[clavalle]

Declaring it false does not make it so.

Violence is always a specter (a potential action) in any conflict between people. The question is; How do we minimize the role of violence in coming to resolutions to conflicts? I think the rules we've evolved to answer that question of the course of human history have done a decent job.

Do you have a different set of rules that you think would better optimize this minimization problem? I'd love to hear it.

[SideburnsOfDoom]

> I'd love to hear it.

And sadly you are dealing with a Libertarian and you will.

[baddox]

Yes, because "Libertarians" (improperly capitalized) are the only people who express their ideas to other people. Good point.

[SideburnsOfDoom]

> because libertarians are the only people who express their ideas to other people.

Express them like this? yeah. Well, libertarians and Jehovah's witnesses.

[baddox]

> Express them like this?

On Hacker News comments? What in the world are you going on about?

[SideburnsOfDoom]

Topic drift is one thing and it's fine in internet discussions, but not turning everything to about an idée fixe

[baddox]

> Declaring it false does not make it so.

Of course not. It was already false, long before I declared it so.

> Violence is always a specter (a potential action) in any conflict between people. The question is; How do we minimize the role of violence in coming to resolutions to conflicts?

I agree completely.

> I think the rules we've evolved to answer that question of the course of human history have done a decent job.

I disagree completely.

[clavalle]

>Of course not. It was already false, long before I declared it so.

Show me how it is false. I am a very reasonable person who is prone to change his mind when presented with a solid argument. I am inviting you to make that argument.

[baddox]

How can I prove it, and why should the burden of proof be on me? The statement was that litigation cannot exist with government. I certainly think the burden of proof is on the personal claiming that something "cannot exist."

[rprasad]

The statement was that litigation cannot exist with government. I certainly think the burden of proof is on the personal claiming that something "cannot exist."

You are the one claiming that litigation can exist without government. Litigation has never, in all of recorded history thus far, existed without the backing of government. Thus, the burden of proof is on you.

[baddox]

I guess I just don't understand why it's so hard to imagine in the first place. It's no harder to envision than, say, a yellow car with 5 wheels. Sure, in all of recorded history there may never have been one, but surely I don't have to make one or show you one to convince you that such a thing is possible.

But anyway, Medieval Iceland is always cited as the closest thing to a nation-wide private legal system. Admittedly, it's not exactly the system I would prefer, because there are still some roles that are not open to competition. But it's fairly close, and it should be close enough to help you imagine such a system.

If you can look at social arrangements smaller than entire nations, there is plenty of private (and voluntary) dispute resolution all around the globe. In fact, that method of conflict resolution is often chosen voluntary by both parties to avoid the inefficiencies or perceived unfairness of government.