[no_flags]

Many of us do follow the logic to its necessary conclusion. We don't assume criminals will magically disappear, we just would like law and order to be provided by the free market. See below before you dismiss it as impossible.

http://faculty.msb.edu/hasnasj/GTWebSite/MythWeb.htm

Edit: And I apologize for the background of that link!

[qdog]

A marketized law and order system would not solve any of the current problems with corruption. Perhaps you have heard the term "hired gun" or "mercenary". As always, the flow of money would still allow corruption, and those with money and no scruples would influence the law to protect themselves.

For the mots part, that article was tldr, but I skipped down to find his discussion of this free market law, it's...mediation! The only enforcing mechanism for mediation I know is the backing of law. Also, I, as a matter of principle, will attempt at all costs not to pre-sign anything that required binding arbitration requiring me to give up my right to seek redress in court. It is my understanding the entity that goes through these 'pay for courts' the most form relationships with the mediators/arbitrators and have a much higher chance of winning cases.

Also, the forced mediation is a remedy suggested by the courts themselves, so I don't really think that's the market version. Many companies already attempt to require binding arbitration, which is what empirically appears to be the preferred form of 'marketized law'. So far in the real world, it appears to be heavily weighted against the rights of individuals seeking redress against wealthy corporations. Also, it is always backed up by the force of law, not just good will.

That said, there are times when I might enter into binding arbitration, but not unless I have decided it's better for me than the courts, I don't care to have the companies I do business with deciding that for me.

[no_flags]

I think you miss the point a bit, but I admit it's a bit long so I don't blame you for not reading it all. Mediation is just one of the author's guesses at what free market law might look like.

The first half of the article addresses the fact that it is impossible for the law to be objective. This is an extremely interesting idea in my opinion so I would encourage onlookers to check it out even if you are solidly convinced that free market law could never work. It's a bit hard to summarize the article so don't accept qdog's TL;DR at face value without reading it yourself.

My TL;DR, quoting from the article's conclusion: "The fact is that there is no such thing as a government of law and not people. The law is an amalgam of contradictory rules and counter-rules expressed in inherently vague language that can yield a legitimate legal argument for any desired conclusion. For this reason, as long as the law remains a state monopoly, it will always reflect the political ideology of those invested with decisionmaking power. Like it or not, we are faced with only two choices. We can continue the ideological power struggle for control of the law in which the group that gains dominance is empowered to impose its will on the rest of society, or we can end the monopoly."

[qdog]

Right, I wouldn't expect the law not to be influenced by people. I don't think any of this is a new way of thinking, though. We have the right to trial by jury because of this, which sure isn't perfect, but there is no way for a perfect world.

I'm not saying that there aren't valid points brought up by Libertarians, just that most of the theories are not feasible in the real world. Education, for instance, if there is no state-sponsored alternative (it is an alternative, we have private and home schooling in every state as far as I know), the people who have to work for a living often do not educate their children (my wife has an aunt who cannot read or write because her parents worked and she was put to work at an early age, so that's what has always happened in history). Yes, that's their choice, but not always the choice of the children, and uneducated masses are not likely to be able to live and make rational decisions in a society.

The law is imperfect, but throughout history civilization has been in a struggle to reduce oppression. Based on history I can't really see how removing laws would do anything but allow some 'bad actors' to acquire more power for oppression.

Anyways, based on the ability reason about things, maybe you aren't a libertarian, maybe you're a liberal and just don't know it ;)

Thanks for being civil, though, I don't mind having to read a bit (although that was just too many pages for me), and I've surely picked up some bit of knowledge.

[praxeologist]

> A marketized law and order system would not solve any of the current problems with corruption. Perhaps you have heard the term "hired gun" or "mercenary". As always, the flow of money would still allow corruption, and those with money and no scruples would influence the law to protect themselves.

So, it is therefore superior to have an accepted monopoly on the ability to arbitrate property disputes (or in other words, "be corrupt")?

Governments basically insulate themselves from being able to be sued. Look at how often the WTO finds against the US and the US just thumbs their nose at the ruling because the US is the big dog.

Also see #8 here. I wonder how long it will take on people to hit all 10:

http://www.lewrockwell.com/long/long11.html

> For the mots part, that article was tldr, but I skipped down to find his discussion of this free market law, it's...mediation! The only enforcing mechanism for mediation I know is the backing of law.

I don't get into arguments about things like cricket because I know jack shit about it. You really need to learn about what our position is first. Some libertarians even will say things like "Well, you can just boycott them!" in situations where it would be acceptable to go further and use force.

All law rests upon the ability to punish primarily. We might prefer to avoid fueding (it's certainly cheaper) but libertarian law is not toothless.

I can't make sense of the rest of what you talked about. It seems like you are mistaking the present day situation where governments have certain laws in place for a free market situation.

[clavalle]

The problem with this theory is that it assumes a couple of things:

1) The market fully defined by exchanges underwritten by currency (read: a fluid medium of exchange).

2) Value can be assigned to anything and is therefore finite in all circumstances.

But there is a singularity where it all breaks down:

The value of one's life is infinite. Without it, no other value matters. If I could give you $10 trillion but I kill you 60 seconds afterward, what value does it have?

One's life cannot be underwritten by currency because currency is finite. Therefore the market as defined as an exchange of value underwritten by currency is inadequate for any exchange where one's continued life is a factor.

[ataggart]

>The value of one's life is infinite.

That is demonstrably false. Everyone of us could, at a cost, reduce his chance of dying tomorrow.

[clavalle]

How is that relevant?

Edit: Which is to say, I don't think you demonstrated that statement is false.

[slackson]

If people are willing to accept an increased risk of dying for a dollar value, that means they don't value their life infinitely. If they did, no amount of money would be worth an overall increased chance of dying.

[clavalle]

I see your point.

What is 1% of infinity?

Each individual must make an approximation.

What is a good approximation for infinity value for an 18 y.o. with a high school diploma?

If they were perfectly rational, it would be the present value of all expected future earnings.

Such a calculation would make taking a job as an oil platform underwater welder make sense.

Trouble is, it is only a convenient approximation. It can expand to fit any circumstance.

So if you own, say, a trading company worth $10 billion and you hire someone (or some entity) to be in charge of protecting your life, the substrate on which all of that value rests for you, you've just handed them a check for $9 billion plus the present value of all of your expected future earnings and asked them to keep good care of it.

How do you think a perfectly rational actor would respond?