|
posted by dennisn on December 4th, 2011 at 8:43AM
Private arbitration services. (Combined with "universally preferrable behavior" -- a secular basis for ethics.) Clearly you have much learning to do.
|
posted by dsk on December 4th, 2011 at 9:15AM
>Private arbitration services
Private arbitration services are opt-in. Which means **only if I agree** to the arbitration, and agree on the laws and/or agree that said arbitration will take place under can this proceed. Which means there are no universal set of laws to actually base what is "legal" on. It's legal if we both agree it's legal. If we don't, who the fuck knows.
So...what is "legal" if I choose to be a difficult citizen?
>"universally preferrable behavior"
A meaningless phrase if I ever heard one. It's the kind of thing you fall-back on when you can't actually answer a primary objection. I can think of any number of ethical ambiguities, all important, in which equal number of people have strong diametrically opposed views on.
|
posted by dennisn on December 4th, 2011 at 9:27AM
Was there a question in your first paragraph? Yea, you kinda seem to get the idea. I think you might be missing the power these private voluntary services would have -- they would probably be connected to each other to form all kinds of networks, so you would be highly incentivized to join at least one, otherwise you would probably be ostracized quite significantly. (They could reasonably be expected not to do business with people who aren't subscribed to any arbitration service, etc.) Either way, what is considered legal would probably be quite explicitly written in a contract -- probably far more explicitly than the vague subjective contradictory crap we call "The Law" in the current monopoly system. (Because there would be voluntary competition to make the most efficient/clearest arbitration service / set of laws.)
Regarding your second paragraph, it comes from a book:
http://board.freedomainra...ular-ethics.aspx
Regarding your last sentence, yes, conflict will inevitably arise. We are simply talking about the best way to manage this conflict. Violent monopoly services are not it, IMHO. (I guess you still think they are? Even though you haven't really explored any alternatives.) |
posted by dsk on December 8th, 2011 at 8:04PM
>Violent monopoly services are not it, IMHO.
Actually, you're guaranteeing violent conflict. No universal laws, implies everyone has specific set of laws and nuances in mind. In cases of disagreement, because of no universal police force, the person with the biggest muscle/gun/gang simply wins.
In fact, a Mafia-type government is exactly what one would expect to occur under anarchy.
|
|
|
|
