"Michael S. Lorrey" wrote:
>
> No, it doesn't. You and I don't have the same auto insurance or health care
> policies, do we? Yet we still get along fine, and nobody is sending other
> people's kids to their deaths over car insurance, are they? The only common
> agreement by individuals in society is for each individual to respect and honor
> the contracts they agree to with other individuals, and to not initiate force
> against others. You and I don't have to want to exercise the same rights, so
> long as those rights either don't conflict, or don't conflict without just
> compensation. If I carry a firearm, and you don't, you are externalizing your
> security risk onto me to include you in the security umbrella that the implied
> threat my being armed provides (and the presence of a weapon does not constitute
> use of force, BTW). Such a scenario can be easily mitigated by a system of
> bounties or rewards in those instances when I do in fact take concrete actions
> to provide you with protection.
>
So, to take a classic case, what happens when your security/law
enforcement body decides to haul me away on some charge that makes since
to your law making agency but my law making agency and security/law
enforcement utterly disagrees? Who decides the issue? Do they fight it
out? What next level body and set of rules do they appeal to?
> >
> > I do not see how multiplying the number of private law providers and
> > enforcers actually makes life and cooperative, predicatable activity
> > more likely. On the surface it seems to add extra levels of
> > complication. Problems that did have on central body of law and
> > arbitrators now have N such bodies. These bodies act similarly to small
> > States in this respect. So domestic conflicts are escalated into
> > international (er, inter-syndicate?) ones.
>
> Socialists do not see how multiplying the number of private product
> manufacturers and distributors actually makes life better, more cooperative and
> more efficient for all, which is why they simply DO NOT GET capitalism.
> Predictability is irrelevant, unless you are a fascist control freak. Adding
> complexity to systems (like markets) makes them more robust. Having n bodies of
> law ensures that if any one fails to serve adequately, the market for private
> law will resolve the issue bloodlessly, allowing consumers to obtain their law
> from bodies of law which do provide adequate levels of justice.
Arguing from analogy does nothing to address the point raised.
Predictability of a reasonable degree is quite relevant if you want a
generally sane and peaceful society where conflicts do not become armed
conflicts too often. Calling names is even weaker than using
inapplicable analogies.
- samantha
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Mon Oct 02 2000 - 17:39:21 MDT