--- In LibertarianEnterprise@yahoogroups.com, "Dennis Lee Wilson" <dennisleewil...@...> wrote: > ... civil wars in Africa, drug wars in South America, or > even Gengis Khan in Mongolia. > They claim that these things, which are actually examples > of competing governments, are what life without > government will produce. >
I don't make that claim. My claim is that, if you start with no Government and let things proceed, Governments (as you are using the term here - which, I believe means force-INITIATING Agencies correct me if I got it wrong since you don't define it) WILL BE FORMED. That is what the shitheads always want to do. Without something in place at the inception of this "governmentless condition", something that works strongly against the formation of Force-INITIATING Agencies, the same people who today want to punish drug dealing and blasphemy and institute things like Sharia Law will form such Agencies to make the world they like. Thus you WILL have those "competing governments". A substantial Majority of Texans want to punish cocksucking between males (not heterosexual couples). The only thing stopping them is the threat of Federal Marshals coming in to protect the men they want to incarcerate. Those same people, if there were no Government in Texas, would form a well-funded Agency to punish queers. To say that we "can" start with no Government and live well because IOceland allegedly did it once is disingenuous. If Iceland did it, you'd have to figure out why it worked that one time and has always promptly failed everywhere else. Well, here find that: "... the Icelandic Commonwealth between 930 and 1262 had 'some features' of an anarcho-capitalist society while there was a single legal system, enforcement of law was entirely private and highly capitalist; and so provides some evidence of how such a society would function. 'Even where the Icelandic legal system recognized an essentially "public" offense, it dealt with it by giving some individual (in some cases chosen by lot from those affected) the right to pursue the case...' http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anarcho-capitalism Excuse me, if enforcement of The Law is ENTIRELY Private, what constrains the Private Enforcement Agencies to follow the "Single Legal System"? If you want your neighbor's horse, and he doesn't want to sell it at any price, what prevents your hiring a Private Army to take it from him CONTRARY TO THE LEGAL SYSTEM'S LAWS? In that case, there was another System - your own; not just one. No, there were Laws that were Enforced - we know that has to be the case if there was a Single Legal System; and the Security Firms were NOT entirely Private, they had to answer to something higher. That "something higher" is what I have continually insisted is needed; and David Friedman insists that that is what Iceland had. As I have said, it does not have to be a Force-INITIATING Agency; it can be an Agency that enforces NAP and nothing else. But it has to be strong enough to stand against all the mafias and Tongs and Inquisitions so many people are so find of. Some Anarchists label that a Government and gut-reflex oppose it. Some Anarchists do not label that a Government because it does not Initiate Force It is just swell to have Private Law Enforcement Agencies available to the highest bidder. It is a nightmare to have THE LAW ITSELF written by the highest bidder. > Another common objection to stateless legal enforcement systems is to > ask for "just one example of where it has worked." > > Medieval Iceland illustrates an actual and well-documented historical > example of how a stateless legal order can work and it provides insights > as to how we might create a more just and efficient society today. > > continued here: > http://www.mises.org/fullstory.asp?control=1121 > <http://www.mises.org/fullstory.asp?control=1121> >
