The rule of law without the state

[David]

I strongly suggest to anyone who has ever had even the slightest interest in common law, or any other form of private law to go to the Von Mises website:  http://www.mises.org/story/2701
I was pleased as punch to read this.  I have long believed that private legal systems are possible, and have been disappointed by the fact that the only common law we have left today is stories of 'how it used to be'. 

[David]

Most minarchists, which include most libertarians, and objectivists, claim that the reason for their continued support for at least a minimal gov't is because of security and safety.  They say 'there has got to be some system to ensure that there is justice, to prosecute all injustices.'  I have always had a problem with this for utility reasons; they do a horrible job at best, and are the chief sources of organized injustice on the planet at worst.  Recently I realized that safety and security is the chief issue that every demegogue uses to promote himself, and to trump some minority's rights.  This leads of course to the very thing that we all hate, an overeaching and dangerous gov't. 
Yet here is a 'system' of customery law based on property rights.  It wasn't based on some gov't, and isn't even controlled by any one tribe or clan.  It somehow survived both colonialism and dictatorship.  With some modifications, it could be done here. 

[KBCraig]

Most minarchists, which include most libertarians, and objectivists, claim that the reason for their continued support for at least a minimal gov't is because of security and safety. 

Speaking only for myself here, but the reason I still describe myself as a minarchist, instead of anarchist, isn't because I want government for any reason whatsoever, but because I fear that government is inevitable. If government is to exist, I want it to be as constrained and neutered as possible. If only the statists participate in defining government and its limits, then the anti-statists get screwed.

[dalebert]

Most minarchists, which include most libertarians, and objectivists, claim that the reason for their continued support for at least a minimal gov't is because of security and safety. 

Speaking only for myself here, but the reason I still describe myself as a minarchist, instead of anarchist, isn't because I want government for any reason whatsoever, but because I fear that government is inevitable. If government is to exist, I want it to be as constrained and neutered as possible. If only the statists participate in defining government and its limits, then the anti-statists get screwed.

I have to say that's the most sensible defense of minarchism I've heard. It sounds like you're almost better described as an anarchist. It's just your methods that fit a minarchist approach. Remember, anarchy is not a form of government. It's a mindset that government is not valid. It is specifically anti-collectivist which means it's a goal that's reached by the individual and that has been reached by many individuals. It's all about freeing your mind from the false validity of government. The anarchist, for instance, is still being robbed by government. The difference is that (s)he recognizes it for what it is- theft.

I personally see government, at least the aggressive form of it that we know of today, as synonymous with crime. I want as little crime as possible. That doesn't mean that I believe we will ever get to that point. We will always have crime in some form, but that doesn't mean I should consider it "necessary" or that I should ever be comfortable once we get crime down to a certain level. The goal should be clear that it's all bad and that we want as little as possible, even aiming for a goal of zero knowing that we will probably fall short of it. I'm open to all kinds of non-violent methods for reaching that goal, even to the point of *shiver* campaigning and voting for a candidate who will reduce it.

[David]

Most minarchists, which include most libertarians, and objectivists, claim that the reason for their continued support for at least a minimal gov't is because of security and safety. 

Speaking only for myself here, but the reason I still describe myself as a minarchist, instead of anarchist, isn't because I want government for any reason whatsoever, but because I fear that government is inevitable. If government is to exist, I want it to be as constrained and neutered as possible. If only the statists participate in defining government and its limits, then the anti-statists get screwed.

I long believed that and tried to figure out various ways to nuetralize the agressive tendacies of gov't, since gov't seems so inevitable.  The problem is that it doesn't seem to be possible, based on history, for that matter neither does anarchy.     What gives me hope is the general harmony that sociey operates when gov't is out of the picture. 

[SnowDog]

I live in Texas, and I've read of the provisional government here, which succeeded in becoming independent of Mexico. They didn't tax, but they did appoint general Sam Houston to raise a volunteer army, and through voluntary contributions, his army defeated Santa Anna.

So.... what if we create a legislature without any enforcement powers? I first heard of this idea from Francois Tremblay. Such a legislature would really be nothing more than a voluntary organization recommending certain types of actions, but if the members were elected from all the region, it would probably garner a certain respect of authority. As such, it could solve those problems which seem to thwart anarchy. For instance, how would land ownership be established for the courts? A legislature could recommend that all existing deeds for a particular region be filed in a particular place. What are the procedures for arrest and detention? The legislature could recommend the guidelines by which people could be placed under citizens arrest. Of course, people don't have to follow these recommendations, but those who don't would be operating outside of the recognized law, and would be seen as outcasts from the law.

I know the idea needs to be developed more, but the point is that government may be possible without violating anyone's rights.

[dalebert]

You're onto something, Snowdog. A key factor would be that authority is maintained by consistent morality, i.e. adhering strictly to the NAP. This "legislature" could use force only to enforce the NAP and as long as they did so, anarchists generally would not oppose their actions. If they begin to violate the NAP, then they would be viewed as a criminal organization. Whether they're elected or not has nothing to do with their authority. Ideally, they would not be the only organization operating in a certain area to enforce rights. There ought to be multiple groups and lots of individuals that would tend to keep each other in check. A monopoly on force is the very worst kind of monopoly.

[David]

That line of thinking is exactly what I tried to do.  I consider it a way to co-opt the current coercive gov't.  It would be attractive to the large numbers that still believe in a 'governing' authority, yet in theory not be able to become aggressive as it would be 100% voluntarily financed.  If it became aggressive funding would dry up. 
My big concern that I always ran into, is that because most still cling to a belief in gov't, if there was something that smelled like a gov't, it would start acting like one on the very next 'emergency'.  Then all of a sudden you have a new gov't, and you end up going down the same unstoppable path that all gov'ts go down. 
If God came down and said he would grant me one wish, I would tell him that I would like new land to start a new country and then I would divide the land into two territories, one half would have a figurehead powerless gov't, the other complete anarchy as some form of clan society or something similar.  The reason I would split it in half is if the first failed and developed into a new gov't, the other would still be around.   

[dalebert]

I'm in the middle of Atlas Shrugged and I really like this quote:

"When robbery is done in open daylight by sanction of the law, as it is done today, then any act of honor or restitution has to be hidden underground."

In fact, I think this might be a great quote for the front page of the NH Underground!

[EthanAllen]

Remember, anarchy is not a form of government. It's a mindset that government is not valid.

Anarchy means a rejection of all illegitimate authority in whatever form it manifests itself.

It is specifically anti-collectivist which means it's a goal that's reached by the individual and that has been reached by many individuals.

Individualist anarchists in the Tucker tradition thought collective action was legitimate as long as it was voluntary. But they also called themselves socialists because they believed labor should not be separated from capital ownership and labor should always get it's full product or due.