A question (mostly) for AC'ers, about the rule of law.

[ShakeZula06]

[ QUOTE ]
No State- I love pouring toxic waste over my yard (don't ask how I got it, I did some things I'm not proud of). This obviously gets into the water table and fudges the water supply of my immediate area. My neighbors complain about growing third arms, but since I've never entered into a contract with them, they have no recourse

[/ QUOTE ]
You are quite objectively damaging their property, and thus it's an initiation of force.
[ QUOTE ]
More over, even if they think it's wrong, what DRO do we go to, mine, theirs, a 3rd option maybe?

[/ QUOTE ]
DRO's act to minimalize violence and solve problems. I'd imagine in this scenario your DRO, you, or any other representative of yourself work with your neighbor's representatives on finding an unbiased arbitrator.
[ QUOTE ]
I'm not going of course,

[/ QUOTE ]
Then you're property and well being may be in danger.

[Paragon]

In the OP example (but in AC land), there would probably be a DRO that caters to the Hindu religion and then other DROs that other people sign up with. These DROs will then have voluntary, predetermined methods for dealing with new problems (at the very least agreements to peacefully reconcile unforeseen situations) that overlap with their separate clientele. In this way, there can be a consistent and completely global body of law. This would be great for both businesses and individuals, as the rapidly changing and unilaterally decided laws currently create uncertainty in the future, raising time preference, etc. etc.

As for dumping toxic waste, I think that would be uniformly recognized as destroying other people's property, but again, that will be for the DROs to decide. While I can imagine companies insuring against air pollution, toxic waste, maybe even obnoxious noise from heavy machinery, some stuff won't be. Classic example is that my property is shooting off unwanted photons onto someone else's property, but that no DRO would likely get involved with something that silly.

As for the OP, instead of exceptions to the law in special cases, where there is an opening for corruption, I would prefer the law to be revised. That way it can more appropriately handle the situation, and still be universal and applied to everyone.

[Richard Tanner]

[ QUOTE ]
You are quite objectively damaging their property, and thus it's an initiation of force.

[/ QUOTE ]

I agree 100%, but who's going to stop me, you have no authority over me. Moreover, I'm probably hurting many people, each with their own DROs, and each DRO with it's own laws, unlikely we can all reach an agreement, especially with me, who again, hasn't made a contract with you.

[ QUOTE ]
I'd imagine in this scenario your DRO, you, or any other representative of yourself work with your neighbor's representatives on finding an unbiased arbitrator.

[/ QUOTE ]

Why? My DRO sprung up because there wasn't anyone to cater to the "Toxic Waste-ophiles" out there. They saw a market and took advantage, certainly they aren't going to back down now.

[ QUOTE ]
Then you're property and well being may be in danger.

[/ QUOTE ]

From who? Toxic waste is fairly agreeable, but what about things like second hand smoke, some people think it's harmless, others think it's awful. How do we solve that one. How's about my toxic waste, how much is too much. How many rads of radiation do we accept.

Certainly you can't answer those (unless you can predict the future) but you should be able to see how each person living in an indepentent republic of myselfia is going to get incredibly complicated here. This is made 100x worse by the fact that what I do effects you and vice versa.

Cody

[ShakeZula06]

[ QUOTE ]
I agree 100%, but who's going to stop me, you have no authority over me.

[/ QUOTE ]
Why not? If you're harming me I have a right to stop you.
[ QUOTE ]
Moreover, I'm probably hurting many people,

[/ QUOTE ]
You perfectly pointed out another weakness for the polluter. It's pretty much the rest of the society against a few bad apples.
[ QUOTE ]
and each DRO with it's own laws, unlikely we can all reach an agreement, especially with me, who again, hasn't made a contract with you.


[/ QUOTE ]
The whole point of dispute resolution organizations are finding an acceptable solution. You're just picturing a rigid system that probably can't work. The people involved could all find someone to represent their voice just like people do with class action lawsuits today. Or maybe they do something else, or any hundred of other creative ideas we could brainstorm. If we could predict what system would work the best, we wouldn't need a market.

And again, the lack of a contract doesn't mean anything. You can't murder me just because we don't have a contract saying you're not allowed to.
[ QUOTE ]
Why? My DRO sprung up because there wasn't anyone to cater to the "Toxic Waste-ophiles" out there. They saw a market and took advantage, certainly they aren't going to back down now.

[/ QUOTE ]
Well if your DRO isn't in the business of resolving disputes, what is it doing? What makes you think you're impervious from retaliatory action from the rest of society?
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Then you're property and well being may be in danger.

[/ QUOTE ] From who?

[/ QUOTE ]
Everyone pissed off at you for [censored] up their property of course.
[ QUOTE ]
what about things like second hand smoke, some people think it's harmless, others think it's awful. How do we solve that one. How's about my toxic waste, how much is too much. How many rads of radiation do we accept.

Certainly you can't answer those (unless you can predict the future) but you should be able to see how each person living in an indepentent republic of myselfia is going to get incredibly complicated here. This is made 100x worse by the fact that what I do effects

[/ QUOTE ]
States don't erase externalities. They just erase the ability for individuals to find their own solutions that they find suitable and replace that ability with uniform, centralized, monopolized, usually ineffecient, bureaucratic red tape regulations. The state squashes the ability to find the most suitable solution to externalities.

Pick any of these:
Having a common HOA
common law
Coase theorem
Having a common DRO
Having your opposing DRO's agree on an unbiased arbitrator
Something we haven't thought of

[Richard Tanner]

[ QUOTE ]
Why not? If you're harming me I have a right to stop you.

[/ QUOTE ]

Who says I'm harming you? (Toxic waste, sure, but what about the lesser cases, pollution and the like, who decides what harm is, maybe a large group of people don't mind a little acid rain, and hell, even if global warming is real, I don't want to spend money on jackets anyway).

[ QUOTE ]
And again, the lack of a contract doesn't mean anything. You can't murder me just because we don't have a contract saying you're not allowed to.

[/ QUOTE ]

See above, matter of scale. Murder is obviously a force transaction. Is the example from a thread a week or so ago a transaction (tresspassing)? Where's the line, who draws it, who enforces it.

[ QUOTE ]
Well if your DRO isn't in the business of resolving disputes, what is it doing? What makes you think you're impervious from retaliatory action from the rest of society?

[/ QUOTE ]

Exactly my fear. Now I have my group and you have yours, awww crap.

[ QUOTE ]
Everyone pissed off at you for [censored] up their property of course.


[/ QUOTE ]

What about my friends like like dumping/pollution/etc. What if they have X+1 guns (where X=guns you guys have), etc. etc.

See where this is going. Sometimes a mild standardization is a good thing.

[ QUOTE ]
They just erase the ability for individuals to find their own solutions that they find suitable

[/ QUOTE ]

Not true

Cody: Hey Shake, your tree is blocking the light onto my yard.
Shake: Oh sorry I'll cut that down.

Cody: Hey Shake, your tree is blocking the light onto my yard.
Shake: Go [censored] Yourself!
Cody: See you in court.

(note: I don't think I have any legal grounds for a tree on your yard, but I'm assuming you get the point)

[ QUOTE ]
replace that ability with:

[/ QUOTE ]

[ QUOTE ]
uniform

[/ QUOTE ]

Yep, that's my favorite part.

[ QUOTE ]
centralized

[/ QUOTE ]

Yes and No, my town is pretty de-centralized when compared to the feds, and I'd much rather my townmates and I decide our zoning laws for example.

[ QUOTE ]
monopolized

[/ QUOTE ]

Yep, again, love this part.

[ QUOTE ]
usually ineffecient

[/ QUOTE ]

Sadly yeah, though I put this more on people then the system. Lack of training, need to jusify a needless job, etc.

[ QUOTE ]
bureaucratic red tape regulations

[/ QUOTE ]

Agree, though these are both good and bad.

Cody

[ShakeZula06]

[ QUOTE ]
Who says I'm harming you?

[/ QUOTE ]
If you're altering my property and I don't like it or consent to it, I do, and have a right to reparation.
[ QUOTE ]
maybe a large group of people don't mind a little acid rain, and hell, even if global warming is real, I don't want to spend money on jackets anyway

[/ QUOTE ]
Then they don't have to take action. If *I* do, I should be allowed to.
[ QUOTE ]
See above, matter of scale. Murder is obviously a force transaction. Is the example from a thread a week or so ago a transaction (tresspassing)? Where's the line, who draws it, who enforces it.

[/ QUOTE ]
Depends on the owner and the representatives of the parties involved. I'd say tresspassing is a forced transaction, but just as there is a matter of degree in the infraction, there is a matter of degree in punishment. Pretty much everyone agrees that the punishment should fit the crime. If I shoot someone because they cut through my property once and didn't harm anything, chances are I'm going to be punished myself.
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Well if your DRO isn't in the business of resolving disputes, what is it doing? What makes you think you're impervious from retaliatory action from the rest of society?


[/ QUOTE ] Exactly my fear. Now I have my group and you have yours, awww crap.

[/ QUOTE ]
Here's you're assuming conflict > cooperation when it comes to finding resolutions for the parties involved. Let's take this example from David Freidman's book Machinery of Freedom. Here's chapter 29, Police, courts, and laws--on the market-
[ QUOTE ]
Inevitably, conflicts would arise between one protective agency and another. How might they be resolved?

I come home one night and find my television set missing. I immediately call my protection agency, Tannahelp Inc., to report the theft. They send an agent. He checks the automatic camera which Tannahelp, as part of their service, installed in my living room and discovers a picture of one Joe Bock lugging the television set out the door. The Tannahelp agent contacts Joe, informs him that Tannahelp has reason to believe he is in possession of my television set, and suggests he return it, along with an extra ten dollars to pay for Tannahelp's time and trouble in locating Joe. Joe replies that he has never seen my television set in his life and tells the Tannahelp agent to go to hell.

The agent points out that until Tannahelp is convinced there has been a mistake, he must proceed on the assumption that the television set is my property. Six Tannahelp employees, all large and energetic, will be at Joe's door next morning to collect the set. Joe, in response, informs the agent that he also has a protection agency, Dawn Defense, and that his contract with them undoubtedly requires them to protect him if six goons try to break into his house and steal his television set.

The stage seems set for a nice little war between Tannahelp and Dawn Defense. It is precisely such a possibility that has led some libertarians who are not anarchists, most notably Ayn Rand, to reject the possibility of competing free-market protection agencies.

But wars are very expensive, and Tannahelp and Dawn Defense are both profit-making corporations, more interested in saving money than face. I think the rest of the story would be less violent than Miss Rand supposed.

The Tannahelp agent calls up his opposite number at Dawn Defense. 'We've got a problem. . . .' After explaining the situation, he points out that if Tannahelp sends six men and Dawn eight, there will be a fight. Someone might even get hurt. Whoever wins, by the time the conflict is over it will be expensive for both sides. They might even have to start paying their employees higher wages to make up for the risk. Then both firms will be forced to raise their rates. If they do, Murbard Ltd., an aggressive new firm which has been trying to get established in the area, will undercut their prices and steal their customers. There must be a better solution.

The man from Tannahelp suggests that the better solution is arbitration. They will take the dispute over my television set to a reputable local arbitration firm. If the arbitrator decides that Joe is innocent, Tannahelp agrees to pay Joe and Dawn Defense an indemnity to make up for their time and trouble. If he is found guilty, Dawn Defense will accept the verdict; since the television set is not Joe's, they have no obligation to protect him when the men from Tannahelp come to seize it.

What I have described is a very makeshift arrangement. In practice, once anarcho-capitalist institutions were well established, protection agencies would anticipate such difficulties and arrange contracts in advance, before specific conflicts occurred, specifying the arbitrator who would settle them.

[/ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Not true

Cody: Hey Shake, your tree is blocking the light onto my yard.
Shake: Oh sorry I'll cut that down.

Cody: Hey Shake, your tree is blocking the light onto my yard.
Shake: Go [censored] Yourself!
Cody: See you in court.

[/ QUOTE ]
Or it could go-
Cody: Hey Shake, your tree is blocking the light onto my yard.
Shake: But I like my tree
Cody: What about if I pay you $X to remove the tree?
Shake: How about $Y?
*haggling occurs*
Cody: OK fine, I'll pay $Z.
Shake: agreed, nice doing business for you
Cody: I also think it would be a smart idea to set up some system between us to prevent this from happening in the future.
Shake: Sounds good, let's work something out, or we could subscribe to a common DRO or set of rules or common law.

or

Cody:Hey Shake, your tree is blocking the light onto my yard.
Shake: How about I pay you $X a month for the right to block your sunlight?
Cody: How about $Y? I really like my sunlight.
*haggling occurs*
Shake: Fine I'll pay you $Z/month
Cody: great, nice doing business with you.

or

Cody: Hey shake it's against our HOAs in this neighborhood to have your tree reduce my sunlight. You must cut it down/pay me $X for this obstruction/accept me paying you $X to get rid of it as is the terms of the HOA.
Shake: Sounds great I'll pick [insert option here]

or they could avoid these problems all together without an HOA.

Cody: Hi nieghbor, since we're living next to each other I was thinking that we might want to draw up a contract in advance to solve any externality problems ahead of time.
Shake: Sounds great. We can base it off our own preferences as well as common law.

The solutions are infinite. Read up on Coase Theorem if you haven't before.
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
usually ineffecient

[/ QUOTE ]Sadly yeah, though I put this more on people then the system. Lack of training, need to jusify a needless job, etc.

[/ QUOTE ]
The fundamental reason that monopolistic law is always inefficient as compared to it's market counterpart is because they don't need to be. They have no competition. Bureaucrats don't need to be efficient. Individuals who actually have to deal with the consequences on the other hand, have a big incentive to being efficient, and also have the ability to make much more optimal solutions based on their personal preferences rather then settle for the one size fits all solution.

And if you like uniformed central law, you're in luck because common law would provide the basis for law in a land of no territorial monopolies. And of course, if you and others prefer a complete one size fits all legal code, then the market opens up for HOAs and you pick one that has a legal code that fits you. The great thing that makes HOA law > statist law is HOA's are bound to be smaller and more numerous and diverse then their statist counterparts. You may say legal codes are decentralized because they differ by county, but under AC they could differ by street or nieghborhood!

[Richard Tanner]

[ QUOTE ]
If you're altering my property and I don't like it or consent to it, I do, and have a right to reparation.

[/ QUOTE ]

Altering in what way? Is taking sunlight away too much? How's about cutting off a stream that also runs through my yard?

These go on forever, which means it would likely take you or I a very long time to not screw anything up, because even simple things can call for huge penelties if one of our particular DROs think so. You think what we have no is ineffiecient, wait 'til that happens.

[ QUOTE ]
If *I* do, I should be allowed to.


[/ QUOTE ]

Good luck, my (pollution loving neighborhood) isn't going to like you coming over here and telling us what to do.

[ QUOTE ]
Pretty much everyone agrees that the punishment should fit the crime.

[/ QUOTE ]

I'm certainly in this group, and I wouldn't shoot you if you walked on my lawn, but I can't speak for anyone else. Not everyones proportional scale fits into the norm.

[ QUOTE ]
Or it could go-
Cody: Hey Shake, your tree is blocking the light onto my yard.
Shake: But I like my tree
Cody: What about if I pay you $X to remove the tree?
Shake: How about $Y?
*haggling occurs*
Cody: OK fine, I'll pay $Z.
Shake: agreed, nice doing business for you
Cody: I also think it would be a smart idea to set up some system between us to prevent this from happening in the future.
Shake: Sounds good, let's work something out, or we could subscribe to a common DRO or set of rules or common law.

or

Cody:Hey Shake, your tree is blocking the light onto my yard.
Shake: How about I pay you $X a month for the right to block your sunlight?
Cody: How about $Y? I really like my sunlight.
*haggling occurs*
Shake: Fine I'll pay you $Z/month
Cody: great, nice doing business with you.

or

Cody: Hey shake it's against our HOAs in this neighborhood to have your tree reduce my sunlight. You must cut it down/pay me $X for this obstruction/accept me paying you $X to get rid of it as is the terms of the HOA.
Shake: Sounds great I'll pick [insert option here]

or they could avoid these problems all together without an HOA.

Cody: Hi nieghbor, since we're living next to each other I was thinking that we might want to draw up a contract in advance to solve any externality problems ahead of time.
Shake: Sounds great. We can base it off our own preferences as well as common law.

The solutions are infinite. Read up on Coase Theorem if you haven't before.

[/ QUOTE ]

Super! Of course you realize, you're making my point and not yours, because all of these things are possible under the state we live in now (save for the DROs).

[ QUOTE ]
Excerpt from Machinery of Freedom

[/ QUOTE ]

The problem here is that it's equally likely that DROs in these sorts of examples just start "trading" favors. Tannacorp. (love that name, by the way) would say "Hey we have a case out for your Joe Schmo" and Dawn Defense would say "Yeah and we have a case for your Jack Johnson, what if we just give him up to you, and you give us our guy, hell the other option is a fight between us."

Keep in mind, DROs and Arbitration will be profit based, not justice based. If profits happen to align with justice, fine, but the moment they don't, what do you suppose companies will follow.

You might as well put people on American Criminal Idol for a fairer shake.

[ QUOTE ]
Individuals who actually have to deal with the consequences on the other hand, have a big incentive to being efficient

[/ QUOTE ]

I wasn't aware elected officials were immune from reprisal. I mean sure some of ours are (congress has, what, a 95% re-election rate) but it's not as if they aren't up every 2 years.

[ QUOTE ]
have a big incentive to being efficient, and also have the ability to make much more optimal solutions based on their personal preferences

[/ QUOTE ]

For smplicities sake, I'd agree ~100% here.

[ QUOTE ]
...rather then settle for the one size fits all solution.

[/ QUOTE ]

This is really either or. You either get staying power and resources or flexibility. You don't get them both. My facist government may not be effiecient but we have the resources to do alot of things on a large scale. Your small HOA has the freedom to adapt to your changing needs very quickly, but not alot of resources to get anything done.

You might gather enough support to fund large things (roads for example) just as I might make a choice that benifets my people. Six depressing shortcomings of one, one-half dozen depressing shortcomings of another really.

[ QUOTE ]
And if you like uniformed central law, you're in luck because common law would provide the basis for law in a land of no territorial monopolies.

[/ QUOTE ]

And no promise of enforcement either. You have a neighborhood full of people and I have more, come and get me (and on and on and on).

And what of things you do that effect me, or vice versa? Are we left with popular opinion to steer compromise in each case.

My town allows drinking but bans homosexuals, your town does the oppisite. Are we left with saying "Ok we'll let 5 of yur queers go in exchange for 5 of our drunks."? How very just.

Actually, I'm starting to warm up to this plan. All that's really required would be alot of money and/or the gift of the golden tounge, and you could basically get away with anything. It's just like our courts now, except today we admit they're FUBAR in some cases.

Cody

[Copernicus]

"(note: I don't think I have any legal grounds for a tree on your yard, but I'm assuming you get the point)"

In many areas you do, with regulations in place for appearance and/or view protection.

You're points are, of course, right on, but the same as have been argued for at least 2 years here. The ACists either fail to see the gross inefficiencies or refuse to admit them. (It doesnt seem to be a matter of admitting them but believing they are a "lesser evil", at least Ive never seen a thread admitting it).

[elwoodblues]

Are you trying to ask whether, assuming we have a state (not pipedreamland) is it better for individuals to follow the rule of law or ignore the law hoping for a market solution to legal problems (which won't happen because of the existence of the state). That is, should ACers be okay with people violating certain laws (because they are state supported) even though they would support a non-state solution despite the fact that they know a non-state solution is unlikely because of the monopoly provided by the state. How's that for clarity of writing..??

[VarlosZ]

[ QUOTE ]
Are you trying to ask whether, assuming we have a state (not pipedreamland) is it better for individuals to follow the rule of law or ignore the law hoping for a market solution to legal problems (which won't happen because of the existence of the state). That is, should ACers be okay with people violating certain laws (because they are state supported) even though they would support a non-state solution despite the fact that they know a non-state solution is unlikely because of the monopoly provided by the state. How's that for clarity of writing..??

[/ QUOTE ]

I wasn't asking about private citizens obeying the law, though that's an interesting related topic. I was asking about state officials who are tasked with enforcing the law. So, in the cow example from the OP, would you prefer that the people in charge of ordering diseased cattle to be slaughtered decided to look the other way? On the one hand, this particular cow is quite important to some people, and there's no reason to think that the temple would be unwilling or unable to segregate it from other animals (plus, if you're an AC'er, you don't think the state should have the ability to slaughter livestock to begin with). OTOH, allowing the executors of the law to diverge from it opens the door to poor judgement and corruption. So which interest is more important: having the state butt out of people's lives in a given case, or enforcing strict fidelity to the law by officials, thereby making government less odious in the long run?