(July 1, 2013 at 1:34 pm)Tonus Wrote: So the risk of being a murderer in a non-violent society is that eventually someone might murder you right back?

I'm also wondering what happens in those grey area situations. The ones where, if you take a person's life, some people will say it's murder and other will say it was a legitimate action.
What happens when half the population "shuns" you as an outcast and the other half hails you as a hero?
Without a centralized penal system how do we determine what justice, if any, needs to be dealt?

(July 1, 2013 at 1:49 pm)LostLocke Wrote:

(July 1, 2013 at 1:34 pm)Tonus Wrote: So the risk of being a murderer in a non-violent society is that eventually someone might murder you right back?

I'm also wondering what happens in those grey area situations. The ones where, if you take a person's life, some people will say it's murder and other will say it was a legitimate action.
What happens when half the population "shuns" you as an outcast and the other half hails you as a hero?
Without a centralized penal system how do we determine what justice, if any, needs to be dealt?

About half of people's earnings go to government, so people with have a lot of extra capital that they wouldn't have in a statist environment that they could put into security products and services.

Disputes can be solved by private DROs, whether that be in courts or some other form, keep in mind that the current 'law' is north of 100,000 rules and and regulations; So complicated you need to spend a fortune in legal specialists just to decode the state's super confusing, complicated and contradictory language. In this current 'justice' system, the richer person has a much better chance of winning the case since just understanding the law is an art in itself, the most expensive and skilled lawyer will probably win.

In an anarchic society were laws are settled in private court, the law would be fairly simple, Did x initiate force to y? Did x commit fraud to y?. And that's all that would need to be established essentially.

You must be seriously delusional to keep comparing slave owners to the government. Health care was not provided to slaves. Have you not studied history? Have you never visited a plantation? It is incredibly offensive to me when you make that comparison. My government doesn't beat me, it doesn't force me to do things against my will. You are free to leave. Slaves are not. You have the choice to stay or go. Because you have that choice, you are not a slave. The government is not a slave master. End of story.
I think you need a history lesson about WWII as well, but I'm not the person to give it to you. Taxes are required because you use the services I mentioned. If you can't understand paying taxes for services you use, that shows your stupidity.

(July 1, 2013 at 2:04 pm)Koolay Wrote: About half of people's earnings go to government, so people with have a lot of extra capital that they wouldn't have in a statist environment that they could put into security products and services.

In an anarchic society were laws are settled in private court

So we're all going to run around with our own private security force and judicial system?
What happens when my private court and your private court disagree on a ruling?

(July 1, 2013 at 2:04 pm)Koolay Wrote: , the law would be fairly simple, Did x initiate force to y? Did x commit fraud to y?. And that's all that would need to be established essentially.

And again, what happens in the cases where it's not that black & white, like it is in most cases in reality?
Under your system, it's either murder or it's not murder.
There are reasons why we have so many other variables, like 1st 2nd and 3rd degree murder, 1st 2nd and 3rd degree manslaughter, negligent homicide, etc.
What about the 'lying in wait' laws? IE, you can't set someone up to be killed even if they were committing a crime in the process.

I don't know where you're from, but here on Earth things are usually not black or white, 1 or 0, stirred or shaken.

(July 1, 2013 at 2:31 pm)LostLocke Wrote:

(July 1, 2013 at 2:04 pm)Koolay Wrote: , the law would be fairly simple, Did x initiate force to y? Did x commit fraud to y?. And that's all that would need to be established essentially.

And again, what happens in the cases where it's not that black & white, like it is in most cases in reality?
Under your system, it's either murder or it's not murder.
There are reasons why we have so many other variables, like 1st 2nd and 3rd degree murder, 1st 2nd and 3rd degree manslaughter, negligent homicide, etc.
What about the 'lying in wait' laws? IE, you can't set someone up to be killed even if they were committing a crime in the process.

I don't know where you're from, but here on Earth things are usually not black or white, 1 or 0, stirred or shaken.

When did I say that crimes aren't differing in spectrum?

(July 1, 2013 at 2:36 pm)Koolay Wrote: When did I say that crimes aren't differing in spectrum?

Maybe not.
But you still haven't said what happens when we don't have a centralized penal system.

IE..
I just killed someone.
Some people say I was completely with in my rights and therefore no crime was committed.
A 2nd group says I was kind of in my rights, and I did commit a crime but it was relatively minor.
And a 3rd group says I had no right to kill him and basically committed full fledged murder.

Who decides what I did and what my punishment, if any, will be?

(July 1, 2013 at 2:04 pm)Koolay Wrote: In an anarchic society were laws are settled in private court, the law would be fairly simple, Did x initiate force to y? Did x commit fraud to y?. And that's all that would need to be established essentially.

I think the first thing that would need to be established is whether or not X recognizes the authority of the court. Or maybe whether or not Y can compel X to show up and face his accusers. And whether the judge can be impartial if his last payment to his security team was deemed "insufficient" and he's walking home by himself every evening.

(July 1, 2013 at 2:04 pm)Koolay Wrote: In an anarchic society were laws are settled in private court, the law would be fairly simple, Did x initiate force to y? Did x commit fraud to y?. And that's all that would need to be established essentially.

In an anarchic society I could fuck your wife, shoot your dog, set your house on fire, beat you half dead with a baseball bat and then drive away with your car..........

and not a single private institution will be willing to provide the resources required for me to be persecuted due to the lack of social contract.

You are just the same kind of a dreamy idiotic utopian who bases his thesis on nothing but his mental feces like a marxist.

(July 1, 2013 at 3:37 pm)Tonus Wrote: I think the first thing that would need to be established is whether or not X recognizes the authority of the court. Or maybe whether or not Y can compel X to show up and face his accusers.

And if the court does have authority to compel people to show up, authority to render verdicts, and authority to see that these verdicts are adhered to.... guess what?
You've just started a government!

You are against taxation? So, who will pay for the roads, hospitals, infrastructure, etc? Who writes the rules without government? Who will enforce it? Better yet, who will enforce without any kind of revenue? Are you certain that every human will cooperate in a positive manner?

Who communicates with foreign countries? Who establishes trade and supply and demand? How will your lack of government determine goods and services needed for society? How will lack of government establish national defense, should other countries want to attack? Just because you think your society can coexist, does not mean other societies will embrace your philosophy.

Your statements, although highly idealistic in nature, omit one important aspect visible in our society. How will you motivate people to work or coexist? Furthermore, without any infrastructure, you doom your society to failure. Unless bridges get built by divine influence.

You curse individuals as slaves for wanting to coexist in society, yet you fail to provide a viable alternative.