Let me take a more general view. Government doesn't need to have a monopoly on force. People have the right to use force in self-defense. What government should have is a monopoly on final arbitration.
You can sign a contract the specifies a particular mediator. If you do not do so, or if the mediator is in breech, or one party does not accept the results of mediation, there must be another means of dispute resolution. This "default" court must be constituted beforehand, and have the power to enforce its decisions. The judicial system must be unified, so that disputes between courts can be definitely resolved. Power should be decentralized as much as possible. Yet, a means of definitely and finally resolving disputes, without violence between the disputant parties, is necessary. This is best accomplished by a single, unified court system, constituted in a definite manner, with members either elected or appointed by elected representatives. Chris Edes > The most powerful force for breeding violence in the world is human > nature. Creatures like lions and pythons can be vicious, but have > nothing like the aggressive ambitions people do. To build a new > society thinking that this problem will go away along with government, > is to invite dangerous consequences. Sort of like thinking that if > only the proletariat united as a class, there would be an end to > poverty and war. Not happening. > >> "How will an anarchic society stop violence from breeding >> violence?" >> 1) By eliminating the most powerful force for (breeding) violence >> in the world. >> 2) By understanding why gov is the above. >> 3) By unhindered focus on the one thing that encourages >> cooperation more than violence. >> 4) By understanding why free-trade is the above. >> The greatest of enemies will shake hands at the prospect of >> making a buck or two. It's all about the better incentive. > > Yeah, and they'll take the first opportunity to stab each other in the > back, as soon as they no longer need, or can steal, what the other > provides. Assuming they are "the greatest of enemies". > >> "It seems to me you need one power, say a federal government, >> capable of being overthrown..." >> "One power" immediately contradicts itself with "capable of being >> overthrown". Thinking gov can be both is the fallacy at issue. >> Since we are talking about monopolistic power (not derived from >> free-market profit), then by definition it can not also be >> "overthrown" or "held". > > What's so hard to understand? X is the power of the whole people. Y > is the power of the federal government. Z is the power of the largest > group willing to fight a war. X > Y > Z. Like 3 is greater than 2, > yet 2 is still greater than 1. You see? It can be done. > >> It's fallacious to claim that said power is needed to protect the >> free-market playing field; since it will naturally/consistently >> devolve into a power for RIGGING the playing field. >> > > How do you know that? Our country has done very well compared to > others. We just need to analyze and correct the flaws in the original > plan. > >> The greatest force for keeping people honest is free-market >> capitalism profit. The greatest force for corruption and violence >> is non-capitalistic profit. > > That may be true. I also think it's more efficient for a single > police force to protect rights, than a motley collection of private > agencies. I think it means less overhead and more profits. Contract > rights in particular are difficult to enforce with private security. > The wealthier party will have the advantage, in hiring unprincipled > mercenaries. > > Chris > >
