Lawsuits? Libertarians haz lawyers in paradise? Wouldn't that require dependency upon a state?
No.
Without state control, lawyers would predominantly work for insurance companies by assessing and negotiating claims --- much like your insurance broker acts now. There is no need for a state. Anybody can threaten violence and usually that is how things are in reality.
Lawyers who argue the best and win the most cases get the most demand.
Cases can be negotiated in private courts just like they can be now. You choose how you want your claims to be settled through your life or property insurance company.
Private courts? Please explain.
What if the entity your claim is against refuses to settle with your conditions and demands? Or, you refuse their conditions and demands?
Please explain your position first. Do any of yous drive cars? Own property? Do you drive with insurance? Do you own insurance? Do you have any idea what your insurance policy states? Do you choose your policy yourself? Did you read the fine print before you signed?
My insurance broker calling your broker: "Hey! Your client crashed into my client's car. Here is the dash-cam video. Your client is at fault. How do you want to settle this? In the public court of opinion or privately here on the telephone????"
Your broker to my broker: "How much is the damage?"
Need I explain more?
Quote:
Originally Posted by godfry n. glad
What if the entity your claim is against refuses to settle with your conditions and demands?
It gets posted on FaceBook.
Quote:
Originally Posted by godfry n. glad
Or, you refuse their conditions and demands?
Your insurance carrier drops you as a client and sends goons dressed up as Political ScapeGoat Du Jour in the middle of the night to enforce it.
With freedom, comes creativity.
Quote:
Originally Posted by ceptimus
What if the entity your claim is against burns down the courtroom and murders all the court officials?
What difference would that make???
What if a meteor falls and kills us all?? What if this? What if that?
__________________
Fight cyber with cyber and initiate no aggression.
Because if there's a case where each side truly believes it's in the right... A court without a monopoly on violence will not be able to enforce its will.
It's like people don't know why courts exist in the first place. The State is just evil and set them up to control everyone, not because anyone wanted them.
With all due respect, what constitutes "tribal violence" as distinct from what you and I live today is largely arbitrary and irrelevent. You are naive to believe that you and your neighbors live under a monopoly of violence. You do not.
Your "monopoly on violence" is a mistaken charaterization of your environment. Nothing like that ever exists in real life, be it man or animal. Nor is it a stable social construct.
Lots of "justice" (and or "law" depending on how you want to characterize the same actions) comes about covertly through back-mail, unfair financial advantage and violence or the threat thereof.
Be that as it may, I will answer your questions as if we do not currently live under tribal violence. Furthermore, I will answer your questions as if "tribal violence" is worse than what we live now.
Quote:
Originally Posted by erimir
In other words, we descend into tribal violence.
No, we do not necessarily descend into tribal violence.
If 99% of the people in a community reject violence and love their brother without prejudice, the peace and practicality of cooperation become tribal benefits to each member ---- benefits which are cheap.
Quote:
Originally Posted by erimir
Because if there's a case where each side truly believes it's in the right... A court without a monopoly on violence will not be able to enforce its will.
That is not a problem. I see that as a good thing, in fact. How is that a problem to you?
Without a monopoly on violence, courts/judges who tend to offer the fairest rulings and most peaceful settlements --- i.e., the ones that are resolved the cheapest --- will get the most business from insurance companies.
If it helps you, try to think of justice as a service provided by your insurance company much like your life/disability/medical/marriage/property insurance policies are forms of private protection. Your "legal insurance" policy will include clauses on how disputes are settled --- much like the terms of a pre-nuptial agreement are stipulated.
A monopoly in violence will logically lead to what we have now: jails with ridiculous incarceration rates being filled slave labor of predominantly innocent people who never committed violent crimes.
The lack of a monopoly in violence would make it harder for one party to become the victim of paying off a judge.
Quote:
Originally Posted by erimir
It's like people don't know why courts exist in the first place.
No.
It is like people do not know that they are not confined by some magical force of the universe that says: "Thou shalt obey One Law." or "Thou shalt not put any other law before My Law."
__________________
Fight cyber with cyber and initiate no aggression.
If 99% of the people in a community reject violence and love their brother without prejudice, the peace and practicality of cooperation become tribal benefits to each member ---- benefits which are cheap.
Intentional communities where the vast majority share goals are awesome... and have low probability in reality, where prejudice and violence are a factor in most social constructs. I'm not arguing against anarchist or other types of intentional communities, just pointing out the "If" argument to be limited.
Quote:
Originally Posted by 1Samuel8
Without a monopoly on violence, courts/judges who tend to offer the fairest rulings and most peaceful settlements --- i.e., the ones that are resolved the cheapest --- will get the most business from insurance companies.
I find that unlikely. More likely is that insurance companies will find the court or judge that can be bought or coerced; or is connected to/ biased for the insurance company to rule in their favor most of the time. Even in a society with a monopoly on violence, businesses already seek out particular venues where they gain maximum advantage- which is better for their bottom line.
Are we defining a monopoly on violence in the same way? The state determines what is legitimate violence, and the use of legitimate violence is held primarily by the state. Are you arguing that current primary social constructs don't hinge on this?
Certainly one could argue that legitimacy is arbitrary or capricious, or that violence is within the capability of all peoples who choose to use it- but that's beside the point. Weber's definition was clear and accurate. Within the accepted use of the term, I would be hard-pressed to think of an example of a nation today that does not hold such a monopoly.
Let's start with the United States. I would argue that it certainly meets the definition. In what way do you believe that this state does not hold a monopoly on violence?
Because if there's a case where each side truly believes it's in the right... A court without a monopoly on violence will not be able to enforce its will.
That is not a problem. I see that as a good thing, in fact. How is that a problem to you?
Without a monopoly on violence, courts/judges who tend to offer the fairest rulings and most peaceful settlements --- i.e., the ones that are resolved the cheapest --- will get the most business from insurance companies.
You can't have competing profit motivated mechanisms for enforcement. That would be tantamount to mob style protection rackets.
__________________
Chained out, like a sitting duck just waiting for the fall _Cage the Elephant
Libertarian run Uber car service sponsors state and federal police militarization conference.
Urban Shield is an annual 2-day vendor show and training exercise put on by Oakland Police which advocates the latest in military weapons for protection against "domestic terrorism" also known as peaceful protests. Teams are graded on their ability to deal with "emergency situations" at least one of which is the clearing of unarmed protestors using the latest in military gear.
Are we defining a monopoly on violence in the same way?
Obviously not.
Now you go changing the goal posts..... bravo!
Quote:
Originally Posted by chunksmediocrites
Are you arguing that current primary social constructs don't hinge on this?
Are you arguing that the physical laws of the Universe hinge on a singular definition of the word legitimate????
Quote:
Originally Posted by chunksmediocrites
Certainly one could argue that legitimacy is arbitrary or capricious, or that violence is within the capability of all peoples who choose to use it- but that's beside the point.
Not sure how goal posts were moved by asking if we define monopoly on violence in the same way. Current social constructs meet the criteria of the term that comes directly from Max Weber; by his definition of that term. I was trying to understand your point but you appear unwilling to clarify except to say that monopoly on violence isn't a description of the modern state.
A police officer kills a person, and generally is protected by the state, and given the power to kill people by the state. The legitimacy of the violence is determined by our court of law. Violence deemed illegitimate by the state is punished.
A soldier kills a person, and generally is protected by the state, and given the power to kill people by the state. The legitimacy of the violence is determined by law- AUMF in the case of US forces in Afghanistan, etc., or other binding laws. Violence deemed illegitimate by the state is punished.
A security guard kills a person, and generally is protected by the state, and given the power to kill people by the state under more limited scenarios. The legitimacy of the violence is determined by law. Violence deemed illegitimate by the state is punished.
A civilian kills a person, and a court determines whether the killing was a legitimate use of violence. Violence deemed illegitimate by the state is punished.
A person is sentenced by a court to be killed; the killing is carried out by proxies of the state, given the power to kill in circumstances deemed legitimate by the state.
I can disagree that a particular act of violence was legitimate; I can disagree with military invasions and occupations; I can disagree with court rulings, I can disagree with the death penalty on numerous philosophical, ethical, logical grounds. I can question their legitimacy in terms of what I personally believe to be legitimate. I can undertake violence that is not state-sanctioned.
That does not then mean the state does not have a monopoly on violence as Max Weber defines the term that he created to describe state power. I still live under that state power whether I disagree or not.
Philadelphia officials seized more than 1,000 houses, about 3,300 vehicles and $44 million in cash, totaling $64 million in civil forfeitures over a 10-year period, according to the lawsuit.
The very authorities taking the property appear to be profiting from it, according to Pennsylvania state records. The Pennsylvania Attorney General’s office says about $7 million went straight to the salaries for the Philadelphia District Attorney’s office and the police department in just three years. In that same time period, records show the D.A.’s office spent no money on community-based drug and crime-fighting programs, according to the Philadelphia AG’s office.
Libertarian Tim Draper's plan to get 'six californias' (a bill to split California up into 6 states) on the ballot has failed recently after not attaining enough valid signatures. The bill was partly advertised as a libertarian's dream, creating smaller state governments removing power from those fat cats in Sacramento that are so detached from the public interest.
The key here is valid signatures as it turns out many signers were told the bill would do the exact opposite and *prevent* California from being split up. But what's a little bit of lying to the public to help the public. Clearly they don't know what they want, corporate douche is here to make sure they make the right choice.
In reality Six California's would have split California down political and economical lines, creating a group of poor republican controlled states to be pillaged and increased the number of republican senate members, while reducing the amount of influence liberal areas had on government and basic necessities like water and food. With the bonus of allowing some of the racist parts of California free reign to go Arizona style racist.
Also if this isn't the poster for douche capitalists I don't know what is,
__________________
Cēterum cēnseō factiōnem Rēpūblicānam dēlendam esse īgnī ferrōque.
“All for ourselves, and nothing for other people, seems, in every age of the world, to have been the vile maxim of the masters of mankind.” -Adam Smith
Alt version:
Ayn Rand, Rand Paul & Paul Ryan walk into a bar, followed by their personal chemist with a testing kit. Another person is served tainted alcohol and falls dead. They laugh, "What couldn't afford your own personal tester like those of us who pulled ourselves up by our own boot straps?" They take a drink, then suddenly die of tainted alcohol. The joke? Their chemist had no certified experience and went to a shame school, haha, oh those unregulated schools and their review bribing antics!
The bartender and ex-chemist then divvy up their organs to sell on the free market and dump the bodies out back because neither can pay the morgue's door to door service fee. The Bartender and ex-chemist then high five, the ol' fake chemist to harvest organs has worked again!
It sure reinforces the whole idea of separating from any business or personal relationships with anybody who avers to being a 'Libertarian'. Anybody who calls themselves such is unreliable and untrustworthy shitnozzle.
But then...We already know that. Our peculiar little Libertarian is a lying ratbastard who makes promises he can't, or won't, keep. Sleazy little shit that he is.
Of course, we might bring ourselves to rethink that if he were to pay up on his 200 euro wager.....with interest, of course. It just keeps growing, y'know.
On that subject again, I think despite their whining otherwise, it is a pretty good example of the failure of their ideology, especially Wendy McElroy's specifically.
They don't want government regulation preventing such swindling. Well, how would it be prevented? Either through violence or by shunning, basically.
Well, McElroy was too ashamed to come forward for almost a year. Despite her ideology requiring her to go public as the primary way of preventing such fraud (since she refuses to use government recourse to recover her money), she sat around and did nothing for a year, enabling the swindlers to swindle more people.
Maybe if we had perfect information, their ideas would be more attractive. But this provides a perfect example of why we don't have it.
I've been avoiding saying this, but I can't hold back any longer.
You see, McElroy deserved it. Because she's an irrational woman who bought in because she fell in love with a tree. That's not the rational way libertarians are supposed to think. So naturally the true libertarians in charge of it saw her for the parasite she was and ripped her off.
OK, thinking like a libertarian long enough to write that was painful. I'm going to go scour my soul now.
__________________
"freedom to differ is not limited to things that do not matter much. That would be a mere shadow of freedom. The test of its substance is the right to differ as to things that touch the heart of the existing order."
- Justice Robert Jackson, West Virginia State Board of Ed. v. Barnette
We've all heard it before from libertarian capitalists, raising the minimum wage will hurt workers because businesses will have to lay them off because they certainly can't afford to just pay more!
Gasp, you mean when money is spread out people spend it?!
How can this be? It runs counter to the trickle down theory where you give all your crack to Johnny the crack fiend and plastic baggy hoarder assuming that your crack will trickle down to casual users.
In January, the town of Seatac, Washington, put in to effect a new $15 per hour Minimum Wage. No ramp ups, no tiered implementation. One day it was the state standard, the next, the highest minimum wage in the nation. The Koch Brothers sank a fortune to fight this measure, which fell on deaf ears as the town rejected their trickle-down theories and instead voted for the measure. The result is that for one town, they became a test bed, to put the theories behind trickle-down economics to the test.
Last July, business owner Scott Ostrander claimed that the increased wage would force him to lay off staff, if not shut down his businesses.
I am shaking here tonight because I am going to be forced to lay people off. I’m going to take away their livelihood. That hurts. It really, really hurts. . . . And what I am going to have to do on Jan. 1 is to eliminate jobs, reduce hours — and as soon as hours are reduced, benefits are reduced.
Instead, his business, the Cedarbrook Lodge hotel, is expanding, adding 63 more beds to meet demand. Instead of layoffs, he needs to hire more people. And his story is not the only one.
Tom Douglas, who runs fifteen restaurants in the Seattle area, warned that a higher minimum wage law being considered by Seattle would force the shutdown of a quarter of his restaurants. Instead, after the results in Seatac, he is opening five new restaurants to meet demand. And this story is being repeated, over and over again, throughout the region.
Well paid employees pump money in to the local economies. This is basic economics, dating back to Adam Smith. Instead of slashing employees, which would impact any businesses ability to support their customers, they have turned to more direct approaches. A good example of this is MasterPark, an off-airport parking lot, which has added a $0.99 daily “Living Wage Surcharge“. Less than a dollar guarantees that MasterPark can give all of its employees a living wage, a small price to pay.
The biggest sign that the higher wage did not impact Seatac however comes with the news that the Seatac airport will be undergoing a half-billion dollar renovation and expansion. The growth of the airport, which as an extra-territorial administrative district does not require the higher minimum wage of the adjoining town, demonstrates that the fears pushed by the Koch Brothers and their multi-million dollar ad campaign are just nonsense.
They forgot the words of wisdom from President Franklin D. Roosevelt, in an address given in Cleveland, Ohio on October 16, 1936.
It is to the real advantage of every producer, every manufacturer and every merchant to cooperate in the improvement of working conditions, because the best customer of American industry is the well-paid worker.
RISING!
__________________ In the land of Mordor, where the shadows lie...