Police Forces and Courts of Law ...

Why not?

Suppose you are Muslem and want to be governed by Sharia law. So long as you and your fellow Muslems have the option to opt out if you later change your mind, and you're not forcing it on non-participants, you, like everyone else, has the right to live by your own rules. Canada, for example, has been allowing minority groups - including Muslems - to set up their own courts for some time. If people agree voluntarilly to live by a particular set of rules, then more power to them. The rest of us will have a chance to watch their social experiment and learn from it.

Imagine a world in which there was one major social contract, spelling out the final resort method of resolving disputes - as in some variant of the Common Law, most likely. But within that legal structure, anyone could voluntarily establish a community that had its own rules, so long as there was the option to leave or to demand that a case be resolved under the Social Contract.

Post 161

Thursday, December 18, 2008 - 9:31pm

Not to go all "it's for the children" on you, Phil, but your problem (especially with the Muslim world of Sharia law) is that there is no way a fourteen-year-old girl is actually "assenting" to be stoned to death for having sex outside of marriage.

Nor would a young child be "assenting" to female circumcision.

Post 162

Friday, December 19, 2008 - 12:36am

Just to add, the very, very bottom line in all this (and it really is this simple) is that, at the end of the day, for contracts to have any kind of validity, they must be backed by force.

You can have all of the arbitration and contracts and whatnot you want, but unless breach of contract remedies can be enforced against the breaching party, you have nothing.

Post 163

Friday, December 19, 2008 - 2:09am

Steven is correct. In a given geographical area, only one set of laws can be backed by force - Sharia or secular, pick one, you can't have both - and a contract can't be written that would change that fact. Muslim's can have "courts" in secular nations but not ones that can back their laws with force. The fundamentalists don't want a voluntary arrangement - they would never be happy until they can enforce Sharia violently.

Muslims all around the world already have a voluntary arrangement, except in Islamic Theocracies, where it isn't voluntary. In secular nations, the only thing they lack is the legal right to use force, like they do in Islamic Theocracies. And that is what is they want.

Post 164

Saturday, December 20, 2008 - 1:17pm

I agree, actually. Some people will want to force their ideas on others, regardless. That's what we have security guards and all the other peaceful counter-force measures for.

Those people who insist on forcing their beliefs on others' peaceful behavior will pay a high price in the kind of society I'm envisioning. Without verifiable risk coverage for their activities, which would be hard to get and extremely expensive for such a person, they would be shut up in their little ghetto, unable to pass the ID check systems at the local mall, etc., and the property owned by the Sharia ghetto would likely end up being siezed anyway to cover damages to their victims the first time they were legally challenged and the facts of what was going on behind the walls came out, if indeed they were violating the rights of members.

Being able to demonstrate that you are capable of assuming responsibility for your actions is essential to life in society. You don't build a fireworks plant in a suburban neighborhood because the insurance would be astronomical. Thus, even a Sharia sub-culture in a walled community would still be subject to inspections by their insurance company or bond holder. This could be done politely, discretely and with consultation with the Imams, of course, but it would still have to be stringent enough to satisfy the insurance company, etc., that they stood to make a profit, and wouldn't have to pay for decades of psychotherapy for victims.

One issue in that context that would inevitably come up would be the ability for someone, child or adult, to leave the community. Discovery of a brain-washed sex-slave by the expert insurance investigators would mean $BIG BUCKS in penalties and possible cancellation of the policy if things were not immediately, transparently set right.

Post 165

Saturday, December 20, 2008 - 1:40pm

Phil, I appreciate all the details of private arrangements that would help to promote peaceful and rational behavior, but you do grasp my major point don't you? That is that there must be a single set of laws for a given geographical are, based exclusively upon individual rights, and they must be enforced with guns, when needed. That is, there must be a minimal government in charge of those laws.

When the Sharia folks decide to stone that 14 year old girl to death, it may need to be armed men from the government that step in. And when the armed Muslims that decide they are on Jihad attempt to use violence, again, it may need to be armed men from the government that step in.

Competing sets of laws within a geographical area don't work.

Post 166

Saturday, December 20, 2008 - 2:53pm

My guess is that - as suggested by Conrad Shneiker, one of the crew who invented the concept of nanotechnology, back around 1980, the insurance companies would offer rewards for people exposing irresponsibility that translated into potential losses.

In any sizeable group, there will be factions, and someone - maybe a disgruntled teen - will decide to blow the whistle and collect the reward.

I think that the general social contract would implicitly disallow voluntarily slavery. You could act as a slave if that's what you believed was right, but if you change your mind at the point that the scapel approaches your neck, then at worst you would lose whatever bond you had put up guaranteeing your good behavior.

The Common Law courts did pretty well with outlawry as the ultimate sanction. Not fun to know that anyone can kill you without losing anything. We can probably do something similar nowadays when information and the management thereof is many orders of magnitude cheaper. Maybe not full outlawry immediately, but loss of insurance and credit access until the matter was resolved.

Post 167

Saturday, December 20, 2008 - 5:18pm

Phil, I have no idea of how what you just posted could be an answer to the question I posed. Maybe it wasn't intended to be an answer, maybe you didn't see my post, maybe you did but decided not to respond.

Post 168

Sunday, December 21, 2008 - 7:41am

Steve Wolfer: "That is that there must be a single set of laws for a given geographical are, based exclusively upon individual rights, and they must be enforced with guns, when needed. That is, there must be a minimal government in charge of those laws."

You need to define "law."

I asked you to define "jurisdiction" and you could not.

In English, we have only one word "or" for both exclusive disjunction and inclusive disjunction. Latin has "vel" and "aut." If you know computering or logic, we would write "xor" for the sense of "aut." So, too, with "jurisdiction" and "law."

We need unambiguous definitions. I can give you an example of competing laws here and now.

Catholic priests punished by the Church for acts that may or may not have been civil torts or criminal acts under mundane law. (Erroneously preparing the host, would be an example. Stealing from the Church would be another. I am sure you can think of others.) You never hear about that. The priests just disappear from where they were, they are punished or remediated or just killed depending, and no one knows anything. Catholic priests put themselves under this juridiction. They adhere to this law. And, there being strong competition from civil authorities, they can (presumably) leave that law, exit that jurisdiction.

The questions you have not answered relate to the examples above. If I understand your point it is that if a set of objective laws is based on individual rights, then it is legitimate. If a set of laws is based on mixed premises or false premises, then you are under no obligation to obey it. This creates a duopoly of "Society Laws" versus "Steve Wolfer Laws."

You only obey the societal laws that you have to for practical reasons -- jay walking for instance, or insider trading or anti-trust. And you break them whenever you can get away with it. If you avoid jaywalking it is not because you adhere to the principle of monopoly government.

On the other hand, you obey other laws -- non initiation of force or fraud -- that society would permit, encourage or reward, as for instance we have people working for the IRS or the SEC being Chairman of the Federal Reserve.

So, if I were to meet you at an Objectivist social gathering, I might sell you a six-pack of Mike's Lager for an ounce of silver even though that transaction might be proscribed by the geographic monopoly on force in which we happen to find ourselves. And if your ounce of silver were only 0.800 fine (made from melted Canadian coins) or if my Lager was worse than Budweiser, each of us would have non-violent, social contract leverage within our non-binding communities, based solely on reputation. That would be a parallel set of laws, a parallel juridiction, within a parallel society, all working quite well by voluntary subscription and consquences.

For you to resolve that in an xor mode, you need to define unambiguoiusly "law" and "jurisdiction" in support of your monopoly theory of justice.

(Edited by Michael E. Marotta on 12/21, 8:03am)

Post 169

Sunday, December 21, 2008 - 11:01am

Michael,

You claim that you asked me to define "jurisdiction" and that I couldn't. I don't see your request anywhere in this thread - was that request made in another thread? Your statement is peculiar not only because I can't find the request, but because I have written extensively on "jurisdiction" elsewhere.

You demand a definition of "law" which is disingenuous, because you know it well enough to constantly argue against it. Are you saying that you don't know what "law" means in the context of anarchy versus government? Are you saying that the church "law" a priest voluntarily abides by is the same as the law enforced by a government? Am I wrong, or doesn't an anarchist insist that it is wrong to have a government and that is wrong because the government has laws which they back with force, and that this is wrong because the government insists upon a monopoly in this area? Argument from a pretended ignorance of your opponents position isn't very effective

You said, "If I understand your point it is that if a set of objective laws is based on individual rights, then it is legitimate. ... This creates a duopoly of "Society Laws" versus "Steve Wolfer Laws." Not "Steve Wolfer" laws, laws based upon individual rights - the position taken by Objectivists - by Ayn Rand. In another part of your post you referred to my "...monopoly theory of justice." It's not my theory, it's Ayn Rand's, I'm just supporting it.

Post 170

Sunday, December 21, 2008 - 11:03am

Michael,

When I went back and reread this thread, trying to find where you demanded definitions of me, I read a post of Bill Dwyer's that was devastating to the fuzzy, irrational notion of anarchy as a desirable state. Here is just one paragraph: "It is easy to see that the whole notion of anarchism is philosophically incoherent. What, according to anarchists, would constitute a violation of their theory? The existence of a government? I don't think so, for an anarchist defense agency would have a right to do exactly what a libertarian government does, if it happened to acquire the same degree of power and could get away with exercising it. There is nothing in libertarianism that would forbid an anarchist defense agency from attempting to monopolize the administration of justice, if doing so were at all feasible. Why should such an agency allow a competing government to operate if the latter has a legal system at odds with its own? Clearly, it should not, for it should make an effort to prohibit its operation."

In the post after that, Robert Bidinotto says, "...based on my long experience arguing with prominent anarchists, I conclude that you should save your fingers the bother of further fruitless typing exercises. In my experience, trying to get anarchists to confront the contradictions inherent in their "theory" is like trying to pin Jell-o to a wall. Every time you painstakingly point out the contradictions, they simply evade and switch the subject." How true! And Robert provides 4 different examples of badly flawed anarchist arguments, then he gets to the heart of the matter: " I've found another problem. For most anarchists, their theory has become an article of faith... Arguing with such anarchists is thus like arguing with theologians -- for the same reason, and with the same results."

Both of those posts should be reread by anyone interested in this thread - there were no substantive counter arguments, no refutations, just evasions and quibbles that followed. Like where Michael claimed that he could see no difference between producing the functions of courts or police from the production of french fries or shoes.

Anarchists don't respect the laws of logic, don't seek peace or order, and appear to be psychologically motivated to take a contrary position. Robert is right... They are a waste of time.

Post 171

Sunday, December 21, 2008 - 1:38pm

SW: "When I went back and reread this thread, trying to find where you demanded definitions of me ..."

My fault. I apologize for wasting your time. It was in Just one jurisdiction? (Objectivism Q & A) Post 10 where you said: "Jurisdiction is authority granted by law."

That topic was created to deal with the problem of two authorities -- federal and state -- both having the power to prosecute the same crime (bank robbery) , and that conflict being resolved not by legislation or court ruling but by the purest of bureaucracy: an administrator not wanting more on his desk than he could handle -- which is fair, I grant, but is not an objective solution to the realworld problem of multiple jurisdictions within the same territory. (And I have no inherent problem with that. I point out only that you must as you demand one jurisdiction for each territory -- which engendered the other topic.)

Then, you switched contexts by talking about two nations sharing a border. That is a different kind of jurisdiction -- just as "or" and "xor" are different kinds of disjunction. So, I just now took the discussion back to that other thread.

(Edited by Michael E. Marotta on 12/21, 2:00pm)

Post 172

Sunday, December 21, 2008 - 2:19pm

Michael, in the bank robber case there is but one jurisdiction - the one that was chosen, whether by the administrator, the nature of the language chosen by the legislature, or a judge determining standing - those are all mechanisms that have evolved over time to ensure that one set of laws is applied. The law exercised those processes (administrative discretion in this case) that determined the applicable laws.

We have laws about jaywalking, should they be brought forth always? No? Then randomly? No? Then just because it is an existing law? No? Then how about applying it because it is the law that is determined to be the best fit - because it applies, or rejecting it because it doesn't apply. Jurisdiction allows multiple laws to exist yet with only one set that will be applied to a circumstance. Would you have the same set of laws for children as for adults? Do you think that it isn't helpful to have custody laws that differ from those governing ownership and control of property? Jurisdiction is contained in the set of laws it attempts to apply. There would only be multiple sets of laws competing in the context of an argument about anarchy if force or pure accident decided which set of laws applied - like in Somalia.

You said I couldn't define "Jurisdiction" but in the thread you refer to , I said, "Jurisdiction is authority granted by law. In practice it is about the exercise of legal processes to determine the applicable body/law/court to apply to a given case." (In an argument where we are discussing government versus anarchy it should go without saying that "authority" refers to the use of force - and not a voluntarilly accepted authority, life deferring to one's boss.)

Post 173

Sunday, December 21, 2008 - 10:02pm

That would be a parallel set of laws, a parallel juridiction, within a parallel society, all working quite well by voluntary subscription and consquences.

Nonsense. If one you decided to breach, or to jack the other and take his goods by force, you would find out real quick that you are in one jurisdiction.

And yes, while there may be multiple jurisdictions that are possible in a certain area, only one will ultimately the tort, breach of contract or crime. Just one, I promise.

Post 174

Monday, December 22, 2008 - 6:03pm

Steven D: And yes, while there may be multiple jurisdictions that are possible in a certain area, only one will ultimately the tort, breach of contract or crime. Just one, I promise.

O. J. Simpson -- not guilty of the criminal act of homicide, found culpable in the death of his wife in civil court. Many, many similar cases involving Federal prosecution for criminal violation of civil rights over and above state criminal laws against homicide.

As for the resolution for convenience to just one jurisdiction -- and to do so without force of arms, no prosecutors shooting each other for the right to press a case -- it would seem to me to support the theory that competing defense agencies would could should ought might and likely will find peaceful ways to work out their differences. It happens all the time in the real world where real people really respect each other.

And in other places, where that respect is lacking, they have grand sounding constitutions that are not worth a hill of beans.

Post 175

Monday, December 22, 2008 - 11:08pm

Tuesday, December 23, 2008 - 6:41am

One of the basic principles of Objectivism is that no matter where a discussion starts, if you continue long enough, it comes down to metaphysics.

The non-symmetry of space-time means that you can be in the same place at two different times, but you cannot be in two different places at the same time. So, of course, jurisdiction must be resolved, ultimately, so that everyone can be in the same place at the same time for a trial. Jurisdiction must be resolved because of the existence of multiple, concurrent, conflicting jurisdictions.

(And now a word from our sponsor...)

In a closed-circuit system, opening any switch activates the alarm.

In a closed-circuit system, opening any switch activates the alarm.

If you have values that you want protected, it is in your best interest to find a market solution before you suffer a loss. If you wait until you suffer a loss to call the government police, you will be acting contrary to objective metaphysics and you will find yourself not only unremediated and unrecompensated, but actually poorer and generally worse off than if you had done nothing at all.

Post 177

Wednesday, December 24, 2008 - 6:59am

Ryan Keith Roper, Post 19, in "Just One Jurisdiction?"
The lexicon on ari has some good quotes regarding the whole "competing governments" theory. Given that a gov't's purpose, and only method of operation is violence, I'm not so sure competition is advisable. Free market analogies fall flat, gov'ts don't deal in goods or trade. It could also be argued that competing gov'ts create an inherently unstable situation. What happens when a criminal and victim choose different "providers"? If the two providers have the same laws and unilateraly cooperate, then you don't have two gov'ts. If they disagree, you get a war or at best a quiet realization that laws can't be enforced across jurisdictions.

Ryan, go through as many of these 177 posts as might interest you. Over all, note that I am not discussing possibilities but actualities. I am not proposing, but identifying. My facts come from the FBI, from the Department of Justice, from news stories. This is the way the world really does work.

Ayn Rand's early experience in the Russian Civil War shaped her view that whenever two different guardians meet, the only outcome must be violent. In America, we have a different experience. As I have pointed out often, competing American guard companies have cooperated for over 150 years without firing on each other. The American experience is not the Russian experience. We have a shared culture based on mutual respect for individual rights. They did not.

Ayn Rand's statement that government holds a monopoly on force comes not from Locke or Hobbes or Jefferson or Hamilton, but from Max Weber, a 19th century German sociologist. It is an interesting idea, to be sure, and the insight of a European liberal, admittedly. But it is not "natural law" or whatever and as physical evidence of that, I offer the empirical fact that the word "police" appears nowhere in the Constitution.

Public police are an invention of industrial society -- Robert Peel, London, 1827 -- an advance of capitalism over older forms of law enforcement. Private guards are likewise just such an invention -- Henry Fielding, Bow Street Runners, 1749. Read about Pinkerton. Read about Wells-Fargo. Burns and others were not exemplars of Ayn Rand's perfect capitalism any more than Rockefeller or Carnegie were. They were men of their times. But what they offered was a tremendous advance over the past modes, as much for property protection and adjudication as for metals and transportation.

Post 178

Wednesday, December 24, 2008 - 9:34am

I think I'm following what you are saying. I would certainly agree that there is room for competition or overlap with law ENFORCEMENT. The comment you are responding to was related to the proposal of competition or overlap between actual governments, the makers of law. The agencies you mention are all part of the american gov't, they are coordinated on some level. The american values you mention seems to cover any snags or gray area. However, there has been two instances that I can think of offhand where actual gov'ts attempted to exert overlapping authority in america. The revolutionary war and the civil war.

Post 179

Sunday, December 28, 2008 - 6:40am