You are viewing a single comment's thread from:
RE: So, you're an anarchist?
there is nothing universal
Nothing besides adaptation. Thus my statement that human nature is a fiction.
or instinctual
Uhh... survival, safety, reproduction...
there is nothing universal
Nothing besides adaptation. Thus my statement that human nature is a fiction.
or instinctual
Uhh... survival, safety, reproduction...
Human nature is to hoard resources. Law is fictional but we can swear fealty to it and give it power in that way.
Your opinion, I disagree, and there is no proof either way, so we're just going in circles.
True, but why would we? I am a huge fan of agreements, contracts, intentional communities, dispute-resolution organizations, and many other fictions that we can give power to, which do not involve force or coercion.
Who decides when a violation of a private agreement happened?
Those involved, and/or anyone else that was involved in the agreement process as a mediator, DRO, etc.
Sounds expensive. A private system of civil procedure. And if you disagree with the results? War?
It might be, but it would necessarily be less expensive than doing the same thing through force, coercion, and monopoly.
If you disagree with the results then you suck it up, because you voluntarily agreed to how those results would be come to.
You're Saying that everyone has to fund their own personal court of civil procedure. (Which is already possible btw) That's definately expensive and unaffordable for ordinary people who have no concept of law beyond the minimum drinking age or speeding ticket. You also haven't opined on how to handle criminal matters.
The great thing about non-hierarchical, de-centralized approaches to human organization is that we don't have to have a one-size-fits-all answer for dealing with our inter-personal issues. Some communities will deal with things one way, others in a different way. There would be a variety of DROs, court systems, mediation systems, unitive/restorative justice programs, and so much more available without people with guns claiming a monopoly on all dispute resolution.
Neither minimum drinking age or speeding have anything to do with law, they are both matters of corporate rule, and do not apply to humans, only "legal persons". The fact that so many humans have been tricked into operating as "persons" is one that could not exist without the violence of government.
Criminal matters (meaning there is a victim) would again be handled in a vast array of different manners by different communities. I mentioned this in a different comment, but it would be very worth reading "Atlas Snubbed", as Ken plays out a variety of voluntary criminal & civil disputes, ways to resolve them, and even ways to respond to those that ignore/challenge the decision.
Have you published anything I can read on this subject?
I can't say that I have, very little of my writing is actually about anarchy; I tend to focus on mindfulness, self-improvement, building communities, emotional development, healing trauma, etc. I could go through my links library and start throwing things out, I just generally try not to be that guy (unless asked to)
Have you ever been involved in complex business litigation (not involving any government) where the parties have serious disagreements over the terms and whether or not they were violated? Where mediation and arbitration failed repeatedly so many times it would never be resolved without binding arbitration that the contracts never considered; where the losing party ignored the "binding" judgement? How would you gavels that? Because it's actually happening and I was an expert witness in the case.
First, most "business litigation" has to do with corporations, which cannot exist without the state. Second, these things would, as always, be handled differently by different communities, based on their agreements and moral standards.
This is also one of those areas where smart contracts can & will do better than anything we've seen so far, and are opening the door to many possibilities we can't even imagine yet.
Morality is also fictional construct created by the framework of fictional law and therefore, morals need our fealty to have power.
There are many who would disagree with that. Check out Mark Passio's "Natural Law" seminars.
I will. Thanks.
I'd just like to tell you how much I appreciate the civility & maturity with which you've participated in this conversation :-)
It's so wonderful when talking with someone, where both have differing opinions on things, but both are actually listening to each other, and actually responding to the statements made instead of just repeating their own stance over and over :-)
This is a game-changer.