Some elements of this do exist in a free-market system. Just to look at the repo industry. People steal cars from banks, by not making payments, the bank responds by hiring a private firm to recover the asset. I would also argue that we vote to choose judges. If you think of an election as a market then this hypothesis really isn't that different from how our society currently works.
@@OceanicSwamp but its not like prison of today of just sitting in a jail cell 20 hours a day. Its just a place for people to live and work with supervision so they can't hurt anyone else.
@@Paul-A01 well would gangs be around if there's no market incentive? What i mean by that is arent most gangs centered around the production and selling of illegal substances.
Everything he says about legal authority is demonstrated one way or another by the functioning of decentralized tribal societies in the real world, particularly Icelandic and Irish, whos functions are well attested. It also seems obvious to me that such a system today would produce a much more peaceable result than the famously quarrelsome societies of the past, just as we can observe interpersonal violence plummet for the last 500 years with no clear correlation to any particular administrative system. However the pacifist bit at the beginning seems to be pure fantasy: any society need to be able to deal with psychopaths and invasions, and there is no non violent way to deal with that. One might believe aggressive violence would be more uncommon in a stateless society, but to claim it would just disappear seem to me to be just as ridiculous as the communist belief in "the New Man." All the examples of successful non-violence are dependent upon a wider collective community feeling a oneness with the people practicing it, and in a stateless society such communities would be expected to be much smaller than "fellow American citizen" or "fellow subject of the British Crown." It also seems to me that this is the main weakness of the idea of statelessness. All the practical quibbling people usually come up with (roads) seem obviously solvable; the moral case seems clear (since it is just a case of removing moral exceptions); and as stated above, the question of legal authority seems solvable both through reasoned argument and historical analogy. But the state exist specifically because it makes it easier to organize violence, whether offensively or defensively. History is replete with examples of more hierarchical ad centralized groups running roughshot over more decentralized ones (Rome vs. Gaul, Swebians vs. heir neighbors), and of small bands of dedicated warriors conquering vast numbers of people (Mongols, Franks, Arabs). How does one deal with a totalitarian neighbor or an ascendant warrior cult in a stateless society? It is mentiond at the end but never addressed.
I have always maintained that theft is theft and murder is murder and assault comes under both so why so many laws about what is theft and what is murder. All of it is disrespect towards others.
This thought occurred to me a couple days after watching this video. Why do so many anarcolibertarian thinkers assume that just because the government wouldn't be doing something, that it therefore follows that it would have to be done for profit? Certain such functions could be done by voluntary non profit organizations as well, such as volunteer militias for defense. I would use the real world example of volunteer fire departments as an example.
While volunteer forces are amazing and certainly a very real thing, we can't just assume that people will volunteer for it. We need to figure out what would happen if no one wanted to do things; because fighting fire and crime are acts most would consider noble, but plenty of necessities don't have that same public perception. Would volunteers work in certain settings? Absolutely. Can we count on volunteers working in every setting? Absolutely not.
I think ancaps are putting out a literal worst case scenario. So if no one volunteers to do things there are already market incentives to do them. The fact that people volunteer is just a layer on top.
I think it’s the technology required at this point as well. You’d still need the private companies to produce the weapons, surveillance technology, aircraft, etc. or we’d get slapped around by any legit military force. I don’t think the members of the militia would be the issue because the incentive would be to defend your way of life
@@PeterPorty Yes and if volunteers don't volunteraly come to help we can pay a firm to do it, that firm and its employees have monetary incentive to do that work. The point is in market system we will have multiple choices and the poor performing assets will go out of business, so every company has monetary incentive to provide good service. Right now we have no option, if government controlled fire service is slow, is incompetent and lets your house burn, what option do you have? Next time when your or your neighbours house burn what option do they have other than to call the same government fire department which is incompetent? In free market economy if my house burns and I call ABC company fire services and if they are incompetent and burn down my house, next time when my house or my neighbours faces same type of incident i will not call ABC company and will instead call BAC company for the service who has better reputation than previous company and this time BAC company has even more monetary incentive to provide good service to gain more customers than ABC company.
Devin Stromgren in places that have small populations crime rarely happens. So when crime does happen they could just summon a judge from a few hours over.
I appreciate that Murphy has thought about this, and now he needs to think it through. 1) Murphy's system *necessitates* a private security force The problem is the interim between a crime occurring and receipt of a legal decision. Despite all of its imperfections (I know, per the US SCt, that the police don't have a constitutional duty to protect citizens), the current system has police to dispatch when a crime is reported. Under Murphy's system, a crime occurs and afterwards the victim seeks a legal opinion. If police no longer exist, who or what force stops an attempted rape or murder from becoming an actual rape or murder? Worse, a criminal has every incentive and no obstacles (like police, witness protection, etc.) to silencing a victim before he or she can seek a legal opinion. Better a dead victim than a live complainant. 2) Crime requires not just rehabilitation but also punishment Murphy seems to think crime would be severely eliminated by mere social ostracism. That's ludicrous. Actual use of force (imprisonment, death penalty, etc.) is required to halt crime. In Robin Hood's England, being an outlaw meant being 'outside the law' such that one had no rights and could be killed with impunity by any member of the community. Vast virtually unchecked authority was also given to posses and marshals in the US Old West. In Murphy's system, so such threat exists. Plus, if you kill your victim before he/she gets a legal opinion, you're scot-free.
Murphy's take on this sounds very similar to claims that I've heard from people who maintain there is no such thing as free will. If there is no free will then punishment is pointless.
1) Insurance companies would provide private security, I don't get your problem 2)The goal of a legal system is to enforce and protect property rights. The punishment is only necessary to give something back to the victim, otherwise it's just a way to defend "society" which as a whole doesn't exist.
1) Under Murphy's system, the police supposedly cease to exist - except that they're still around with only superficial changes. You see, they're not called "police" but "XXX Co. Security" and they're private sector rather than public. Point is, the same police/security/guys in uniforms w/ badges and guns are still around. 2) _The goal of a legal system is to enforce and protect property rights_ According to whom? You're making an assertion but you've offered no argument, logic, evidence, etc. whatsoever. Every single legal system in existence has existed to mete out retribution (punishment) to an offender. Ancient Egypt, Greece, and Rome used corporal punishment often but seldom imposed capital punishment; Japan and China had ingenious tortures and numerous crimes subject to capital punishment; and Napoleonic Britain and France had much harsher sentences than today but I'd wager they'd still be relatively recognizable to a modern legal scholar. _The punishment is only necessary to give something back to the victim, otherwise it's just a way to defend "society" which as a whole doesn't exist._ A criminal is an "offender" because he has violated laws protecting us individually and as a group. In the event that an individual victim cannot be identified, or he is dead or otherwise unwilling/unable to participate in proceedings, or numerous victims are diffusely harmed (e.g. a polluter), then the people of a state can stand in the victim's stead. Thus, a legal complaint is filed in the name of "the people of the State of Alabama versus Joe Blow," or more simply "the State of Alabama versus Joe Blow." So yes, the state - "society" - does in fact exist.
censorship bites, the difference is there isn’t a giant monopoly on violence. Also, the “wild” west wasn’t so wild. There were actually written contracts, etc. that were enforced without law. Also written constitutions to ride the wagon trains out to the west. Another thing, Robin Hood stole the tax money that was stolen from the people and gave it back to them.
You might want to re-read what I wrote. I was arguing that criminals being completely deprived of legal protections in medieval England and free rein given to marshals in the Wild West *were good things* because they provided severe, immediate responses to offenders (I mean 'immediate' in the sense of proximal, not time). As opposed to Murphy's system, where even police no longer exist and criminals supposedly "check in" to detention facilities, the legal system is entirely reactive instead of proscriptive (seeking judgments vs. a body of laws), and violence isn't monopolized but available for hire to people of means.
Many good ideas. The structure of talk makes it unpleasant to follow. If you start with the exposition and then respond to criticism, we know what you're defending. I don't know why you would start with the defense first. The bit at the start about pacifism was not necessary context.
In the real world private legal systems and security firms merged into what we call countries. Those countries used to be privately owned by monarchs and then became democracies where each citizen/shareholder has 1 vote. People used to pay a fixed membership fee of 1 sack of corn, and today instead they pay a more nuanced membership fee calcualted as a % of income, VAT, and other taxes. There are over 200 different countries competing. People with high net worth, incomes, etc. can freely move to any country they wish, and the countries actively compete to keep their security high and taxes low to attract such people and get them to stay. History and the market could have resulted in the world being dominated by organisations such as Guilds and Church Orders, instead it has become Countries and Corporations. Any weird mix of organisations that control and compete over security, law, production, welfare, etc. is possible.
Whenever there's a hole in the argument he says "The community would see that this is wrong!" How? Why would "the community" have a unified opinion? Human communities don't have known tendencies toward bias and injustice? This dude didn't make one good argument. That's probably why he was sweating and stuttering the whole time. I feel sorry for you if you think this makes sense.
I mean "the community" decided the death of george floyd was unjust. The community decided OJ murdered his wife even when the legal system failed. I fail to see your point
His society works based on public opinion where most people agree with voluntarism. Just like how people today believe in and worship coercive government.
When he says “the community” does he not realize he is arguing for mob rule? He is talking about a legal system where you have a tyrannical majority or the most powerful group make all laws
We have that currently. Democracy is a mob rule. Majority want obama as president, they got it and the minority have to accept all the decisions that obama makes and the minority can't do anything about it. After four years the mob/majority wants trump as president, they get it and the minority have to accept all the decisions that trump makes and the minority can't do antything about it. This process of mob rule called democracy happens every four to five years in every democracy and the minority can't do anything. Your neighbours choose the person who will represent you in democracy. If all your neighbours want X as mayor to represent them and you don't want X but want Y as your mayor to represent you, what option do you have if your neighbours elect X as mayor, and your nieghbours get to mob rule you on policies which you don't agree on. Now your response might be I have a chance to elect Y as a mayor after four years, but important thing is CHANCE, its not a guarantee that you will have Y as mayor for next 4 years, its a chance. But agin in that scenario if majority elect Y as mayor and X supporters are minority, now Y mob rules the X supporters. Do you wan't your Lawyers and Doctors who represent you and will fight for you to be selected by your neighbours? You will have a chance to change lawyer after four years if you dislike the current one and your neighbours will elect new lawyer to represent you, is it okay for you? I assume the answer to this is NO, you don't want your neighbours to chose lawyer for you, you want you to chose your own lawyer and have the ability to fire him at a whim if he doesn't represent you properly. But in democracy/mob rule your nieghbours chose who will represent you. Free market anarchism is not mob rule, current democracy and government is mob rule disguised as good for society so people don't think critically of it and just go with what government says.
It starts to sound senseless....glad I didn't sub...Time to accept the future of Eternal Living Light where words aren't used but we do actions obiectual and definitions dont exist, no ideas but obiectual, non-abstract presentation....objectual objective...(non-derogatory, univocal sense)
I'll take "things that will never happen" for $500, Alex:) People, unfortunately, just don't behave this way. Massively multi-polar conditions look like Somalia or Afghanistan or history's various Dark Ages. It's a fantastic and interesting thought-experiment, though, and highly valuable considering that we might just have to redesign civilization from the ground up in the next couple of centuries. Ultimately, though, there is going to be a central government with a monopoly on the legal use of violence aside from self defense. Also, well, it's going to be a massively multipolar period. So, having large armies that can hold off the barbarians (and even, reclaim barbarian lands), are going to definitely be a thing. Sorry. Wish it could be different!
i love how Rob drills down into these issues at a deep and detailed level. It really helps me see how a stateless society could work.
Brilliant lecture
Some elements of this do exist in a free-market system. Just to look at the repo industry. People steal cars from banks, by not making payments, the bank responds by hiring a private firm to recover the asset. I would also argue that we vote to choose judges. If you think of an election as a market then this hypothesis really isn't that different from how our society currently works.
😂 😂 😂 1,2, 8... That's how I count 🤣🤣🤣
I gotta say, "criminals will willingly check themselves into a prison" is a pretty wild take.
If the incentives are right, they might. The alternative is a life on the run, which is kind of a prison of its own.
Or join a gang. They're like private security groups, but actually exist.
@@coletrain5667 still better than prison
@@OceanicSwamp but its not like prison of today of just sitting in a jail cell 20 hours a day. Its just a place for people to live and work with supervision so they can't hurt anyone else.
@@Paul-A01 well would gangs be around if there's no market incentive? What i mean by that is arent most gangs centered around the production and selling of illegal substances.
8:30 🤯
Everything he says about legal authority is demonstrated one way or another by the functioning of decentralized tribal societies in the real world, particularly Icelandic and Irish, whos functions are well attested. It also seems obvious to me that such a system today would produce a much more peaceable result than the famously quarrelsome societies of the past, just as we can observe interpersonal violence plummet for the last 500 years with no clear correlation to any particular administrative system.
However the pacifist bit at the beginning seems to be pure fantasy: any society need to be able to deal with psychopaths and invasions, and there is no non violent way to deal with that. One might believe aggressive violence would be more uncommon in a stateless society, but to claim it would just disappear seem to me to be just as ridiculous as the communist belief in "the New Man." All the examples of successful non-violence are dependent upon a wider collective community feeling a oneness with the people practicing it, and in a stateless society such communities would be expected to be much smaller than "fellow American citizen" or "fellow subject of the British Crown."
It also seems to me that this is the main weakness of the idea of statelessness. All the practical quibbling people usually come up with (roads) seem obviously solvable; the moral case seems clear (since it is just a case of removing moral exceptions); and as stated above, the question of legal authority seems solvable both through reasoned argument and historical analogy. But the state exist specifically because it makes it easier to organize violence, whether offensively or defensively. History is replete with examples of more hierarchical ad centralized groups running roughshot over more decentralized ones (Rome vs. Gaul, Swebians vs. heir neighbors), and of small bands of dedicated warriors conquering vast numbers of people (Mongols, Franks, Arabs). How does one deal with a totalitarian neighbor or an ascendant warrior cult in a stateless society? It is mentiond at the end but never addressed.
I have always maintained that theft is theft and murder is murder and assault comes under both so why so many laws about what is theft and what is murder. All of it is disrespect towards others.
8:06: this is how we got "man-made climate change" and "evolution" and a whole host of other "sciences" and "laws" of science or physics.
This thought occurred to me a couple days after watching this video. Why do so many anarcolibertarian thinkers assume that just because the government wouldn't be doing something, that it therefore follows that it would have to be done for profit? Certain such functions could be done by voluntary non profit organizations as well, such as volunteer militias for defense. I would use the real world example of volunteer fire departments as an example.
While volunteer forces are amazing and certainly a very real thing, we can't just assume that people will volunteer for it. We need to figure out what would happen if no one wanted to do things; because fighting fire and crime are acts most would consider noble, but plenty of necessities don't have that same public perception.
Would volunteers work in certain settings? Absolutely. Can we count on volunteers working in every setting? Absolutely not.
I think ancaps are putting out a literal worst case scenario. So if no one volunteers to do things there are already market incentives to do them. The fact that people volunteer is just a layer on top.
I think it’s the technology required at this point as well. You’d still need the private companies to produce the weapons, surveillance technology, aircraft, etc. or we’d get slapped around by any legit military force. I don’t think the members of the militia would be the issue because the incentive would be to defend your way of life
@@PeterPorty Yes and if volunteers don't volunteraly come to help we can pay a firm to do it, that firm and its employees have monetary incentive to do that work. The point is in market system we will have multiple choices and the poor performing assets will go out of business, so every company has monetary incentive to provide good service.
Right now we have no option, if government controlled fire service is slow, is incompetent and lets your house burn, what option do you have? Next time when your or your neighbours house burn what option do they have other than to call the same government fire department which is incompetent?
In free market economy if my house burns and I call ABC company fire services and if they are incompetent and burn down my house, next time when my house or my neighbours faces same type of incident i will not call ABC company and will instead call BAC company for the service who has better reputation than previous company and this time BAC company has even more monetary incentive to provide good service to gain more customers than ABC company.
The whole private judge thing sounds interesting, but what about areas with a population too low to support such an occupation?
then a judge from a surrounding area would come in because he knows he could be paid more because of less competition
I suppose one could operate like an old west circuit judge, but I doubt it would be very profitable.
Devin Stromgren in places that have small populations crime rarely happens. So when crime does happen they could just summon a judge from a few hours over.
Government judge, who is payed via tax dollars.
Listen to Hans Herman hoppers talk what must be done.
I appreciate that Murphy has thought about this, and now he needs to think it through.
1) Murphy's system *necessitates* a private security force
The problem is the interim between a crime occurring and receipt of a legal decision. Despite all of its imperfections (I know, per the US SCt, that the police don't have a constitutional duty to protect citizens), the current system has police to dispatch when a crime is reported. Under Murphy's system, a crime occurs and afterwards the victim seeks a legal opinion. If police no longer exist, who or what force stops an attempted rape or murder from becoming an actual rape or murder? Worse, a criminal has every incentive and no obstacles (like police, witness protection, etc.) to silencing a victim before he or she can seek a legal opinion. Better a dead victim than a live complainant.
2) Crime requires not just rehabilitation but also punishment
Murphy seems to think crime would be severely eliminated by mere social ostracism. That's ludicrous. Actual use of force (imprisonment, death penalty, etc.) is required to halt crime. In Robin Hood's England, being an outlaw meant being 'outside the law' such that one had no rights and could be killed with impunity by any member of the community. Vast virtually unchecked authority was also given to posses and marshals in the US Old West. In Murphy's system, so such threat exists. Plus, if you kill your victim before he/she gets a legal opinion, you're scot-free.
Murphy's take on this sounds very similar to claims that I've heard from people who maintain there is no such thing as free will. If there is no free will then punishment is pointless.
1) Insurance companies would provide private security, I don't get your problem
2)The goal of a legal system is to enforce and protect property rights. The punishment is only necessary to give something back to the victim, otherwise it's just a way to defend "society" which as a whole doesn't exist.
1) Under Murphy's system, the police supposedly cease to exist - except that they're still around with only superficial changes. You see, they're not called "police" but "XXX Co. Security" and they're private sector rather than public. Point is, the same police/security/guys in uniforms w/ badges and guns are still around.
2) _The goal of a legal system is to enforce and protect property rights_
According to whom? You're making an assertion but you've offered no argument, logic, evidence, etc. whatsoever.
Every single legal system in existence has existed to mete out retribution (punishment) to an offender. Ancient Egypt, Greece, and Rome used corporal punishment often but seldom imposed capital punishment; Japan and China had ingenious tortures and numerous crimes subject to capital punishment; and Napoleonic Britain and France had much harsher sentences than today but I'd wager they'd still be relatively recognizable to a modern legal scholar.
_The punishment is only necessary to give something back to the victim, otherwise it's just a way to defend "society" which as a whole doesn't exist._
A criminal is an "offender" because he has violated laws protecting us individually and as a group. In the event that an individual victim cannot be identified, or he is dead or otherwise unwilling/unable to participate in proceedings, or numerous victims are diffusely harmed (e.g. a polluter), then the people of a state can stand in the victim's stead. Thus, a legal complaint is filed in the name of "the people of the State of Alabama versus Joe Blow," or more simply "the State of Alabama versus Joe Blow." So yes, the state - "society" - does in fact exist.
censorship bites, the difference is there isn’t a giant monopoly on violence. Also, the “wild” west wasn’t so wild. There were actually written contracts, etc. that were enforced without law. Also written constitutions to ride the wagon trains out to the west. Another thing, Robin Hood stole the tax money that was stolen from the people and gave it back to them.
You might want to re-read what I wrote. I was arguing that criminals being completely deprived of legal protections in medieval England and free rein given to marshals in the Wild West *were good things* because they provided severe, immediate responses to offenders (I mean 'immediate' in the sense of proximal, not time). As opposed to Murphy's system, where even police no longer exist and criminals supposedly "check in" to detention facilities, the legal system is entirely reactive instead of proscriptive (seeking judgments vs. a body of laws), and violence isn't monopolized but available for hire to people of means.
Many good ideas. The structure of talk makes it unpleasant to follow. If you start with the exposition and then respond to criticism, we know what you're defending. I don't know why you would start with the defense first. The bit at the start about pacifism was not necessary context.
Depends on the audience.
In the real world private legal systems and security firms merged into what we call countries. Those countries used to be privately owned by monarchs and then became democracies where each citizen/shareholder has 1 vote. People used to pay a fixed membership fee of 1 sack of corn, and today instead they pay a more nuanced membership fee calcualted as a % of income, VAT, and other taxes. There are over 200 different countries competing. People with high net worth, incomes, etc. can freely move to any country they wish, and the countries actively compete to keep their security high and taxes low to attract such people and get them to stay. History and the market could have resulted in the world being dominated by organisations such as Guilds and Church Orders, instead it has become Countries and Corporations. Any weird mix of organisations that control and compete over security, law, production, welfare, etc. is possible.
Whenever there's a hole in the argument he says "The community would see that this is wrong!" How? Why would "the community" have a unified opinion? Human communities don't have known tendencies toward bias and injustice?
This dude didn't make one good argument. That's probably why he was sweating and stuttering the whole time. I feel sorry for you if you think this makes sense.
I mean "the community" decided the death of george floyd was unjust. The community decided OJ murdered his wife even when the legal system failed. I fail to see your point
@@bronsinxc I agree with you on the last point.
His society works based on public opinion where most people agree with voluntarism. Just like how people today believe in and worship coercive government.
When he says “the community” does he not realize he is arguing for mob rule? He is talking about a legal system where you have a tyrannical majority or the most powerful group make all laws
they would be subject to other private law systems though. Reputation would play as a massive factor into this.
We have that currently. Democracy is a mob rule. Majority want obama as president, they got it and the minority have to accept all the decisions that obama makes and the minority can't do anything about it. After four years the mob/majority wants trump as president, they get it and the minority have to accept all the decisions that trump makes and the minority can't do antything about it. This process of mob rule called democracy happens every four to five years in every democracy and the minority can't do anything.
Your neighbours choose the person who will represent you in democracy. If all your neighbours want X as mayor to represent them and you don't want X but want Y as your mayor to represent you, what option do you have if your neighbours elect X as mayor, and your nieghbours get to mob rule you on policies which you don't agree on.
Now your response might be I have a chance to elect Y as a mayor after four years, but important thing is CHANCE, its not a guarantee that you will have Y as mayor for next 4 years, its a chance. But agin in that scenario if majority elect Y as mayor and X supporters are minority, now Y mob rules the X supporters.
Do you wan't your Lawyers and Doctors who represent you and will fight for you to be selected by your neighbours? You will have a chance to change lawyer after four years if you dislike the current one and your neighbours will elect new lawyer to represent you, is it okay for you? I assume the answer to this is NO, you don't want your neighbours to chose lawyer for you, you want you to chose your own lawyer and have the ability to fire him at a whim if he doesn't represent you properly.
But in democracy/mob rule your nieghbours chose who will represent you.
Free market anarchism is not mob rule, current democracy and government is mob rule disguised as good for society so people don't think critically of it and just go with what government says.
It starts to sound senseless....glad I didn't sub...Time to accept the future of Eternal Living Light where words aren't used but we do actions obiectual and definitions dont exist, no ideas but obiectual, non-abstract presentation....objectual objective...(non-derogatory, univocal sense)
I'll take "things that will never happen" for $500, Alex:) People, unfortunately, just don't behave this way. Massively multi-polar conditions look like Somalia or Afghanistan or history's various Dark Ages. It's a fantastic and interesting thought-experiment, though, and highly valuable considering that we might just have to redesign civilization from the ground up in the next couple of centuries. Ultimately, though, there is going to be a central government with a monopoly on the legal use of violence aside from self defense. Also, well, it's going to be a massively multipolar period. So, having large armies that can hold off the barbarians (and even, reclaim barbarian lands), are going to definitely be a thing. Sorry. Wish it could be different!
Are you gay>?
No u are