I'm done making excuses for the State

[Travlyr]

It's your opinion that there are no advantages to competition... that's telling.

I see no advantage for competition in those three specific functions of society.

Perhaps you could explain how judges competing to hear the case of an individual accused of a crime would be preferable to a judge duty bound to the oath of the rule of law, or how competing Sheriff's departments are preferable to elected Sheriffs.

I do not propose a free-for-all; I propose that the sovereignty of the individual be respected... by everyone.

Respect for the sovereignty of the individual is expected from everyone unless and until an individual infringes on the rights of another. Some people say that when an individual lays an ownership claim to land, then that act alone infringes on the rights of everyone else by stopping everyone else from their inherent right to use it. For example, when a land owner stops an individual from trespassing on his/her land, then the landowner is infringing on that individual's right to travel the world freely.

Therefore, individuals must accept that pure unadulterated individual sovereignty is not conducive to land ownership. So the question becomes, "How much sovereignty compromise should individuals accept?" That is different strokes for different folks. For me, I accept competition in everything except, writing laws of the land, enforcing those laws, and the justice of restitution for individuals who violate laws made by legitimate representatives.

 

[A Son of Liberty]

I think your laws of the land are inherent, Trav. Things are either absolute, or arbitrary. the statelessness we advocate here is principled, not chaotic. Courts and judges would compete based upon their reputation for objectivity and fairness, not on their particular brand of law, I think.

 

[helmuth_hubener]

Yes. The ideology of the people must change before ancap can work stably.

 

[Wesker1982]

Yes. The ideology of the people must change before ancap can work stably.

And this equally applies to a limited government. At the point where people's ideologies have changed enough to maintain a lasting limited government, a voluntary society is achievable.

 

[Becker]

Yes. The ideology of the people must change before ancap can work stably.

you mean to tell me we shouldn't force people to join and submit to the right kind of lack of government? and if ancap can't work stably we should give up and live in this immoral system?

 

[helmuth_hubener]

you mean to tell me we shouldn't force people to join and submit to the right kind of lack of government? and if ancap can't work stably we should give up and live in this immoral system?

You know exactly what I mean and are just playing dumb again, as you are wont. You would have better luck playing that game with others who have not caught on, of course. Enjoy that!

 

[Wesker1982]

Perhaps you could explain how judges competing to hear the case of an individual accused of a crime would be preferable to a judge duty bound to the oath of the rule of law, or how competing Sheriff's departments are preferable to elected Sheriffs.

Once a judge is elected it is very hard to get rid of him. Bad judges are not held directly accountable for bad decisions. This should be very apparent by now.

Judges who are not legally immune from competition would be held directly accountable for their actions. A judge with a bad reputation would not have decisions respected by reputable insurance agencies, etc.

The very life of the court, the very livelihood of a judge, will depend on his reputation for integrity, fair-mindedness, objectivity, and the quest for truth in every case.

Contrast this built-in corrective mechanism to the present-day government courts. Judges are appointed or elected for long terms, up to life, and they are accorded a monopoly of decision-making in their particular area. It is almost impossible, except in cases of gross corruption, to do anything about venal decisions of judges. Their power to make and to enforce their decisions continues unchecked year after year. Their salaries continue to be paid, furnished under coercion by the hapless taxpayer. But in the totally free society, any suspicion of a judge or court will cause their customers to melt away and their "decisions" to be ignored. This is a far more efficient system of keeping judges honest than the mechanism of government.

There is a myth that the "American System" provides a superb set of "checks and balances," with the executive, the legislature, and the courts all balancing and checking one against the other, so that power cannot unduly accumulate in one set of hands. But the American "checks and balances" system is largely a fraud. For each one of these institutions is a coercive monopoly in its area, and all of them are part of one government, headed by one political party at any given time. Furthermore, at best there are only two parties, each one close to the other in ideology and personnel, often colluding, and the actual day-to-day business of government headed by a civil service bureaucracy that cannot be displaced by the voters. Contrast to these mythical checks and balances the real checks and balances provided by the free-market economy! What keeps A&P honest is the competition, actual and potential, of Safeway, Pioneer, and countless other grocery stores. What keeps them honest is the ability of the consumers to cut off their patronage. What would keep the free-market judges and courts honest is the lively possibility of heading down the block or down the road to another judge or court if suspicion should descend on any particular one. What would keep them honest is the lively possibility of their customers cutting off their business. These are the real, active checks and balances of the free-market economy and the free society.

Chapter 12

Really, it should be obvious that taking away legal immunity from bad decisions will provide better results. We should all know what happens when the government protects you from bad decisions.

"The point is not that human failings play a central part in the breakdown of the courts but rather that courts as an institution tend to breed many of the observed failings." - Judge Richard Neely, Why Courts Don't Work

Life tenure or long elected terms for judges, he observed, encourages "arrogance and indolence," while occupations such as working as a salesperson tends to mask them. Salespersons compete in markets for the expenditures of consumers, while judges supply a service within an institutional setting that requires potential consumers to compete for their attention. - Bruce Benson, The Enterprise of Law

I can't recommend The Enterprise of Law enough.

Another very big problem is that socialist courts have no rational way to allocate resources. This leads to inevitable inefficiency and waste.

The lack of incentive due to the absence of profit and loss alone is enough to show why socialist programs don't work. But as Mises pointed out, even if there was a magically transformed socialist man who only cared about the well being of his fellow man, socialism STILL could not work due to the lack of economic calculation.

The Calculation Problem

 

[Travlyr]

Once a judge is elected it is very hard to get rid of him. Bad judges are not held directly accountable for bad decisions. This should be very apparent by now.

The failure of the people to hold judges accountable for their decisions is directly related to the fact that the people do not know their rights.

Article VI Clause 3
The Senators and Representatives before mentioned, and the Members of the several State Legislatures, and all executive and judicial Officers, both of the United States and of the several States, shall be bound by Oath or Affirmation, to support this Constitution; but no religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States.

"shall be bound" means that "judicial Officers" are to purchase a penal bond which binds their decisions to the limits of the Constitution. Therefore, when you stand in court in front of a judge in America, the first question you ask the judge is: "Do you have a penal bond on file?" If not, which they haven't since 1963, then the judge does not have jurisdiction over the case.

Now, since about the time of the Civil War, when the counterfeiters first took over the government, government lawlessness grew and has been growing even more rapidly after 1913, so a modern judge may rule on your case without jurisdiction. That is lawlessness. That is what Ron Paul is trying to change. He and a bunch of his supporters are working daily to enforce the rule of law because it works.

It would be nice if the backslappers would join us instead of fight us. It is fairly obvious that lawlessness doesn't work because that's what we have today.

Judges who are not legally immune from competition would be held directly accountable for their actions. A judge with a bad reputation would not have decisions respected by reputable insurance agencies, etc.

That may work, but I don't buy it. Judges are rulers and rulers are motivated by money and power. Penal bonds are a much smarter way to hold judges feet to the fire.

What should be very apparent to everyone by now is that counterfeiters initiate force against competitors as a necessity to keep their power. Counterfeit money (Greenbacks) = Civil War, Sound Money = Peace, Counterfeit Money (Federal Reserve Act of 1913) = World War I (1914), & 100 years of War, CIA, FBI, IRS, Police State, Military Industrial Complex, Medical Industrial Complex, UN, IMF, BIS, World Bank, Agenda 21, Loss of Property & Rights = Violence.

For you to keep arguing against the "State" because they are initiators of force in order to collect pennies in taxes while allowing counterfeiters an empire in which to steal trillions from producers and use those trillions to kill people all over the world, destroy property all over the world, and create injustice all over the world makes your argument appear disingenuous.

The very first task of people who want to live free, peaceful, prosperous lives, the main focus to put an end to violence, is to stop the counterfeiters.

 

[Travlyr]

I do not disagree with private courts for civil law. However, for criminal law public courts are superior because crime affects everyone. We may very well need to put some counterfeiters in jail soon. We'll use the rule of law, public courts, and federal penitentiaries for those criminals.

 

[fisharmor]

It would be nice if the backslappers would join us instead of fight us. It is fairly obvious that lawlessness doesn't work because that's what we have today.

Yet, we ought to state again, lawlessness is not what anyone on this thread is ever advocating.
It is privately supplied law that most of us are advocating.
We have given examples of stateless societies where law is upheld. Can you supply an example of a constitutional republic which didn't backslide into lawlessness?
In the examples of stateless society I've looked into, they were always annihilated by a state, which, in some cases, was a state which formerly supported the rule of law.
I always freely admit my burden of proof: it is to show how a stateless society can protect itself from a bastardized future incarnation of what you advocate.

That may work, but I don't buy it. Judges are rulers and rulers are motivated by money and power. Penal bonds are a much smarter way to hold judges feet to the fire.

How is that a smarter way than "you don't get to eat this week"? I get what you're saying. I see how it can be effective. I just don't think it's as effective as simply not paying the man.

What should be very apparent to everyone by now is that counterfeiters initiate force against competitors as a necessity to keep their power. Counterfeit money (Greenbacks) = Civil War, Sound Money = Peace, Counterfeit Money (Federal Reserve Act of 1913) = World War I (1914), & 100 years of War, CIA, FBI, IRS, Police State, Military Industrial Complex, Medical Industrial Complex, UN, IMF, BIS, World Bank, Agenda 21, Loss of Property & Rights = Violence.

For you to keep arguing against the "State" because they are initiators of force in order to collect pennies in taxes while allowing counterfeiters an empire in which to steal trillions from producers and use those trillions to kill people all over the world, destroy property all over the world, and create injustice all over the world makes your argument appear disingenuous.

The very first task of people who want to live free, peaceful, prosperous lives, the main focus to put an end to violence, is to stop the counterfeiters.

I agree 100% with this. And if we ever get there, expect the rest of us to keep pushing farther than you want to go.
We see that as the problem, sure. Then we wonder "If we get to the point where the counterfeiters are gone, how do we prevent more?"
Given that the state has at this point a 100% track record of devolving into a counterfeiting ring (including the ONE state on Earth to have codified that that is explicitly not to happen in its highest law), the solution to us is pretty apparent.

 

[Travlyr]

Yet, we ought to state again, lawlessness is not what anyone on this thread is ever advocating.
It is privately supplied law that most of us are advocating.

I'm not saying that anyone here is promoting lawlessness. I am merely pointing out that it is easier to enforce the current Supreme Laws of the Land as suggested by Ron Paul than it is to re-invent society. What I am saying is that lawlessness is what we have now at the Federal level because the elite counterfeiting cabal of oligarchs consider themselves above the law, and the people are blinded to the wisdom of the rule of law by public indoctrination institutions and continuing indoctrination programs orchestrated by counterfeiter controlled media.

We have given examples of stateless societies where law is upheld. Can you supply an example of a constitutional republic which didn't backslide into lawlessness?

No, I think that a degree of lawlessness is present in any society. Nonetheless, most of the individual 50 constitutional republic States are not too lawless right now even though they too are submitting to the counterfeiters. Utah, which is returning to sound money principles, may lead the pack back to a virtual lawful State along with other States that are looking at protecting themselves from devastation with honest sound money policy as well.

In the examples of stateless society I've looked into, they were always annihilated by a state, which, in some cases, was a state which formerly supported the rule of law.

Right, because the State, as a collective, is a superior force to individuals. Aggression will always defeat non-aggression. The key is to keep aggression as minimal as possible by participation.

I always freely admit my burden of proof: it is to show how a stateless society can protect itself from a bastardized future incarnation of what you advocate.

Keep in mind that what you call advocation is truly acceptance. I accept that land ownership is good for individuals, but along with land claims comes a degree of collective aggression because representative land law attempts to create order through common agreements. Keeping that aggression as small as possible is what I advocate.

How is that a smarter way than "you don't get to eat this week"? I get what you're saying. I see how it can be effective. I just don't think it's as effective as simply not paying the man.

I agree for civil law. For criminal law, it is tough for me to imagine judges would adhere to a business plan of "being the most fair judge in town" when paupers are facing wealthy accusers. Money talks bullshit walks. I would expect private criminal justice to be not much different than what we endure today. Binding judges to the rule of law or send them packing is a superior solution, imo.

I agree 100% with this. And if we ever get there, expect the rest of us to keep pushing farther than you want to go.

We will achieve an end to the counterfeiters-in-charge when we have a critical mass of people who understand it. Ron Paul is leading the charge with "End The Fed" and while the best case scenario would be for him to win the presidency, bring the troops home, and reduce government spending, ending the fed is not dependent on Ron Paul winning the presidency. The r3VOLution continues. The Fed is going to end... it just would just end a lot faster if Ron Paul wins in 2012.

We see that as the problem, sure. Then we wonder "If we get to the point where the counterfeiters are gone, how do we prevent more?
Given that the state has at this point a 100% track record of devolving into a counterfeiting ring (including the ONE state on Earth to have codified that that is explicitly not to happen in its highest law), the solution to us is pretty apparent.

The Internet is the game changer because secrecy was the counterfeiter's most potent weapon. When I was in my 30's, I pulled a $50 and a $1 out of my wallet. It dawned on me that whoever had the privilege to make bills could make a $100 for the same cost as a $1. At the time, it took me all day laboring as a skilled carpenter to make $100. Like millions of others, I couldn't figure out how it worked.

"By this means government may secretly and unobserved, confiscate the wealth of the people, and not one man in a million will detect the theft." - Lord John Maynard Keynes, "Economic Consequences of Peace"

So, I went to the library, went back to college, studied micro & macro economics but the truth was not to be found. Finally, when I read Ron Paul, he pointed me to "The Mystery of Banking" by Murray N. Rothbard... and there I found my answers. The powers-that-be hid vital information for decades. Even today, The Mystery of Banking is not available from my public library, but it is free online. The Internet is the truth machine. The truth will set you free.

Then I studied "The Secrets of the Federal Reserve" by Eustace Mullins and I realized that when the counterfeiters are stopped it'll become obvious that State aggression is virtually nil in comparison.

 

[Wesker1982]

The failure of the people to hold judges accountable for their decisions is directly related to the fact that the people do not know their rights.

Maybe to an extent, but a bigger problem is that it is too expensive (for many various different reasons) to defend yourself in court. An expected result from a monopoly.

Judges are rulers and rulers are motivated by money and power.

This money and power they are motivated by is provided through a violent legal monopoly. Without the violent monopoly forcing people to pay for bad judges, they would either provide a good service or not be a judge at all.

For you to keep arguing against the "State" because they are initiators of force in order to collect pennies in taxes while allowing counterfeiters an empire in which to steal trillions from producers and use those trillions to kill people all over the world, destroy property all over the world, and create injustice all over the world makes your argument appear disingenuous.

Um yeah, I oppose it all. All of those are good reasons to oppose the State. But that isn't a reason to ignore other things. People still largely believe in the myth of monopoly law, exposing this myth deserves more attention imo. There are tons of threads and information dedicated to exposing the fraudulent money system.