Another problem for AC

[MelchyBeau]

how would judgements in the "courts" be enforced?

[jt1]

[ QUOTE ]
how would judgements in the "courts" be enforced?


[/ QUOTE ]

I'm not at all familiar with AC thought and have never seen the abbreviation "AC" before now, but I believe that court judgements would be enforced by the majority. In other words, if a child was being abused some activist could take the case to a local body of people who have earned the respect of the community and present the body with his evidence. If the body thought the problem eggregious enough, it would organize the community to take action. If the community agreed sufficiently with this "body" then enough people would avail themselves to the enforcement.

[WordWhiz]

[ QUOTE ]
how would judgements in the "courts" be enforced?

[/ QUOTE ]

Seriously guys, this is AC 101. I can practically see PVN, WillMagic, Borodog, etc. pounding their heads against their desks when they see this stuff for the hundredth time.

I used to debate religion and evolution/creationism online, so I know what it's like. Every week, somebody would post Pascal's Wager (never called that, of course), like it was the greatest thing since sliced bread, and then get upset when people would make sarcastic comments and shake their heads rather than providing a five page refutation. "Who provides the courts in ACland?" is the equivalent of "Is online poker rigged?" and "Can too many bad players make you lose money?"

I think an FAQ would be a good idea.

[MelchyBeau]

[ QUOTE ]

I used to debate religion and evolution/creationism online, so I know what it's like. Every week, somebody would post Pascal's Wager (never called that, of course), like it was the greatest thing since sliced bread, and then get upset when people would make sarcastic comments and shake their heads rather than providing a five page refutation. "Who provides the courts in ACland?" is the equivalent of "Is online poker rigged?" and "Can too many bad players make you lose money?"


[/ QUOTE ]


Yea you are right. Please lets not talk about AC ever so we can avoid people becoming informed about it.

I can't legitimatly participate in the AC debate if I have no [censored] clue what ACers believe. If you want to convince people you are right, then you have to have some information out there about how something will work. You can just say we will get rid of government and everything will be cool, you need to provide reasons for this, and answers to normal concerns about AC.

[WillMagic]

[ QUOTE ]
how would judgements in the "courts" be enforced?

[/ QUOTE ]

By private security agencies, generally. But it will almost certainly be in the interest of the parties involved to abide by the judgment of a respected arbitrator. If they don't they'd almost certainly be outcasts.

[ElliotR]

[ QUOTE ]
Elliot, any more response to my answer?

[/ QUOTE ]

Sure. You said:

[ QUOTE ]
Honestly given how much people despise child abuse I expect such organizations will spring up in the absence of the state. And really, if the parents are in fact abusing their children, then such organizations would be totally in the right.

[/ QUOTE ]

I will agree with this. There are private charities aimed at helping children and animals now.

[ QUOTE ]
However, such an organization would not be state-like, for one simple reason - it would be funded voluntarily, and it would also be liable for a civil suit. And because of that, it would have to be much more judicious in its interventions.

[/ QUOTE ]

Here you begin to lose me a little bit. Most US Governments are also subject to civil liability. And the funding, it seems to me, should not matter to the person whose child is being taken. So I don't believe that these factors really change the fact that there would be coercive force brought to bear on the abusive parents to take their "property" (at least as characterized by some AC proponents) even though nothing the parents are doing constitutes a tresspass on another adult's rights. I will concede that the force may be lesser than that used in the US today (which would include the possibility of criminal penalties) but it seems that the fundamental character of the force is the same.

[ElliotR]

As for this:

[ QUOTE ]
In an anarchocapitalist society, no one has the right to abuse their child. Their child is not property. The child has a right to life and liberty. If you see a child being abused I am sure there would be child protection foundations that you could contact and report the problem. They could conduct an investigation, and if they find and can show sufficient evidence, could sue for custody of the child.

[/ QUOTE ]

Let's ignore for a moment the very real practical problems with the notion of such investigations, and focus on the philiospohical underpinnings. This formulation attempts to address the issue by holding that children are not property, but rather have certain rights, including the right to "liberty". That's wonderful, but then raises the question of how conflicts between the desires of children and the desires of parents are resolved.

[KurtAngle]

Do ACers understand how a lot of this sounds like fantasy land to anyone not part of the AC rank and file? I'm sure Tony Soprano would love anarchocapitalism.

Our current government is corrupt, but it's hard to imagine an AC society not becoming more corrupt over time.

[Borodog]

[ QUOTE ]
Do ACers understand how a lot of this sounds like fantasy land to anyone not part of the AC rank and file? I'm sure Tony Soprano would love anarchocapitalism.

[/ QUOTE ]

Sure. Just like Al Capone loved it more when alcohol was legal rather than illegal.

Oh, wait. Nevermind.

Violent high time preference criminals dominate black markets because non-violent low time preference non-criminals do not enter them to compete. In the absence of the government reserving the market for criminals (you do realize that's what the government is actually doing when they outlaw something and make the market "black", right?), high time preference (i.e. poorly planned) violent (and hence by definition higher cost) firms cannot hope to compete with low time preference (i.e. well planned) non-violent (and hence by definition lower cost) firms.

[ QUOTE ]
Our current government is corrupt, but it's hard to imagine an AC society not becoming more corrupt over time.

[/ QUOTE ]

Define "corrupt."

[KurtAngle]

[ QUOTE ]
Sure. Just like Al Capone loved it more when alcohol was legal rather than illegal.

Oh, wait. Nevermind.

[/ QUOTE ]

Is this what they call a strawman?


[ QUOTE ]

Violent high time preference criminals dominate black markets because non-violent low time preference non-criminals do not enter them to compete. In the absence of the government reserving the market for criminals (you do realize that's what the government is actually doing when they outlaw something and make the market "black", right?), high time preference (i.e. poorly planned) violent (and hence by definition higher cost) firms cannot hope to compete with low time preference (i.e. well planned) non-violent (and hence by definition lower cost) firms.

[/ QUOTE ]

I don't know what you are referring to with regards to low time preference and high time preference criminals, and I don't think I was referring to a "black market" created by something being illegal. I wasn't suggesting that this or that be legal or illegal.

I expressing skepticism regarding the "efficacy" if you will, of private arbitrators and private security agencies, in the AC fantasy world.