Aziz 2 Al-Jabir 2
-
Posts
51 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Posts posted by Aziz 2 Al-Jabir 2
-
-
The 2nd Amendment is important as it is what enables us to enforce our rights against thugs who want to eliminate them. The 1st gives us the right to challenge tyranny. The 10th severely restricts the powers of the federal government. I can't pick the one most important one but these three are perhaps the most important out of all of them.
-
I understand that all the choices we have are bad. None of them support non-coercive solutions to this country so voting based on policies is futile for libertarians/objectivists. I know Trump supports some statist policies and says stupid things sometimes. The reason I think libertarians and objectivists need to vote for Trump is because I feel he will shift the political dynamic in ways that will undermine political correctness, the establishment and media propaganda that serve as barriers to freedom.
Read my blog post for a more in-depth case about why I think Donald Trump is the best option. I wrote this case for my libertarian readers but this can also apply to objectivists who would like to challenge conventional wisdom and reduce government tyranny.
https://vforvoluntary.wordpress.com/2016/03/02/why-libertarians-should-vote-for-donald-trump/
-
Yes, the amount of fiat currency that the fed has generated over the years is slowly killing the value of the dollar. We are slowly heading into another depression
-
On 1/27/2016 at 11:52 PM, Eiuol said:
Hmm, I wonder what sort of way you could organize society so that you could easily annihilate the companies that deviated from a principle of non-imitation of force. We don't want to tolerate those who initiate force. We'd need a way to ban the imitation of force outright and not allow companies that use it to operate near us. Maybe even allow something like states or provinces such that there are some checks and balances from that standard-setting institution. It'd be revolutionary, I tell you!
As I've stated, you don't have to tolerate them. There would be very few that would exist and the small minority that did would easily be destroyed and would teach such future companies a lesson.
What if the states or provinces you are talking about decide to initiate force? Then you're in trouble. The historical record is clear. Governments fail to provide ethical systems of justice and grow bigger than when established. As prosperity increases under a free-market the more people will want this prosperity. If there is a centralized coercive agency that has control of the guns they will not be too keen on hesitating to violate whatever ethical standards you put in place (which they must enforce by the way). This is why the United States government grew from the smallest, least powerful government in existence at the time to one of the largest, most powerful governments the world has ever seen.
This is all beside the fact that freedom and government are incompatible. Nearly all governments in existence have stolen money under the threat of violence and although you might want one that doesn't, you will still have certain human beings arbitrarily selected to have more power than others and hold a coercive monopoly on defense, justice, etc.
-
On 1/25/2016 at 9:56 AM, Eiuol said:
Of course, the difference is that those same people would have to be tolerated as long as they are operating, but I don't want to repeat my earlier big post. With a government, you can say "no" immediately. This doesn't mean I want a democratically elected government anyway - initiating force isn't up for a vote.
No you wouldn't have to tolerate them. I believe that upon establishing such a society, which will not happen overnight, we need to have a basic code based on the non-aggression principle that all such companies that are to be set up would agree to follow. Any company that deviated from this could easily be annihilated by other companies. There will also not be restrictions of firearms making oppression much more risky and an even worse business model. Companies would not engage in oppressive behavior in the first place because they would know how dangerous and self-destructive it would be to do so. Just like no company would sell a pencil for $100 because they would have no business if they were to do so. In the free-market companies form business models conducive to their survival. If the government which has a horrific track record of becoming oppressive does become oppressive you cannot simple "hire" another government if the government has a monopoly on force in your region like you can simply hire another voluntary protection agencies. This is especially true with a government not democratically elected. What makes you think governments can't form oppressive ideologies or become corrupt as they have throughout history? Why is this restricted to private companies? Both are run by humans. The difference lies in the incentives. One is subject to competition and market incentives while the other is monopolistic, coercive and largely unchecked by any other entity other than itself. With all due respect I think you unfairly place the burden of proof on the anarchist rather than the statist which it should be placed on.
-
16 hours ago, Nicky said:
First off, that's an arbitrary claim even in a vacuum. But, more importantly, it's blatantly absurd once you take even so much as a peek at reality. Criminal organizations, terrorist groups, religious fanatics all thrive in anarchy.
I have explained this in earlier posts. Your second claim is completely untrue. It is quite the opposite as a matter of fact. Criminal organizations bribe government politicians to get away with what they get away with and thrive off of government prohibitions on things like drugs, prostitution, gambling, etc. It is also clear that religious fanatics have done far more damage under governments. The inquisition, and oppressive religious theocracies have all existed under governments not anarchy. This type of religious oppression has been far greater than any such oppression by private entities. If you are referring to terror groups in places such as the Middle East, you should note that these religious terrorist groups have been propped up because of regional instability created by a series of corrupt military dictators (who by the way readily take bribes from such groups) and foreign intervention by governments such as the United States governments. Organizations such as the Islamic STATE of Iraq and Syria want to set up a governmental theocracy. They are not calling for anarchy and certainly not the type of libertarian anarchy I am calling for.
-
11 minutes ago, Eiuol said:
So you need to prove this. i disagree that government is necessarily more dangerous or more corruptible. I already said the concern for me is tolerating and permitting any and all forms of justice. You seem to act as though there are no consumers who would be quite pleased to, say, imprison or kill those who give abortions.
I never said there are no consumers that would be pleased to do bad things. I am against abortion for the record and believe it violates the non-aggression principle but in the case of other issues of initiating force, I have already shown how the market provides an incentive for the upholding of the non-aggression principle as consumers are much more likely to spend money defending themselves than aggressing against others. It would be a very poor business model to get involved in conflicts which is why companies will in advance have a contract which requires them to submit to a private court to settle disputes. The private court would rule in the way that best upheld the non-aggression principle because companies would want to avoid conflict. You seem to think that private companies are governments. They're not they have to pay the cost of war or initiation of force themselves and be responsible for the risk that a conflict would bring them. You also seem to act as though there aren't voters who are wiling to elect politicians to do the things that you abhor. Even if you agree that abortion is a right, in a democratically elected government there will always be people who will disagree and will elect politicians who will violate this "right"
-
1 hour ago, Eiuol said:
I actually find that since the premise is false, it opens up many of the supporting arguments for government. I'm not saying people tend to be good. Some people will be corrupt, others won't, but possession of power on its own is irrelevant. I already explained why economic efficiency does not automatically mean efficiency of justice. An economically efficient market of force doesn't mean efficient application of justice.
Right, so you'll have corrupt people in the market and in government. The difference is that the government is a violent monopoly that allows for a greater expression of corruption than in a private system. A private system must satisfy the desires of the consumer and will be put out of business should it choose to become aggressive. The incentive in a government is to expand power whereas the incentive in the market is to minimize conflict and satisfy the consumer. This is why small governments have always gotten bigger
-
30 minutes ago, TLD said:
You are comparing an amoral question with a moral one. "No" to the last question of course.
Sorry, you'll just have to read the blog if you don't know the difference.
That's not my question. What I'm asking is if life by which everything else derives, then according to your objectivist ethics why should the scenario matter? I understand your position and I agree. I'm just wondering how you reconcile this belief with the notion that life is the primary virtue in Objectivism
-
1 hour ago, Eiuol said:
So I'm saying the premise leading to this conclusion is wrong. Objectivism doesn't even accept an idea like "when presented with the opportunity, people will tend to take advantage of others", because there is no assumption that people tend to be good or bad by nature. What leads to corruption is embracing certain ideas that are corrupt, not the possession of power. It's one thing to argue that AnCap is more efficient, it's another to say a monopoly on force is by nature a corrupting force. You'd need to show that your premise on human nature is true.
If you don't accept this than you should have no problem with Anarcho-Capitalism. If the majority are not this way they will overshadow those that are this way in the market. If they are then surely having a government will attract those who want to take advantage of others. Regardless of your beliefs about human nature, anarcho-capitalism is superior to government, both ethically and practically
-
Wow, this post sure created quite a dialogue. I don't have time to read all the comments here, but I will just ask this one question that may or may not have been answered in this lengthy dialogue. Suppose that stealing is morally justifiable in a lifeboat scenario which is a premise I disagree with. Why does it not then follow that a person dying in a hospital has the right to free healthcare or to steal it from someone else. If life value by which everything else is derived in Objectivism, then doesn't a person's right to life supersede a person's right to their money or property?
-
3 hours ago, gio said:
Watch the analysis of the debate.
He did answer in the debate at 1'49'55 and 2'05''40. But Walter Block didn't understand the answer.
He did not adequately answer as Walter Block explains in his analysis. He merely says it's a faulty analogy because the quantities. He also says that there are differences between nations and a world government. He merely asserted a premise without explaining why it is valid. What basis does he have for these arbitrary distinctions? He also confuses a private dispute resolution organization with a government which has the right of initiatory force and a monopoly on justice in a given territory. The basic point still holds true. If the argument is that we need a government to prevent dispute resolution agencies from fighting (which by the way have a disincentive to fight and cannot forcibly collect taxes in a given territory thereby making fighting much less likely), then why do we not need a world government to prevent nations from fighting?
-
4 hours ago, Eiuol said:
Are you just finishing out the reasoning of someone who thinks human nature is to some degree corrupted? It's exactly why I mentioned the idea. Aziz is making points about economic efficiency, but a deeper premise is that power of any sort always corrupts people. We'd be unable to do anything but manipulate and lie if we can get away with it, unless the market "watches" us. It's weird though, it'd also mean the best and richest company is the most corrupt in an AnCap society based on that idea, just that it's reined in thanks to the market. Needless to say, it's not a premise Objectivism accepts at all.
I'm not saying that everyone would be unable to do anything but manipulate and lie if they can get away with it in either system. What I'm saying is that if you are concerned about people initiating force in a market you should be much more concerned about it in a system with a centralized monopoly on the initiation of force. It makes it much easier for those with evil intentions to act on them.
-
38 minutes ago, Reasoner said:
I am constantly running into this same argument. If human nature is inherently broken and corrupt, favoring the morally subjective and dishonest, then any argument needs to justify less external human involvement in human affairs - as each individual, acting according to an honest assessment of human nature, is naturally the most favorable actor to partake in that scenario. How can the alternative, massive oversight by OTHER human beings, rationally prove to be favorable?
agreed
-
3 hours ago, gio said:
Walter Block contradict himself several times in this debate. And he refuses to answer some questions because there are "unproper for a libertarian" (because he doesn't understand the relation between morality and politic). Watch the analysis of the debate.
Could you please give me examples? Because Helfeld had some pretty weak points too. He was unable to respond to why we should not have a world government if private protection agencies are chaotic. If one government is necessary to form an objective set of moral rules then why would it not be better to have a world government to apply these rules worldwide? This was the question that Helfeld never directly answered.
-
3 hours ago, gio said:
Hey Aziz,
Have you already seen the debates between Jan Helfeld and the anarcho-capitalists (Walter Block, Stephan Molyneux, David Friedman, Larken Rose, etc.) on Youtube ? He made plenty of debates and he defend the limited government from an objectivist point of view.
I have seen parts of the debate between Walter Block and Jan Helfeld and Walter Block's response to Jan Helfeld's remarks. This is when I was first considering anarchism
-
22 hours ago, Harrison Danneskjold said:
"A rational anarchist believes that concepts such as ‘state’ and ‘society’ and ‘government’ have no existence save as physically exemplified in the acts of self-responsible individuals. He believes that it is impossible to shift blame, share blame, distribute blame… as blame, guilt, responsibility are matters taking place inside human beings singly and nowhere else. But being rational, he knows that not all individuals hold his evaluations, so he tries to live perfectly in an imperfect world…"
-Robert Heinlein
I don't think they're enabled by bribery, but rather by senseless prohibitions.
The Los Zetas, for example, is a Mexican gang whose brutality is as blatant as it is horrific. While they aren't motivated by money (they're in it for the brutality, itself) I doubt their reign of terror could've lasted this long, if they weren't so profitable. Their profits come exclusively from the drugs they buy from Mexican producers (who will accept almost nothing, in return) and sell to American consumers (who will pay almost anything - because of the artificial shortages created by the War on Drugs).
The same thing happened during our prohibition of alcohol; the only difference is that Al Capone didn't leave his competitors' bodies dangling from highway overpasses.
Incidentally, cartels like the Los Zetas don't deal with any actual consumers, directly; they sell in bulk to American gangs, who (after distribution) use the proceeds to buy their bullets.
---
Without those prohibitions, every single gang member involved would have to get a real job (which might interfere with such hobbies as dismembering people at 3:00 AM).
This is definitely true. I'm just stating that even brushing this aside it would be much harder for a criminal enterprise of any kind to exist without the state.
-
As a libertarian who is not an objectivist I can say that I think the Objectivist philosophy overall does a good job in justifying itself and being consistent. There are however a few possible holes I can see when it comes to the non-initiation of force. Take this scenario for instance. A person is in a desert and is dying. His only option to survive is to steal food or water from a camp owned by a man. The amount stolen would not kill the tent owner but would only be sufficient for the man to live. How do Objectivists reconcile holding life as the highest value with the principle of non-initiation of force? Since liberty comes from life and life is thus held higher than liberty wouldn't the life of the dying individual have to be considered more important than the liberty of the individual with the tent? How would Objectivists respond to such a claim?
-
On 12/29/2015 at 3:06 PM, Nicky said:
Ok, sounds simple enough. So here comes one of the many obvious monkey wrenches: what about rape? Are you just gonna rape the guy back? Because I don't think a rapist would particularly mind getting raped by their victim. In fact, it would just be them having sex again with the lady they raped in the first place.
Restitution based civil law sounds decidedly rapist friendly to me.
Alright, so your proposition is that laws developed in this way are superior to laws developed by current governments, like the US, UK, Switzerland or Japan (just to name a few).
So, it stands to reason that the societies that developed these laws were more just than American, British, Swiss or Japanese society today. Would you mind naming one of these superior ancient societies? I would like to verify your proposition...just to run it against reality, and thus decide, once and for all, whether it's science or sci-fi.
There would be substitutionary punishments in place for retaliation against crimes that would be impractical to emulate. In a system of civil law that which is used in retaliation for a crime does not necessarily have to be exactly the same as the crime committed. I must merely be proportional to the crime committed. The criminal could be forced to work excruciatingly hard labor at a private detention center owned by the arbitration agency or be physically beaten and harmed in a manner similar to the manner in which they have harmed their victims to name a few examples. There would be a private court that would decide the just punishment in accordance with the circumstances surrounding the crime.
In regards to your comments about the comparison between law in a free society and laws developed by current government, I would first say that I'm not sure what gives you the impression that the laws of the countries you have just mentioned are anywhere near just. The American government grew from being a limited constitutional republic to being a collectivist, quasi-socialist, imperialist, statist society within just a couple hundred years as a result of the power vacuum created by the fact that there was a centralized state up for the taking by a series of individuals that have eroded liberty in America. The wars that the United States has been involved in over the years have resulted in the deaths of millions of innocent civilians and the destruction of entire regions of the world whether it be the War on Terror (especially in Iraq) or the bombings in Hiroshima and Nagasaki. The British government has had a long history of sophisticated and highly structure law by central governments. The result has been a series of systems that has oppressed, terrorized and murdered masses of people around the world. Although the Swiss government currently happens to be abstaining from violence they have had a notoriously bloody history. Japan is highly collectivistic and considers its citizens to be guilty until proven innocent. Governments have been far more disastrous for humanity than any private entity has ever been by any objective standard.
I cannot name an anarcho-capitalist society that has been exactly like what I have envisioned but then again few believed that a democratic-republic like that which was founded in America could have existed before the American Revolution. Just because something has never been tried before does not mean it cannot work in the future.
I can however name several places throughout history that have had functional and prosperous anarchist-like societies or local governments. Ancient Ireland functioned as an anarchist society with tuatha systems for over 9,000 years and was very prosperous for the time and had minimal conflict. Ancient Iceland also had a similar system with private protection agencies that were very effective. Iceland at the time had a very functional and productive society if you look in to it and was hardly the chaotic jungle that statists would imagine. Despite the negative reputation that feudal systems have gotten over the years, many of the decentralized ones were quite functional in the middle ages. While they were by no means libertarian in that land ownership and social status was granted by governmental decree, they do give concrete examples of how an anarchist society might function. The feudal lords had treaties with the other land owners that mandated peaceful negotiation of conflicts which were created by the demand for safety that the peasants had. There was rapid economic growth throughout the time along with private arbitration agencies to peacefully resolve disputes between land owners. The old west was also contrary to popular opinion, was much more peaceful than the east despite having no centralized law. There were fewer murders, bank robberies, incidences of violent crime, etc. The economy developed significantly at the time despite starting from nothing and was a huge attraction for immigrants.
-
v
On 12/29/2015 at 2:53 PM, Nicky said:I am aware of no economist who studied the dynamics of economic interactions in an anarchy.
As far as I can tell, all well known economists assume the existence of a government that protects the lives and property of the participants, but does not regulate trade, in their definitions of a free market. So what is this "economics" that you speak of, that supposedly uses science to prove that the laws of free market economics apply in anarchy as well?
There are plenty of economists who have studied the dynamics of economic interactions in an anarchist system. Have you heard of the Ludwig von Mises Institute? If not I highly recommend you check it out. They have excellent economists who have studied how an anarcho-capitalist systems would work. The Austrian school of economics can provide several theories about how a free society might look. Murray Rothbard who was an Austrian economist founded the term "anarcho-capitalist" as a matter of fact. Also it is important to keep in mind that justice and protection are marketable services just like any other kind and that virtually the same principles of economics would apply to them. If you accept that capitalism and competition leads to the best and most efficient services when it comes to things such as health care and banking then you should also accept that they will also work well for protective services and justice services as well
-
On 12/28/2015 at 7:11 PM, Eiuol said:
The difference between the market and that state however is that people would likely not support transgressive companies because continuing to do this would make themselves vulnerable to this type of transgression and the companies would could be checked by other companies. - Aziz
People would also not support agencies that could initiate force arbitrarily as other agencies could then do the same thing to them. -Aziz
A government that gets out of hand is very hard to get back under control precisely because citizens have meaningfully been disarmed - that's what it means when a government has a monopoly on force. - Jon Southall
One point of disagreement or questioning looks to be what is the cause of a corrupt society. To say government is hard to reign back if it gets corrupt because people are disarmed, is to suggest trends in a society are primarily due to applications of force. So if we de-monopolize force, corruption will become far less likely when there are more options. Yet from an Objectivist stance, corruption is caused by philosophical trends in a society. Nazi Germany became that way because the populace in general supported Nazi ideals, in particular a bastardization of Nietzsche, Christian ideals, and a narrative for a stronger race. The Nazis upped the ante later, but the corruption more or less began when a portion of the population agreed with Nazi ideals. The control of force does not cause corruption. It reminds me of how people say "power corrupts", which I don't buy.
Clearly, governments can go bad, and nobody claimed arbitration agencies can't. But I'd say a monopoly on force protects from rampant disagreements, and promotes overarching standards of justice. There may well be a Nazi-like arbitration agency, all they need is enough supporters. A niche market for neo-Nazis. To be sure, most of the American population would not support it, but if you support multiple arbitration agencies in a region, you are claiming you must stay out and wait for the neo-Nazi company to go out of business. If I treated force as a typical market, I'd have to treat it like I do Apple - I don't like their products, but I've no right to disband their business being available in my geographic area.
The point is we can't pretend that there aren't people out there who would seek out arbitration agencies to punish abortion doctors, or round up muslims who pray in mosques, etc. A sizable portion of people probably - Trump supporters are real. Yes, for things like theft or vandalism, arbitration agencies, perhaps that'd work, but what do we do for major issues? War would be one thing, but the issue is it -really would- work like a market, where inefficient companies can exist for a bit, some people really do support irrational companies, and should last as long as people are willing to run the company and it has customers. Sure, it's in the interest of companies to avoid war, but ancap appears to depend on certain radical idealogies remaining always on the fringe.
A coercive monopoly however is much more un-checked and posses a much greater threat to freedom than a free-market in protection services as history can clearly demonstrate. -Aziz
I really don't know why a government is necessarily a coercive monopoly. It's not as though a government must go out and find people who for whatever reason choose to secede and live alone. They should be let alone. If you want to live in the Alaskan wilderness hunting deer, go ahead, just don't expect help if a fellow survivalist decides to burn down your log cabin. Also don't be surprised if you are attacked for egregious rights violations. The right to secede is a different issue, one that I'm not aware Rand made any arguments for or against. You can believe in a right to secede while also maintaining that a monopoly on force is proper.
The power to dominate un-checked certainly can corrupt. When the populace favors such ideas the government will also tend to do the same thing. The government is made of fallible people who are not immune from the norms of the time. The populace will also tend to influence government to support such policies. Once a monopoly on force becomes tyrannical most people are left defenseless and have no one to turn to for defense. The reason Nazism caused the degree of horror that it did was because of the strong, centralized, imperialistic government that it commanded. Hitler used people's allegiance to the state to promote his radical nationalist ideology. Without a centralized monopoly on force up for the taking by Hitler and other fascists, Nazism wouldn't have the ability to have caused the volume of murder and destruction that it did. Under a free-market system people would have other agencies to turn to. Such policies as I have stated will cause undesireable conflicts with other agencies as well as profit loss. Also the fact that tyrannical policies will be destructive to a company will make it an economic norm to not engage in those type of activities. I disagree that the power to manipulate others and dominate a market will not corrupt. It is human nature to take advantage of others when the opportunity presents itself. The fact that un-checked power is concentrated in the hands of a few exists will lead to immense amounts of corruption. It is true that you could have a certain period in time in which radical ideas are popular. This however will not change the fact that they are not economically sustainable for the companies to engage in. If you have one government, this government would easily be corrupted by this popular interest and those who are in the minority would then become helpless as they are not allowed to hire a competing agency to protect them. Governments are not somehow more benevolent and trustworthy than your average population. If anything the people in governments are likely people who have are willing to walk over a lot of people to get in the positions that they get in. I think one thing you are missing is that governments are only people too and they will change over time and be susceptible to corrupt influences. With a coercive monopoly this danger is amplified significantly. The reason I call governments coercive monopolies is because if you claim to be the only one who can administer justice or enforce the law you are really saying "If you attempt to start your own protection agency or justice agency no matter how righteous you are, we will violently force you out of the market because we happen to be the only righteous individuals."
-
18 hours ago, Reidy said:
You apparently accept Rand's definition of fascism as a high degree of government control over the economy, short of overt socialism. Not everyone buys into this. Goldberg, in Liberal Fascism, defines it as a political habit of favoring emotion over reason and action over deliberation. Some fascists are overt socialists on this account (Hitler) while others (Mussolini and Peron) are not.
Why do you prefer Rand's account?
I believe Rand's account of fascism is more consistent with the way fascism has been implemented throughout history, most notably in fascist Italy and Nazi Germany. The economic system of fascism includes strict government control of the means of production but typically not ownership. I don't think that "favoring emotion over reason and action over deliberation" is necessarily fascism as many different systems that are inconsistent with fascism can be derived from this habit. Fascism is a specific authoritarian political system not a "political habit." Hitler did describe himself as a socialist but not the type of socialist we typically think of as socialism. Hitler's socialism was not Marxism. He considered Marxism to be a form of socialism corrupted by Jews. His socialism is different in that it did not value equality between classes but rather the interests of a race and of a national identity formed along the lines of race. Strict government control over the economy and social life was the means by which those interests were to be promoted.
-
Regulations are more on the lines of fascism which one could argue is a loose form of socialism. In a fascist economy the means of production are technically privately owned but are controlled by the government through regulations. Marxist socialism which is the type of socialism most people think of, involves direct public ownership over the means of production. Regulations do not do this per se.
-
14 hours ago, Nicky said:
Your sci-fi scenario is very far fetched, but that's not the issue I was raising anyway. I have a tried and tested rule of not trying to argue against people who present this particular scenario as a good alternative to government.
What I'm trying to figure out is what this "right" you alluded to is. You mentioned that a government that prevents you from starting an agency that doles out its own brand of justice is violating your liberty. Which implies that you have the right to dole out your own brand of justice.
What I'm curious about is this: what are the limits on this right. Let's say I start my own justice agency. It would be really easy to do, since I don't need to actually fill out any paperwork, I can just put up a sign on my door that says Nicky's Justice Emporium, and that would be that. So that's done. So now, let's talk about what my rights are. Do I have the right to punish someone who stole ten bucks from me with a month in jail? Two years? Ten years? What conditions do I have the right to subject him to, while he's in my jail (that would be my basement). What about someone who stole 10 bucks from my neighbor? Also, do I have the right to do this based on witness testimony? Do I have a right to do it based on a hunch?
And, more importantly than this one particular example, would there be someone I could ask about the many other (infinite, in fact) possible things I have/don't have the right to do? Would some of this maybe be written down somewhere? That would be mighty helpful. And if so, who would get to decide what is written down? And by what right would they get to dictate to the rest of us what our rights are?
It's not a "sci-fi scenario." It's economics. Under a free-market system, you must satisfy the needs of your consumers in order to make a profit and stay in business. Private justice services are no different. An oppressive organization that violates the liberty of it's customers would not stay in business for long and would risk being attacked by other organizations that consumers would be free to turn to due to the competition created by the market.
The law will be a simple and restitution based civil law which will prohibit the initiation of force and will enact punishment that is proportional to the crime. If you stole 10 bucks you owe your victim monetary or labor compensation. A private justice company that convicted people based on weak evidence would lose business due to the fact that its clients would be risking being convicted of a crime on weak evidence and would not be able to trust it as a reliable source for bringing the correct criminals that violated their rights to justice. The competition they would face would force them to strive for maximum efficiency. When it comes to the specific details of certain codes of conduct, such things would be determined by the norms of the society at the time. This is how law developed before the state began to institute laws in ancient times. These systems tended to be restitution based. Now you might ask isn't this arbitrary? So is government. Politicians are corruptible and ever changing and will arbitrarily determine certain standards as well at different times. There will never be a perfect enactment of justice as people are imperfect. Governments however are no exception to this and are only composed of people themselves which who will not all of a sudden enact justice perfectly according to one moral code in every instance. The difference between the market and that state however is that people would likely not support transgressive companies because continuing to do this would make themselves vulnerable to this type of transgression and the companies would could be checked by other companies.
Law does not need to be derived from a central source. I know this is hard to imagine today but historically laws arose due to universal principles such as non-aggression and were based on civil law in which victims could receive compensation for acts of force wielded against them. The reason that the law would consist of just and non-violent codes is because most people would only want to pay money to enforce laws that impact them directly. People would also not support agencies that could initiate force arbitrarily as other agencies could then do the same thing to them. Capitalism is perfectly capable of providing law in a more just and non-violent way than an un-checked monopoly.
Also, I do not believe anyone has the right to enact their own "brand of justice." I just believe that it is wrong to allow one arbitrary entity the ability to forcibly run anyone else out of the market. There is more than one group of people capable of enforcing the principle of non-initiation of force and the government has no right to prevent them from engaging in the same business they do nor to prohibit me from hiring the agency of my choice. One group of arbitrarily selected cannot simply be risen to God-like status and be considered the only righteous entity and will always adhere to one moral code. The competition would enact a system of checks and balances amongst the various agencies. There of course exists the possibility for injustice in an anarcho-capitalist society just as with any other society. A perfect utopia does not exist. A coercive monopoly however is much more un-checked and posses a much greater threat to freedom than a free-market in protection services as history can clearly demonstrate.
Vote For Donald Trump
in Political Philosophy
Posted
Not all libertarians are rallying for Trump. Many in fact are strongly opposed to him. Ron Paul, who I highly respect is one of them. Trump, I think is the candidate that can do the most to make Americans more open to libertarianism.
I did list a few anti-statist positions that Trump has taken in my post. You have provided no evidence that the Trump base is all you said it is. Even if this were the case, this would not undermine the reasons that I support him if that's what you're implying. I don't care about what his supporters think. Most supporters of all the major political candidates are uninformed and many support them for the wrong reasons. The reason I voted for him and the main reason I think he is so appealing he calls out the corruption of the political system and the media's propaganda.
None, of the current candidates want to change the system much less replace it with a libertarian form of government. This I understand. The bottom line however, is that one of these candidates will become president and so I have to pick the best one. As I have stated in my post, protest voting is not likely to be effective this election. And yes, I understand that undermining the political establishment is not the same as supporting liberty. Bernie Sanders for example could be described as remotely anti-establishment but I will not vote for him because he is the establishment on steroids. His rhetoric is pro-government and pro-socialism which will only send us down the same road, only faster. Trump on the other hand challenges government and its corruption as well as the media which keeps support for the government strong. Although I understand that he is not anti-government as I am, I do think his rhetoric will make people less trusting of government as opposed to more trusting of it. This is not my faith, it is simply picking the best option available based on my analysis. I do not support any of the candidates but I believe Trump is the best option out of all of them. Since one of them will become president, I voted for Trump to keep the worst of them from becoming president. You have also once again made gross generalizations about Trump supporters without providing any evidence for such sweeping claims.