Here’s a letter that I sent recently to the Baltimore Sun:
Diana Schaub rightly argues that no judge should allow empathy for parties in a courtroom to dilute his or her commitment to apply the law dispassionately (“Why empathy is the enemy of justice,” June 14). But the need for judicial impartiality does not imply that judges should avoid engaging with the real-world contexts and details that surround every legal dispute.
In a free society, law isn’t simply, or even chiefly, a set of explicit commands handed down from a sovereign (be it a monarch or a democratically elected legislature). A great deal of law – indeed, most law – emerges undesigned from the daily practices of ordinary people interacting with, and sometimes bumping into, each other. People on their own often find ways to minimize these conflicts, and these ways become embedded in people’s expectations. These expectations, in turn, become unwritten law – law that good judges find and enforce impartially.
Sincerely,
Donald J. Boudreaux
Share
{ 50 comments }
Good subject Don. This is precisely why Kritarchy is attractive to me personally.
I see absolutely no reason for anyone to have the power to appoint a judge to hear a complaint by me or against me.
Both plaintiff and defendant should have equal say, agreement, on which judge hears the case and makes the rulings; and, the judge should not beholden to any power of any nature and should not be paid by anyone other than the losing party in a suit.
A judge should earn his fees from honest study, impartial application of law, and rulings uninfluenced by anything other than the facts of a case, which in my opinion would include the character and history of both plaintiff and defendant.
Empathy and favoritism would be reduced if not eliminated by the free market, because jusges known, or observed, to be open to influence from any source, or ideology, would soon find no market for their services.
Wise judges would never want for clients.
Law as we know it in this country is a horrible miscarriage, a mockery, of impartial justice, not only in the courtrooms, but in Congress and on the streets as well.
Any system that can find and spout justification for the tasing of a six year old girl, for any reason not involving properly armed and aimed firearms, by a policeman is a sick system that needs to be trashed totally. And, how many six year old girls pack heat, locked and loaded?
I can't wait to see where this thread goes.
eliminated by the free market, because jusges known, (should have read judges, of course)
Vidyohs,
On first blush, I found your idea of free markets in judging to be interesting (even though we already have independent contract arbitration, which fulfills that function fairly well already). I'm not overly fond of the courts being used to settle trifling matters or to gradually and (seemingly) inexorably expanding the scope of the interstate commerce clause, but I think there might be a substantial hurdle to a free market approach in the form of precedent.
I'll freely confess I don't know that much about law, but as I understand it, courts tend to be swayed by precedent insofar as the judgments have been rendered from the same authority. For example, a court in Kentucky is not bound by South Carolina precedent (if I have this wrong, please correct my error). At any rate, I think enforcing the common law would be all the more challenging if a judge from LawCorp could lawfully ignore viable precedent from his peer over at Gavel Time, Inc.
This isn't to say it would be impossible to overcome this difficulty, and as I say, we already have a private option for quite a bit of contract law (most notably union dispute arbitration), so I think a convincing solution for the structure and enforcement of private precedent would be one hell of an interesting discussion topic.
Sam Wilson,
I'd like to respond, but I'd rather wait until the usual suspects round themselves up. :->
Ha ha ha ha ha. Can't blame you, dude.
It's always opposite day with political government, hence, Department of Justice.
Sam – Orwell was a prophet!
"At any rate, I think enforcing the common law would be all the more challenging if a judge from LawCorp could lawfully ignore viable precedent from his peer over at Gavel Time, Inc."
Sam Wilson
As long as both plaintiff and defendent agree to accept the ruling made by the judge at LawCorp, why would it matter what Gavel Time's judge thinks?
After all, if the precedent already set by Gavel Time is attractive to the parties, there's nothing stopping them from using Gavel Time's judge in the first place, is there?
Don,
Excellent!
Invariably, minarch-Libertarianism must drift towards anarcho-Liberatarianism otherwise "everyone's a 'minarcho-Libertarian" as every minimalist want government their minimalist tastes but no more. However some 'minimalist' may not be that 'minimal'.
'Kritarchy' – read disputes betweenn private landowners when one private landowner has a blue with another private landowner. Just as there's no real World Arbitrator to police the various national governments – why should there be a 'higher power' to police private landowners in Libertopia? It's the private landowners land and what he does on his land is his own business. And if two private landowners want to shoot it out instead of working it out then that should be their choice too. If any 'higher power' can come between private landowners and disregard their private right to ownership then the 'higher power' must be a government. That is, what we have now.
This is probably my favorite letter of yours, Don.
It is amazing, given the legal tradition of this country, how many people think we're under some sort of Napoleonic code. Or perhaps the entire staff of the Baltimore Sun hails from Louisiana.
vidyohs -
I'm intrigued by your alternative, but I'm not sure how well this would translate into areas other than contract law (where, as Sam Wilson points out, it already exists). Think about constitutional questions, or even criminal questions where the state is a party. Sometimes I suppose the state doesn't have to be a party. A rape victim could represent herself, for example. But what about a case of child abuse. Inevitably there are going to be a number of cases where the state is either a plaintiff, or (as in a number of Constitutional questions) the defendant.
In that situation would we really want a private judge selected by the market to respond to the state on one-hand, and a private citizen with far less resources (potentially) on the other? It seems to me the whole point of an independent judiciary, life appointments, and very public confirmation is to provide a check against the inevitable role that the state will play as either plaintiff or defendant. You need that distance and indepedence, and I'm not sure a free-agent judge could provide it.
I'm guessing it works much better in contract law for two reasons – first, as you point out, simple market discipline. Unfair adjudicators won't get work. But I'm also guessing it works because the parties to a contract arbitration are on roughly equal footing – which won't necessarily hold true in other areas.
One additional thought: a great deal of the expansive Constitutional interpretations that many people here decry have come from this sort of "emergent law" that Don describes.
The spills and the thrills
of the codification of the hills
"
legislature). A great deal of law – indeed, most law – emerges undesigned from the daily practices of ordinary people interacting with, and sometimes bumping into, each other. People on their own often find ways to minimize these conflicts, and these ways become embedded in people's expectations. These expectations, in turn, become unwritten la
"
Elections are no excuse for legislators.
Legislation is no excuse for the law
!
Laws (or rules) are standards and can only be centrally planned. If two judges would decide a single case differently, they aren't applying the same law.
A state's most central authority may delegate law making to less central authorities, but the law then is less standard and thus less predictable. It's whatever a judge or jury decides in a particular case. That's the rule of men rather than the rule of law.
The rule of men could be preferable to the rule of law. In the ultimate rule of men, each and every man decides for himself. Anarchy is the ultimate democracy, the rule of people by themselves, but anarchy is the absence of uniform standards imposed by any force other than individual force.
Minarchists don't drift toward anarchy. They drift away from it. Anarchy is where we're all coming from ultimately. We're born anarchists, expecting to be ruled by the state of nature. We spend a few decades learning to live with artificial states. Then we die.
You describe natural territoriality here, not property.
"most law – emerges undesigned from the daily practices of ordinary people". That creates the tyranny of the majority. In the old South, the practices of the whites was to segregate themselves from the blacks, and that became law. Is that a prescription for freedom?
Martin Brock -
Re: "We're born anarchists, expecting to be ruled by the state of nature. We spend a few decades learning to live with artificial states."
Really? You don't think kith and kin serve as the ruling power in the absence of the state?
I'm not saying "wahoo – being ruled is great"… I'm simply saying that the idea of some anarchic state of nature seems like a very tenuous proposition to me. I'm not sure there is a typical "state of nature", and even if there is I'm not sure it's a reasonable basis of an argument.
The government should exist to protect life, liberty and property from force or fraud, and for that purpose and that purpose alone we have given government the power to use force.
Unfortunately government seems to attract those annoying neighbors who get miffed when their advice is ignored, so they can wield the power of government to force people into taking their unwanted advice.
Sam Wilson,
As we see, the usual suspects have rounded themselves up, and John, the last commenter is the only one that has it succinct and correct.
Daniel Kuehn,
I am going to try once more to get through to you, and therefore I am going to treat you like you actually were sincere and are trying to understand. No sarcasm, no dismissal.
DK, you have to understand that everything you wrote above is predicated on your enculturated belief that government is real.
It is not.
Government is a legal fiction, an agreement between men. It has no automatic jurisdiction over you, you must in some fashion volunteer into it. Now, here is the legal and tricky part, ignorant acquiesence is interpreted as willing and intentional. That interpretation holds until you indicate otherwise.
Now why would you indicate otherwise when you do not know your true condition vis-a-vis the government? No one does, virtually everyone is ignorant. As a matter of fact one of the major sources of my contempt for "we the people" is that having been made aware that they are living a lie, they remain willfully and intentionally ignorant. Like the three Chinese monkeys they sit hands over eyes, mouth, and ears and pretend evil doesn't exist.
Now, DK, do not knee jerk a reply to me based on your enculturation and/or conventional wisdom.
As the state is nothing more than a legal fiction, words on paper, paper you did not willingly, intentionally, knowingly, and voluntarily sign, the only way it can gain legal and moral jurisdiction over you is through your voluntary or acquiescent particiapation.
Taking possession of your physical being and imprisoning you for nonparticiaption is not legal or moral, yet we both know it certainly can be done. We know it happens because "we the people" are more ignorant than sheep about our legal system, government, and far to willing to take another man's word for it.
I do not ask you to take my word for anything I say. I am asking that you not knee jerk a reply, and actually spend some time studying real events and real law; and then applying your intellect to what you have learned and question your mom and day, your teachers, your neighbors.
One more thing to say to you in answer to your question about the state's participation in a justice system.
You asked: "Think about constitutional questions, or even criminal questions where the state is a party."
My reply is that as the state is a legal fiction, an agreement, how can the state suffer actual harm. Harm to another human being or his property is the only basis for a criminal charge. The state can not logically, legally, or morally be a plaintiff as there is no state to suffer actual damage. You can not put "the state" in the box to testify to damages. Any so-called "representative" of the state in the witness box can not lawfully, legally, or morally testify to damages except as how he personally was harmed. Yet, see it happen. So, the question has to be, how does it happen?
Again, that it happens in our nation is just more evidence of the massive personal ignorance each of "we the people" display.
There is nothing exhalted, grand, wonderous, or noble about government; intelligent and well meaning leaders have warned us repeatedly to keep close watch on government as it will enslave you if it can. We let it.
In closing, DK, using the internet is easy, all the official government documents, laws, and research materials are available to you.
You've brushed up against some truths here, DK. Now let's see how you handle it.
vidyohs -
I think you misunderstand my view of the state. Actually this is what I've been saying for quite a while – that you misunderstand my view of the state. I have always held that the state is a "legal fiction" as you put it. I've also always held that it involves forcible coercion in situations where "we the people" isn't in reality as all-inclusive as the documents of our founders seem to presuppose. I've always held these things. I'm not exactly clear on what you think I think about it, but I seem to be falling fairly close in line with you.
As for the state being a party – when the state is a plaintiff, they're usually representing others that may not adequately be able to represent themselves in the situation you describe… rape victims, abused children, murder victims, etc. etc. So you're right – it's not that the state itself has been harmed in these cases except insofar as the collective right to life, liberty, or property is threatened. When the state steps in as a plaintiff it is for the sake of an otherwise vulnerable plaintiff.
Sometimes, of course, the state is a defendant as well. I presume you wouldn't have a problem with this. While you may claim that the state itself can't be harmed because it is a legal fiction (I don't necessarily argee with this… just because it's a legal fiction doesn't mean it's entirely fictional), you would certainly agree with me that the state can do harm to individuals. In that case, the state is going to be a defendant.
So I would argue that the state can legitimately be both a defendant and a plaintiff, and given this situation non-state plaintiffs or defendants would be at considerable disadvantage if the courts were market based. The only option – it seems to me – is an independent, public judiciary.
I'd also point out that we both seem to agree with Don. So I hope you don't assume there's some fundamental disagreement between us on this particular post… it only seems that there's disagreement on your own comment.
Taking possession of your physical being and imprisoning you for nonparticiaption is not legal or moral, yet we both know it certainly can be done.
Government is an organization to which we have granted the right to use force so that force will not be used upon us.
I disagree that it is a fiction.
Government can kill you, and in my book that makes it real.
Unless you mean that you would be killed by an individual authorized by your legal fiction called government.
That's getting a little too abstract for me to ponder right now, though the concept does deserve some thought.
How goes the search for software that would enable us to more easily ignore the annoying statist neighbors?
Sam Wilson,
(My apologies to Prof Don, I'll say this then shut up)
Sir, you wrote an excellent response and I wanted to jump right back in to not only give you some of my answers but to ask you your ideas on them. You appear to have knowledge and common sense appropriate to the subject. T'was hard to resist.
As you have most likely read in my answer to DK, I do not believe the state has any business in being a "victim" and therefore legally allowed to pursue criminal or civil charges against a living human in the absence of provable actual damage to "the state", not some one employed by the state, but the state itself. Can't be done.
If there is no actual harmed human to press charges in criminal or civil courts, then there should be no charges brought.
Practice of this one simple thing would eliminate probably 85% of pleadings filed.
"We the people" allowed the state to assume a status not due it by actual facts, and insert itself into our society as a victim. That is why Josh Burns(mythical name), hapless college student who smokes a little weed daily, gets caught with some weed in his pocket when he is searched at a traffic stop, and is charged (by the state) with a crime, and sentenced to years in prison. No one was harmed by Josh Burns, no one was ever even threatened, yet "we the people" stand by and not only watch the travesty but cheer it.
Eliminate government as a victim and we reduce the prison population dramtically, and unclog the courts in one fell swoop.
Oh, and one beautiful byproduct of this would be reducing the number of universities and colleges offering law school, and consequently reducing the number of lawyers dramatically.
As our nation is run by trial lawyers, my idea is of course totally utopian and will never come to pass. Hell, it is obvious we are where we are purely because trial lawyers put us here, a place where they can mild the maximum amount from stupid ole "we the people".
Shifting gears. Since you aware of the nature of the independent arbitrator system in contract law, I assume that you also know that the vast majority of tort suits also settle through arbitration without going to actual trial.
I am a legal videographer, my profession is to videotape legal depositions, of which the vast majority are simple medmal or injuries. I have first hand knowledge that this condiditon exists. The attorneys filing a pleading on behalf of a plaintiff do so with full knowledge of never seeing the inside of a courtroom, arbitration is what they are aiming for. That is why they ask for impossibly high compensation for pain and suffering, and punishment compensation. They know they have to have a position from which to retreat in arbitration and still leave them with enough profit to make it worthwhile.
Ok, we know arbitration works, and state force or interference is not necessary to make it work.
Your point about precedent dovetails into the topic title by Prof Don above. "Law ought not be centrally planned", and a judge who rules purely from precedent is doing exactly that.
Your example of a Kentucky judge being bound to follw the precedent of a South Carolina judge can be answered to the best of my knowledge in saying, no. However, doing so means not having to labor over difficult questions and actually think about justice, so if the Kentucky judge is lazy he may take the easy way out and cite precedence.
That being said, in our system of courts established by Congress, a judge always has to be cognizant of appeal. If a judge is willfully lazy and is overturned repeatedly or regularly on appeal, he just might loose his job.
Now, in the federal system I believe that precedent is followed much more closely as any ruling by the SCOTUS is going to stand as precedent. Tricky thing this is, eh?
The question to stop and ask here is: Is having the state involved in local disputes a good thing? And, let's face it, virtually every disagreement begins as local.
The real problem in establishing "rule by judge", and having the federal state being shoved back into its box where it would be allowed to perform only constitutional functions, is simply that "we the people" have become too enculturated to state rule, and state distribution of privileges, to give up our access to sucking the teat or knowing the teat is there to suck when we want.
Take an example. I am not bound by my creator, God or nature take your choice, to like or wish to associate with everyone. My personal beliefs and character will inevitably make some people unattractive to me to associate with. That is nature, and it is my right to decide for myself who I will associate with. It is one of those "unalienable rights" spoken of in the Declaration of Independence.
Now I ask you on a pure intellectual basis, dropping all enculturated ideas or reactions, if I have had nothing but unpleasant experiences with…oh say… Chinese people and I do not want to work for a Chinese, employ a Chinese, serve a Chinese, be served by a Chinese, or live in a neighborhood where Chinese live; would not being forced to do all of those things by a remote entity in Washington D.C. constitute a violation of my own natural "unalienable rights"?
I am not interested in gut reactions firmly enculturated into the soul by a life of public school education and government propaganda. Is not being forced into associations one does not want a violation of your natural "unalienable rights"?
Using my example I ask another question, being forced to associate with Chinese, is on the same moral and legal grounds as being forced to actually move to China. If the state can do the one, why not the other?
I agree, Sam, that it is hoplessly utopian to think we will ever get out from under the bootheel of the state here in America. And, if it should happen that we did assume "rule by judge", one of the biggest hurdles to accomplish would be enforcement of rulings.
In olden days, ancient Isreal, more modern Somalia, enforcement is easier because life is more communal and rulings and/or punishments handed down will be known and enforced by the community itself, even banishment if such is the ruling. Even with banishment, word of mouth can travel fast even in rural societies.
Our problem would be in marking the offender in such a way as to have the judgment follow him if he decided to move away from the scene of a crime or civil offense.
I had a thought last night about this, and it relates back to a conversation I had with Ike (Cafe patron) about the future development of twitter into an intelligence or brain. I still don't think that it will emerge as a "brain", however Ike's comments make me think that, coupled with the internet, such as twitter just might solve the question of how "we the people" (all 300 million of us) enforce judgments in a society of "rule by judge".
What the hell, if a man's credit rating can follow him like skin, then surely even independent court rulings could be made to do the same thing. So that no matter where he may go he would be electronically marked, unable to use a passport, get a driver's license, fly on a plane, cross any border, buy anything on credit, until the judgment was satisfied.
I appreciate your comments, Sam. Have a good day.
The problem with using law to harness a complex system is that the government harness cannot keep up with the dynamics of the system it seeks to harness. The goal for regulators should not be to force the system into a particular shape. Rather, it should be to keep the playing field level so that everybody in the system can have a say in how the system evolves.
In other words, imagine the economy as silly putty. You can't force it into the shape of a mold made of wire — it will just bulge through the wires. You can't force it into a particular shape with a hammer — it will just break. Your best bet is to do chemistry — to try and tune the cross-linking inside the silly putty that makes it silly.
John,
I think that we are essentially brothers under the skin, but:
"I disagree that it is a fiction.
Government can kill you, and in my book that makes it real."
it is not government that kills you, it is individuals enculturated with the belief that government is real that do the killing, the name of government just gives them power and protection from retaliation.
Take away that belief that government is all powerful and its word as advanced by any of its representatives must be followed
even onto submission to imprisonment or death and you take away governments power.
The fiction is given real power through the belief of the people, take away the belief and you take away the power.
I can categorically state that, with full and justifiable reason, I lost belief in the corporate government of the USA long ago.
I can still believe that some sort of government, say one that actually adheres to the Constitution, is necessary; but, anyone who does not know and/or recognize that the corporate government of the USA ran amok long ago is just plain brain dead.
Sam Wilson, et.al.
One thing I had intended to focus on in my long post above is important.
Another thing essential of cleaning up our system of law is simply installing the principle of "loser pays".
I believe our brethern across the pond, the Brits, have this feature and therefore have a lot less lawyers per capita and a lot less silly ass lawsuites.
The idea has been proposed here in Congress and the ones who dare are savaged by trial lawyers.
A corollary that is more on topic to Don's point above is that the silly putty may have different chemistry in different parts of the world and at different time depending on the local conditions of temperature, pressure, and density.
That's significant because it shows that if we take the common law as found in a given culture, we should not assume that the same general rule (think of Hand's neglience rule, for example) will be always efficient or just. How would local variations in conditions be accommodated by such a general rule of efficiency? Hand's negligence rule is a mean-field approximation, which assumes that individuals everywhere face the same conditions of risk and reward.
vidyohs,
Gotcha.
I recently came to the conclusion that this faith in government is a religion.
It's an extension of Humanism, a self worship, worship of the state, and a need to be worshiped.
These people believe that the government is the source of our rights, rather than the protector of our rights.
If rights come from government, they can be taken away by government.
Some say power corrupts, I say power attracts the corruptible.
That is why we libertarians are so marginalized.
We do not seek power, we do not want power, but only through seeking and taking power can we get the government to leave us alone.
It's a Catch 22.
DK,
In the essentials you knee jerked. I politely asked you to think it through before replying.
You good and troubling questions on certain issues, but you did not think it through.
The state bringing criminal charges on behalf of an abused child who has no adult with standing in court to do so for the child, such as a parent or close relative, is not the same thing as the state bringing criminal charges against the abuser.
The state is not plaintiff, merely the agent. The child is the plaintiff.
The child is harmed and the state acts as parent, it is the child who has suffered the harm, the child that can be put on the stand to testify, and the child who benefits from the rulings.
When I ask you to stop and think things through, DK, I do so for good reason. The answers are there for you if you'd just stop and think clearly.
Or, even just try and imagine yourself as asking a question instead of making ill thought statements.
The fiction is given real power through the belief of the people, take away the belief and you take away the power.
Some say that a god only exists when it has worshipers.
Was Zeus once real?
Is Allah real, and if Islam dies away will Allah cease to be real?
Same thing with our government. It exists and has power because of those who worship it.
vidyohs -
Please don't assume I don't think things through when I read your posts. I do.
RE: "The state is not plaintiff, merely the agent. The child is the plaintiff."
Yes – I said essentially exactly this. I think I used the word "representative" rather than "agent".
This seems to be your only qualm with my response – and I'd ask you to reread what I wrote and realize that we have no fundamental disagreement here. I still get the impression you're trying to create a conflict between us where there isn't one.
Our essential difference, it seems to me, is that I'm saying the government will inevitably be a party (in the case that they are the defendants) or a representative/agent (in the case that they are the "plaintiffs") in court. Do you not agree that it is inevitable the government will appear in court? Given that situation, I'm saying that a private court system would provide too much of an advantage to the state, and too much of a disadvantage to the people.
I did read your post carefully, and this seems to me to be where our disagreement is – not on the other issues that you bring up (the state as a "legal fiction", the state as plaintiff, etc.).
Thoughts? I understand you'd probably disagree with me still – but I'm curious what you think about the disadvantage that private citizens will be placed in if they were ever to face the state in a private court.
Kinship is part of the state of nature. Lions defend territory mano-a-mano, but they often form alliances, and the allies are usually brothers. Artificial states evolved from these natural origins.
If it were so tenuous, none of us would be here. Artificial states have existed for a few millenia at most, the natural state for a million millenia. Whether you want to live this way or not is a separate issue. Since you're a human being, you probably prefer a state constructed by and for human beings specifically, even if armed men forcible impose it.
Of course, there is. It's whatever preceded artificial states and what still exists strictly apart from artificial states. That's not much on Earth anymore to be sure.
I don't know what you mean by "reasonable basis for argument" here. I'm not saying that the state of nature is "moral". I'm saying that it's how things are apart from any artificial state (what we call "the state").
Morality itself is an artifact. I consider myself a utilitarian ethically, but my utilitarianism is a choice that I make. It's not naturally right. It's not God's will. It's not anything but a choice I've made.
I'm a human being. I want my needs and desires satisfied, and I want to satisfy them only consistent with the similar needs and desires of other human beings. That makes me a Utilitarian. A lion might prefer to eat me, and that's his choice. Maybe the world would be a "better place" if the lions had their way instead, but it wouldn't be a more Utilitarian place.
Disingenious Kuehn,
I think your own words make it clear what you said: unedited quotes follow.
"When the state steps in as a plaintiff it is for the sake of an otherwise vulnerable plaintiff."
Sometimes, of course, the state is a defendant as well. I presume you wouldn't have a problem with this.
Posted by: Daniel Kuehn | Jun 19, 2009 11:21:35 AM"
You wrote those words, DK. Now you're trying to say you didn"t?
You specifically said "state steps in as a plaintiff", and began the next paragrpah with, "Sometimes, of course, the state is a defendant as well."
It is disingenious to suggest you can have it both ways.
Come back to me when you've done some study and exercised your unenculturated brain on the subject.
"People on their own often find ways to minimize these conflicts, and these ways become embedded in people's expectations. These expectations, in turn, become unwritten law – law that good judges find and enforce impartially. "
Me and my friends always had a conflict with a rich guy in our neighborhood because he didn't want to give us his money. So we found a way to minimize this conflict by beating him up a few times. Now he gives us his money without resistance and it's become embedded in our expectations and in turn the unwritten law.
Unless I'm misunderstanding something, I can't believe Don Boudreaux wrote this article.
Michael F. Martin,
Your comments and analogy regarding silly putty are precisely on point, it has a humorous aspect, yet is valid.
I agree with you, but I also think we agree that it is obvious we don't have to go to different parts of the political world to find differences sufficient to make precedence in law unapplicable and unworkable. I believe in this nation we have those regional differences as well.
To have a central, out of touch, power sitting in the beltway cesspool known as Washington D.C., forcing and applying alien law to all regions with no regard is simply stated as, not good.
Martin Brock -
RE: "If it were so tenuous, none of us would be here. Artificial states have existed for a few millenia at most, the natural state for a million millenia."
You misunderstand me. I'm not saying that there is no "natural state". I'm saying that state isn't best described as "anarchic".
vidyohs -
Please don't call me disingenuous.
I said: "As for the state being a party – when the state is a plaintiff, they're usually representing others that may not adequately be able to represent themselves"
I fail to see how this is any different from your description of the state acting as an "agent" of an abused child, who is the real plaintiff. Do you really seriously still believe we disagree on this????
RE: "It is disingenious to suggest you can have it both ways."
Please explain what you mean by this rather than throwing insults with me. In some cases, the state is a defendant. Take the recent Ricci case of Sotomayor fame. State is defendant. Sometimes the state is a plaintiff acting as an agent/representative of a rape victim or an abused child. I know this hurts, vidyohs. But we agree on this. We agree, we agree, we agree!!! And I'm being no more disingenuous than you are.
Where we seem to disagree is that, given the state will appear in court, what is the best court system to have consistent with liberty. It seems to me we need a public, independent judiciary – not a market based judiciary where the state will always have an enormous advantage over the people.
"Anarchy" does not mean "without rules" in some absolute sense, like even without a law of gravity. It means "without a state", and "a state" refers to an artificial state with rules imposed by a few men and followed by many others. I don't see how it could mean anything else.
Martin Brock -
Well then that's the problem! Isn't it good to realize there is less underlying disagreement than we originally thought. If you mean "without government", then I certainly agree with you on that.
I found two definitions – without government, and "absence of any established authority or order". I was refering to the second definition.
Taken literally, "anarchy" means without a system of rule (imposed), not an absence of order.
Taken transliterally, you mean Sam. But since we don't speak Latin anymore that's not really relevant.
Taken literally it means what it means in English, which includes both Martin and my definition.
I stopped calling myself an "anarchist" in high school, but I still accept "minarchist". Few genuine anarchists exist. If you accept property, you aren't an anarchist.
Also, "anarchy" does not mean "chaos", which is the usual implied meaning.
DK, what does "democracy" mean?
That is, what do people mean by that implicitly in the common usage?
What M. Brock said! True, pure anarchism means 'without rules', i.e. neither public nor private rules. Unfortunately, a lot of Libertarians complain about the restrictions that Governments apply but claim they won't care if private landowners apply the same restrictions or worse. For example, some make a big deal if in some parts of the U.S.A. you're can't legally carry concealed arms. Yet some Libertarians claim they would abide by private owners who had the same rules. So imagine if the private roadowner who happens to own the streets around your house is on has a rule that you're not allowed to carry firearms on his street or else. You are then forced to confine your firearms in your private home and nowhere else. Indeed you are effectively disarmed in public. Would not a true Libertarian ignore such rules as being as prohihitive and dangerous as any government?
John,
"Some say power corrupts, I say power attracts the corruptible.
Posted by: John | Jun 19, 2009 12:26:16 PM"
My observation is that both are true.
But, that's just me.
In the 1998 time frame, I attended a business breakfast to which a Republican female candidate for Texas District judge had been invited to speak.
When she spoke, she spent long agonizing minutes promising to rule strictly by the book. At an appropriat moment I dropped my bisquit and raised my hand to get her attention. When she acknowledged me, I asked her this question, "You've spent all this time promising to judge by the book, so why do we need you on the bench, why not just have the book? It is cheaper and a lot less complicated just to read the book."
Dead silence from said candidate, followed by frantic verbal tap dancing.
When she finished, my neighbor at said breakfast asked me if she had answered my question and I replied, no. He shook his head and said, "I didn't think so either."
This is the pitiful state of affairs in our so-called justice sytem.
We have the finest health care in the world, and the sorriest justice system in the free world.
Gilhuahua,
For Christ's sake, put down the weed and go to sleep.