You are viewing a single comment's thread from:
RE: Response to Roaming Millennial's Problem with Libertarians
A lawful authority? What the fuck is that exactly? Insurance companies already do conflict resolution and mitigation between two parties. The same would be true for REA's. There is ZERO reason to have any group that is above the law and protected by double standards.
So you’re going to ignore my question rather than answer it? If so, you’re clearly not interested in a honest debate.
Having a lawful authority (meaning one system of law instead of competing ones) doesn’t preclude holding all accountable to it
I did answer it, but you failed to see it apparently. Conflict resolution would be done through REA's, similar to today's insurance companies that already do conflict resolution. There would still be bounty hunters to track people down who were wanted for crimes and didn't respond to requests to defend themselves. There would still be Private Investigators.
People would be held accountable for their crimes, or they would become outlaws. Outlaws would no longer have the protection of the law. This isn't a system of competing laws either. Murder is murder, rape is rape, destruction of property is destruction of property. Pretty much all people can agree on what is a crime that has a victim and one that does not have a victim. Can you? Those things would be illegal and have consequences.
Everyone involved in that justice system would be equal under the law to everyone else too. There would be impartiality under the law for everyone. No enforcer class would exist anymore. Just as I have to have liability insurance as a PI, everyone else involved would too. There would be no "department immunity" for law enforcement officers anymore.
You didn’t answer it. One person believes there’s been a victim & the other doesn’t.
If they’re free to contract an agency they’re going to contract one that agrees with them. That leaves two agencies that will also disagree on whether or not there’s been a victim
It's an extreme example, but you rape someone and hire an agency that doesn't believe in rape or doesn't believe you raped. The other side disagrees obviously. How long do you think the first pro-rape agency would stay in business? Who's going to hire them other than rapists? Are there that many rapists? Insurance companies already settle disputes between people who don't agree on who's at fault. If someone, like my old landlord, who sued every tenant he had as a crook, abuses the REA's, they would no longer be represented. Instead, we have a court system now that allows that asshole to do what he does without any consequences. The judge is a friend of the landlord's lawyer, and they just laugh it up in court. Are you saying that system would be better than one without double standards and special protections? One that had to compete in an open market and that had to be fair and impartial?
My examples were intellectual property & abortion, not rape.
But even with rape, it must be objectively defined. If one agency believes a husband can’t rape his wife, or that it’s okay for a believer to force himself on an infidel (in the case of Sharia law) then you’ve got an agency that will violate rights.
Anarchy means such agencies can & will exist because there can be no consensus on what does & doesn’t constitute a violation of rights.
That’s why you need a proper government that is capable of holding ALL violators of rights accountable under one objective law that is applicable to all
Any thoughts on my last point @finnian ?
Do you see how it does no good to agree that rape (or any other form of aggression) is wrong if there can be no agreement on what constitutes rape? A moral authority is needed to define it, so that all whom are guilty of rape can be held accountable for it. Without that, you’ve got different agencies defending different actions, many of which will be immoral (a husband raping his wife for example)