I lean anarcho-capitalist and I also don’t believe private courts/security is (entirely) practical. After I read: http://www.amazon.com/Anarchy-State-Utopia-Robert-Nozick/dp/...
TLDR: Protective agencies (judges/police) would be competing against each other. That competitive nature combined with their intended role of protecting us (and themselves) would lead to "an endless series of acts of retaliation and exactions of compensations". In addition, Nozick demonstrates why the nature of both of the businesses would already create natural monopolies in each local juridiction.
To wit, Nozickian protective agencies as you have summarized it here capably describe statism: in other words, in walking away from the current model, you have arrived at it again... but without its good parts, like the American concept of power separation or its Bill of Rights.
There is reason that various police forces have political friction when coming into contact with other jurisdictions, after all, whether it's horizontal (police of California cooperating with the police in Nevada) or vertical (police of California cooperating with the FBI). The thing that smooths this friction is, well... the federal state. It doesn't do this mechanistically, but through its existence as an ideal: an appeal to "we're all American, after all" does wonders. The very act of cooperation becomes an affirmation of that ideal.
Minus courts/police, that still leaves ~95% of state power going to other places. Which is why I don't bother defending "markets for security" as other ancaps might. Extreme ideologues are a waste of time. But I still believe in strong property and self-defence rights.
Minarchy is basically, "Well, you won this one argument, but I still believe!" It's like "Yes, I concede that the Earth does indeed revolve around the sun, but the Bible is still inerrant and literal!"
> But I still believe in strong property and self-defence rights.
I do not. At best, I consider property and self-defense rights to be derived from some more fundamental right. (I've actually stopped using rights at all in my political philosophizing; they're surprisingly limited as an idea.) For instance, self-defense might be derived from a right to life; one might claim that threatening another's right to life necessarily sacrifices your own such right: ergo self-defense. Which gets into the whole "inalienable" bit because that's pretty alienating.
Mostly, I just say that property should be protected if and only if it would support some more fundamental right.
Idealogical and political absolutism is a cancer in our society. These type of dismissive comments reenforce that mind set.
The goal is finding the best solution, not picking the best team to back. That involves experimentation and compromise.
Because you're not doing that at all.
> The goal is finding the best solution, not picking the best team to back. That involves experimentation and compromise.
That's difficult when we have already disagreed on what the problem actually is. You've stated that you believe--keyword: believe--in strong property and self-defense rights. I have stated that I do not, that I do not even believe in rights at all.
What is the problem we're supposedly searching for a solution to?
You haven't even asked which team I'm on. You just merely found out that I'm not on yours. Who's picking the best team to back?
You contended that because my ideals weren't 100% consistent (by comparing it to following a religion) because I don't believe that the state is totally useless.
Admitting the state is useful for courts and police does not invalidate my propisition that 95% of the states revenue and power could be replaced by voluntary institutions or market forces.
So I apologize that I don't fit your strawman image of a radical libertarian but if you "disagree" that markets are a better solution and/or voluntary solutions are a more moral solution to many of the things that the state does... then that's fine.
I'm not forcing anarcho-capitalism on any individual. The world is full of statists, you can live and die with your big governments. My goal in life isn't to convince everyone to one side or propose a sudden switch to anarcho-capitlaism in countries deeply rooted with statism. That would be impractical.
But if you'd like to debate a certain topic, I'm quite experienced in doing so, so go ahead.
If you think the entire concept of strong property laws is invalidated by accepting the legitimacy of public courts/police, then I'm also willing to defend that position, as many before me have.
You have declined both.
And now I am apparently a statist. Merely because I disagree with you.
And I am supposed to attack your belief in property laws? This would be pretty hard for me, since I don't actually care about property laws whatsoever. I generally care that people who are alive stay alive, but if people insist that ownership has force and land has some particular master, I don't really mind.