You are viewing a single comment's thread from:
RE: Response to Roaming Millennial's Problem with Libertarians
I don’t need a ruler & am not forcing one on you.
WE do need rules to live by if our rights are to be protected.
The NAP alone cannot do that. In order for it to work, there has to be a common understanding as to what actions do & do not constitute aggression. That requires one law, since competing agencies means competing ideas about what qualifies as aggression
Aggression and what should and should not be illegal is quite easy to determine though. Is there a victim? Was person or property damaged? Was someone dishonest? No, it would not be just the NAP. I never suggested that and apologize if I did. There would be Rights Enforcement Agencies just like insurance companies today to negotiate differences between people and when a crime was committed. We do not need government court systems to make that system work either. Everyone working within the system would either be a volunteer or work for a company too without double standards or special protections under the law.
Abortion: some believe there’s a victim, others don’t.
Intellectual property theft: some believe there’s a victim, others don’t believe in intellectual property so they don’t believe there’s a victim.
Those are just two issues #libertarians disagree on. Most people aren’t libertarian & would disagree on many other things.
Do you see the problem? Prohibition of aggression is useless without agreement on what constitutes it
You can't stop abortion, but the issue of when the father wants the child and the mother doesn't does present a problem. Herbs have been used for thousands of years to auto abort a child. There's no way to stop it. I personally believe it is murder, but I'm not going to use force to stop the woman.
Nope, I do not believe in IP at all.
I'm not a "libertarian." I'm an individual liberty lover first, voluntaryist, and anarchist too. These issues could be worked out in the benefit of most people involved. Maybe the mother who wants to murder the child when the father doesn't would get rightly brought to court for her actions.
Again though... these issues would be resolved in a way much superior to our current system. What we have now is a disaster and needs to be stopped.
How? How do you propose to resolve such disputes with reason instead of violence?
It does no good to agree that aggression is wrong when there can be no consensus on what constitutes aggression. That is why a lawful authority is needed.
Otherwise you’re advocating a system where might & whim must be the determinant
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