Voluntaryist wrote:Multiple systems of courts within the same jurisdiction often exist in governments today, and they often hand down contradictory rulings. What you are describing is what you already see in the United States courts for example.
Except in the US, their is a clear HIERARCHY in the court systems, where if there are contradictory rulings, the higher court's ruling automatically overrules the lower court's. How does your system deal with contradictory rulings, Voluntaryist? Do the rulings of the court backed by more powerful "security forces" overrule those of the less powerful court? Sounds like coercion to me.
A court system that has to compete for customers has stronger performance incentives compared to a court system that has no competition, and whose customer base is guaranteed regardless of its performance.
Privatizing the court system opens it up to corruption, i.e., the "customers" can bribe the judges to rule in their favor. Or how do you expect a private court system can compete for customers?
Do you agree that supply and demand is a principle that is descriptive of the real world?
In that case, what if the citizens of your voluntaryist utopia demands a government to provide security for them, as the Israelis did (see Saul's ascention), or the Icelanders (see
here)?
Extortion, racketeering, theft, murder, false imprisonment, monopolization of services, all these things government does under the guise of preventing them from happening.
Private entities ALSO do these things (see the Mafia). And in your voluntaryist utopia, there is NOTHING to prevent the Mafia from doing so. Don't give me bullshit about armed citizens preventing this, in your world, the people with more and/or bigger guns make the rules, and I doubt your "freedom fighters" can outgun a professional criminal organization, especially when the criminals can pay some of these "freedom fighters" to support them.
Government, on the other hand, is an irrational idealization of people and society precisely because it grants a special set of powers to a small group of humans who rule over everyone else, implying that these rulers know better than you do, that they are the exception to the rule, and that they do not have the same imperfections and limitations as everyone else.
A democracy is simply a tyranny of the majority. It is a government monopoly where popular opinion forces itself onto the minority.
If democratic governments concentrate power on "a small group of humans," how the fuck can you call it a "tyranny of the majority," since a majority is, by definition, NOT the smaller group?
If I try to secede my home and land, and stop paying taxes, and stop using state services, I will be attacked by the state. The Browns of New Hampshire are just one of many examples in which the state imprisoned people who tried to disengage from it.
John Brown was a TERRORIST who ordered the
murders of four men and tried to
rob a US military armory. As noble as abolitionism is, the fact remains he use VIOLENT FORCE to promote it.
It is belief in government that falsely assumes that the rulers will act ideally, and with superior knowledge and rationalism.
Non-governmental entities ALSO act irrationally. See lynch mobs (remember, the Southern whites were murdering Black Americans DESPITE laws against murder, laws that were NOT enforced in the former Confederacy).
I never claimed that wealth does not correlate with ability to coerce others. But I do contend that government creates a ruling class and gives them the power to enrich themselves undeservedly as well as coerce others no matter how rich they are.
In our world, governmental forces enforce laws to prevent... say... Donald Trump from demanding protection money from you and having you murdered for refusing to pay (coercing people to NOT coerce other people, what a concept). In your voluntaryist utopia, what's stopping the rich from doing so? And don't give me bullshit about using your gun to fight off Trump's goons, he has more money, he can hire more goons and give them more and bigger guns, so you'll be outnumbered and outgunned.
The point is that governments allow these weapons only to themelves, while voluntaryism allows for people and groups to acquire the defenses that they deem appropriate for themselves.
The Second Amendment to the US Constitution SPECIFICALLY allows people to own weapons, as long as they're NOT criminals or suffering from mental illnesses, and the Supreme Court of the United States preparing to rule AGAINST local governments'
gun bans.
Protection agencies can be similar to insurance agencies where people buy in to a kind of coverage policy. That's hardly out of reach for the common man.
But what's stopping those who can afford MORE protection (more gunmen, more guns, bigger guns) from taking advantage of those with LESS (outnumbered and outgunned)?
In a voluntary society, there is no regulation which prevents men from banding together to intimidate and murder their neighbors for their own good.
Is there something inherent in government that prevents this?
Yes: GOVERNMENTAL security forces, i.e., the police. Or are you unaware of the FBI's struggles against the Mafia?
And effective, honorable defense agencies will be better financed because it will have more clients.
The
Su-27, a fourth generation fighter-bomber, costs 35 million USD. The Russian Air Force has 449 of them. How are these defense agencies going to stop the Russians from using the Su-27s to bomb the shit out of... say... San Francisco? I don't see how they can afford to acquire a fourth generation fighter, not to mention the costs of maintenance and upgrades to keep these fighters useful. Will the defense agencies use
Stinger missiles? Stingers cost 38,000 USD EACH, and their effective range is 4,800 meters, while the Su-27's service ceiling is 18,500 meters, so if the fighters fly high enough, your defense agencies can do NOTHING to stop the Russians. And what's stopping the Russians from paying the defense agencies to switch sides?
When a government claims ownership or authority over someone in a way that precedes their personal perogative, as you admitted earlier they all do in some form or another, it is in fact an instance of control without "checks and balances."
In democratic nations, the citizens exact a form of "checks and balances" by voting abusive officials out of office, a power that is protected by the nation's own laws, which the governments themselves enforce (see the Supreme Court declaring
poll taxes unconstitutional). In your voluntaryist utopia, there are no laws, so the only checks and balances that exist will be your ability to deter me from demanding protection money from you, and if I'm wealthier than you, I can hire more gunmen and give them more and better guns (outnumbering and outgunning you) to make sure you pay.