sjs@u1100s.UUCP (Stan Switzer) (03/11/85)
Once upon a time in a Liberteria far, far away: In article <820@oliven.UUCP> danw@oliven.UUCP (danw) writes: > The concept of private police is a central piece of Libertarian ideology. . . . > -> Item : There are no laws , as we are familiar with them, at present. > In a Libertarian Free State (LFS) there is no LAW against burglary. > If a person breaks into my house, steals my TV, and is later apprehended, > he will NOT be charged with first or second degree burglary. ( The law book > is NOT the injured party here. I am.) > My renta-pig agency will provide detective and incarceration services > (or subcontract with those who do). These services are not provided free. > My basic monthly fee and insurance policy will cover these things. However, > we all benefit from passing costs onto the criminal. > As a result, the person > who initiated the use of force ( stole my TV) finds himself as a defendant > charged with causing perhaps 20 or 30 thousand dollars worth of damage. > Police, lawyers, judges, insurance agents, and me, all want a piece > of this guy. > If he looses the case, there will be a large judgment to pay. -> Please note > the taxpayers do not subsidize the process in any way. <- > Me, my insurance company , and my renta-pig company have > petitioned the court to > hear our case ( we have posted a performance bond , so the court will get > its fee no mater what happens). . . . > The renta-pig agency MUST carry MASSIVE insurance policies ( similar > to medical malpractice insurance) to guard against losing false imprisonment > and brutality cases. . . . > >Suppose I owe you $1,000 and refuse to pay. You decide to use > >force to collect your debt, so you send your police to my house to > >force me to pay up. They are met by a squad of MY police who > >say that they do not recognize the legitimacy of your claim. > > >Result: gang warfare. > > No. > > The result is you would be informed (politely) that they (your > renta-pig agency ) do NOT do windows, OR collect bad debts. > > danw And they all lived happily ever after. But seriously, what's the difference between: 1) Paying taxes. 2) Paying for loads of "social insurance." 3) Paying for protection from the mob. Another question: The concept that "the Law is the injured party" is a very useful one, and one which we tend to forget. Ask Joseph K. what it is like without a codified system of Law. (See Franz Kafka: _The_Castle_, _The_Trial_) Exactly how does a court make its decisions without a system of Law? Another question: Do libertarian dictionaries contain the word "corruption?" Still another question: Really what we have is a layered system of laws. At the top we have the detailed "code and regulation" level of law. Below that we have a level of law dealing with "principles" of law. Below that we have the law of human nature. This is known as the "law of the jungle." Ideally a government should be an instrument of the Law, and not the converse. I see an unfortunate reversal taking place. The government should administrate the "code and regulation" level of the law, in order to best carry out the principles of the Law. This is what Constitutionalism is all about. The current U.S. system is not perfect, and it is getting worse and worse as time goes by. I fully expect to see a MAJOR change in our system of government within my lifetime (if I live that long :-). But the Libertarians seem to want to throw the baby out with the bath-water. Somewhere between "Big Brother" and "Law of the jungle" there has to be a middle ground. Why can't anyone understand that? Yet still another question: People WILL organize. Period. It might be well nigh impossible to avoid being a member of such an organization. Indeed, the local "organization" might look _highly_unfavorably_ on those who do not support them. I really do not see the situation as being different from that in international affairs (or the "Families," for that matter), and can easily see Liberteria degenerate into a feudal system of fiefdoms. How do we get around the basic human weakness of "us or them?" Really the problem is just this: A free society cannot operate well unless people are willing and able to treat others as good neighbors. This means among other things: 1) People have to be willing to help each other out in a pinch. 2) People have to be able to work for the common good, where such, in fact, exists. Public works are an obvious example. I think that police might be another good example. The common defense is also another good example. 3) People have to be able to mind their own business. This, too, is perhaps a fairy tale, but it is the truth nonetheless. In the rare cases where a group of people can follow this set of guidelines they can be truly free. In all other cases, there are compromises. A final question: Which compromises are you willing to make? ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Stan Switzer | "Much to my surprise / When I opened my eyes ihnp4!u1100s!sjs | I was a victim / Of the great compromise" - John Prine
nrh@inmet.UUCP (03/17/85)
>***** inmet:net.politics / u1100s!whu / 4:54 am Mar 14, 1985 >But seriously, what's the difference between: > 1) Paying taxes. > 2) Paying for loads of "social insurance." > 3) Paying for protection from the mob. If you pay taxes or pay "protection" to the mob, you're dealing with people who have relatively little incentive to make you a satisfied customer. If you deal with competing social insurance agencies, they have to make you happy, or at least make you think you're better off dealing with them than trying someone else, or going on your own, or they go out of business. >Another question: > The concept that "the Law is the injured party" is a very useful one, > and one which we tend to forget. Ask Joseph K. what it is like without > a codified system of Law. (See Franz Kafka: _The_Castle_, _The_Trial_) > Exactly how does a court make its decisions without a system of Law? I refer you to "The Machinery of Freedom", by David Friedman. There's a chapter called (from memory here) "Police and Courts -- in the Market" that explains this sort of thing. In essence, courts reach verdicts according to what system(s) of justice they choose to represent, just as gas stations vend gas according to what brand(s) they represent. You subscribe to a court, or justice system, according to what principles strike you as important: "Do they believe capital punishment is a valid punishment?" for example. In their own interest, such outfits form agreements to adjudicate among themselves (if, for example, you believe in capital punishment and someone (subscribing to a justice system that does not) killed you, the case of your murderer might be tried in a third court that the two justice providers had agreed, in general, to use in such cases. >Another question: > Do libertarian dictionaries contain the word "corruption?" Sure! In fact, one of the (many) reasons people become libertarians is that they see the effect of artificially large amounts of power in the hands of government officials, and realize that no private form of power is so great, so public, and so corrupting. >Still another question: >... > The current U.S. system is not > perfect, and it is getting worse and worse as time goes by. > I fully expect to see a MAJOR change in our system of government > within my lifetime (if I live that long :-). But the Libertarians > seem to want to throw the baby out with the bath-water. Somewhere > between "Big Brother" and "Law of the jungle" there has to be a > middle ground. Why can't anyone understand that? > I don't think all libertarians would strike you this way. For example, David Friedman, the author of the book mentioned above, has argued that the sensible thing to do is to deregulated clusters of things that are among the MOST obvious, let people get used to that, and then go on to deregulate more and more AS IT BECOMES CLEAR that deregulation is, in itself, a good thing. We aren't really suggesting the "Law of the jungle". Private police in a society with much more opportunity for the poor than we have now would hardly strike people as the "Law of the jungle". >Yet still another question: > People WILL organize. Period. It might be well nigh impossible to > avoid being a member of such an organization. Indeed, the local > "organization" might look _highly_unfavorably_ on those who do not > support them. I really do not see the situation as being different > from that in international affairs (or the "Families," for that matter), > and can easily see Liberteria degenerate into a feudal system of > fiefdoms. How do we get around the basic human weakness > of "us or them?" Certainly people will organize. The idea is to put in place a society which prevents any organization from getting the ultimate upper hand. At the moment, the government pretty much has the ultimate upper hand, or haven't you ever dealt with the IRS. >Really the problem is just this: > A free society cannot operate well unless people are willing and > able to treat others as good neighbors. This means among other > things: > > 1) People have to be willing to help each other out in a pinch. > > 2) People have to be able to work for the common good, where such, > in fact, exists. Public works are an obvious example. I think > that police might be another good example. The common defense > is also another good example. > > 3) People have to be able to mind their own business. > >This, too, is perhaps a fairy tale, but it is the truth nonetheless. >In the rare cases where a group of people can follow this set of guidelines >they can be truly free. In all other cases, there are compromises. > >A final question: > Which compromises are you willing to make? In the framework of your question, there's one REALLY big compromise that is asked a person "immigrating" to Libertaria -- he or she has to give up the right to force others to live as they wish. This is a right we have (and exercise) now, via electing representatives who tell us how to spend our money, whom we may sleep with, and how to treat each other.