[Borodog]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I don't even know what "unflinching property rights" means.

[/ QUOTE ] Absolute private property, the ability not merely of possesion and control but the ability to destroy.

[/ QUOTE ]

Sure, destroy whatever you own.

[ QUOTE ]
And to manipulate unrelated markets.

[/ QUOTE ]

Huh?

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I don't see how there can possibly ever be a "need" for public property, since that would mean there is a "need" for conflict. There is never a need for conflict

[/ QUOTE ] Unowned parcels of land.

[/ QUOTE ]

Unowned parcels of land cannot be "public property". Public property would mean something unworkable like, every person owns an equal quotal share of the property. Nothing could be done with the property without getting the permission of 6 billion people (or whatever arbitrarily sized group you arbitrarily restrict what you call "the public" to be for that particular property), which is impossible. What this would inevitably devolve into is an elite "caretaker" class, that would actually have control over the so-called "public property", i.e. they would become the actual owners in every meaningful sense except that they could not sell the property on the market and pocket the procedes (because then the jig would be up and the "public" would get prety pissed off that "their property" has been stolen from them).

What is so crazy about unowned parcels of land being owned by the people who homestead them, or so hard to understand about the market sorting out what constitutes abandoned property, other than that you just apparently don't want it to work?

[ QUOTE ]
Information.

[/ QUOTE ]

Different discussion. Information is not scarce. Land is.

[ QUOTE ]
The grand canyon.

[/ QUOTE ]

Why should the grand canyon be public property (i.e. the pseudo-private property of a few government bureaucrats)?

[ QUOTE ]
Scientific research.

[/ QUOTE ]

Again, different discussion. But my answer would be the same, the market would sort out IP.

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
There is no way for legislative bodies to be limited or uninterested, since by definition they have the right to create artificial law.

[/ QUOTE ] Sure there is people attemp this all the time, and people get better at it with each succesive attemp. Artificial law as opposed to what?

[/ QUOTE ]

Non-artificial law. I.e. law that is not made up by a tiny cabal of men and unilaterally forced on everyone else. Like a law that makes it illegal for banks to wire funds to internet gambling firms.

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
When self interested human beings are given the power to write laws, they will write them, and they will right them to favor themselves at the expense of the non-legislative class.

[/ QUOTE ] And this changes how exactly in AC. Self interested human beings will design systems to favor themselves at the expense of the non-designing class.

[/ QUOTE ]

Except nobody has to buy them. So what happens in a volunatry society is that people design products that favor the people that buy them. This includes the law. In a free market for law, "the law" would certainly be crafted by human beings (I imagine a judicial literature with perr review, as there is now a scientific literature). The difference is that if a lawmaker starts producing perverted law, nobody has to buy it.

This is really not hard to understand. The majority of people in society want justice out of their judicial system, whatever that society's definition of justice might be. Hence it will cater to them. Just decisions are valuable in the market, because they can be enforced. Unjust decisions are not valuable in the market, because they cannot be enforced.