend's life or health or you telephone someone else to do it? He's still left with a broken door and faced with someone forcibly stopping him.

And if you're okay with outsourcing the necessary violence to a third party, why not a private third party? There's no magic behind a policeman kicking down the door. I bet Domestic Violence Prevention International LLC could do just as good a job--probably better, since that's what they're paid exclusively to do and if they do a lousy job, they get sued and can go out of business. In fact, perhaps in the Private Society, your condo association has already entered into a contract with DVPI and paid them to have officers ready for dispatch.

So what's the diff?

Seriously, vigilante justice? That is a recipe for all sorts of disaster

Ok, so we stop the violence and then the process goes to a private court system for adjudication? What happens if I dont recognize the authority of this private court system and they laws they use?

[Pointedstick]

Seriously, vigilante justice? That is a recipe for all sorts of disaster

Ok, so we stop the violence and then the process goes to a private court system for adjudication? What happens if I dont recognize the authority of this private court system and they laws they use?

Why would you need to? The victim needs to be made whole and receive damages. After you've stopped the violence, what happens next doesn't really concern you save for maybe being asked to testify, unless after you stopped the violence, you tied the boyfriend up and tortured him or something. Then you'd also be in hot water!

I find it interesting that you decry "vigilante justice" despite the fact that my example concerned a private entity doing literally the exact same thing you approved of the government entity doing. Your objection to this cannot be moral, so I'm expecting a utilitarian one concerning the importance of preventing "chaos" at all costs. But once we go down that route, I get to make utilitarian arguments of my own weighing the potential benefits of government policing against government-sponsored famine, mass murder, genocide, human experimentation, etc.

[doodle]

Yes, but who is going to enforce that those damages are paid? And what if we are talking murder? So your private court system that I dont recognize just condemned me to life in prison....how are you going to enforce that? At some point in time the club must come out. Either you get the Russian Mafia to enforce rules, or some sort of government. I know which one I would prefer.