It boils down to letting the market find solutions to the problem of rights protection.
Markets are self-organizing, that's why it's hard to describe exactly what such a system would end up looking like without trying to forcefully impose a top-down system on people.
The core principle of this would be that everyone has a right to defend their rights and the rights of others, and there is nothing wrong with organizing on a voluntary basis to defend the rights of oneself and others.
Most thinkers who have attempted to describe what such a system would end up looking like have suggested that it would take the form of multiple competing insurance agencies employing competing protective services.
A similar system has been described by David Friedman in "The Machinery of Freedom", Michael Huemer in the second half of "The Problem of Political Authority" and by Robert Murphy in "Chaos Theory" likely others as well but these are the most comprehensive descriptions of how such a system might work that I'm aware of.
Also I'm not one to let the perfect be the enemy of the good. I am very much in favor of any reduction in government power even if we are left with a minarchist state even if such a state engages in immoral acts such as taxation IF it can keep itself limited to the protection of rights otherwise.
I define rights as those actions an individual can do without imposing on others.
The core principle of this would be that everyone has a right to defend their rights and the rights of others, and there is nothing wrong with organizing on a voluntary basis to defend the rights of oneself and others.
Oh, I've got a lot of nitty-gritty sort of questions, but let's start with a couple of big ones, and maybe we can hit some more later.
(Side note: It's a shame a lot of folks aren't going to see this as the thread rolls off down to the bottomless void over the next couple days, but damn if I'm not interested in your answers.)
I define rights as those actions an individual can do without imposing on others.
"Imposing" is a squishy sort of word, unfortunately; human nature is less rational than rationalizing, as this one blogger I used to follow would say. So the question is then, what happens when the members of your society start rationalizing what "imposition" means? Do you already have some concrete examples of what rights they enjoy, or do you wait until the conflicts begin before lining it out?
And more importantly, how do you get everyone in the society to agree to the definition you propose--and how do you hold them to it?
Which leads into another question, and I promise this is the last one for now: If someone new enters the society in question, how do you secure their agreement to those same terms?
that's why it's hard to describe exactly what such a system would end up looking like without trying to forcefully impose a top-down system on people.
Some examples of rights-based and -honoring societies that emerged from the pure market would probably go a long way toward helping. Surely there are some?
"Imposing" is a squishy sort of word, unfortunately; human nature is less rational than rationalizing, as this one blogger I used to follow would say. So the question is then, what happens when the members of your society start rationalizing what "imposition" means? Do you already have some concrete examples of what rights they enjoy, or do you wait until the conflicts begin before lining it out?
By imposition I mean by force, threat of violence that sort of thing. Another way of saying the same thing is that all rights are property rights. Property is properly acquired through original appropriation or voluntary contract. (See Hoppe "The Theory of Socialism and Capitalism" for more detail on this point.
The details of what constitutes aggression, how to detect it and punish it would fall to the contractual agreements between individuals and insurance agencies and between those agencies.
Some examples of rights-based and -honoring societies that emerged from the pure market would probably go a long way toward helping. Surely there are some?
I'd point to black markets in the USSR (which some estimates put at serving 83% of the citizenry) as an example that markets can be established and flourish not only without government intervention, but in spite of government attempts to eradicate such markets.
Thanks for taking some time. I need to do some follow-up and redirect here:
By imposition I mean by force, threat of violence that sort of thing.
But see, here's the thing. You used "imposing" in the context here: I define rights as those actions an individual can do without imposing on others. But the ordinary understanding of "imposing on others" doesn't involve force or violence; it includes being a disruption or a burden, placing upon them a duty they find onerous.
That example alone, right out of the gate, should highlight the problem with arriving at a meeting of the minds with no shared frame of reference or language/jargon. Without that, you can't have a valid contract. So, again, we're still stuck on the point of "How do you ensure that everyone understands and agrees to the same rights within your stateless society?"
And I still await an answer.
The details of what constitutes aggression, how to detect it and punish it would fall to the contractual agreements between individuals and insurance agencies and between those agencies.
You mention insurance agencies, but we weren't talking about insurance agencies; we were talking of the basic question of rights as understood by the society as a whole, and thus the individuals within it.
But let's go ahead and advance on the point of "agreements between individuals" and put these nebulous "insurance agencies" aside for now. Does everyone in your society have a separate, independent, individual contract with everyone else in your society, properly negotiated and agreed? Or are you proposing a social contract, delineated in advance--and therefore in writing, and somehow deemed agreed-to for purposes of enforcement?
I'd point to black markets in the USSR (which some estimates put at serving 83% of the citizenry) as an example that markets can be established and flourish not only without government intervention, but in spite of government attempts to eradicate such markets.
That's a market, however, not a society. Black markets exist in all societies, to varying degrees, but they are not a common culture, identity, or purpose. I'm talking about human beings functioning in social as well as economic activity, so...an example of a society that emerged from the pure market, please.
It boils down to letting the market find solutions to the problem of rights protection.
Markets are self-organizing, that's why it's hard to describe exactly what such a system would end up looking like without trying to forcefully impose a top-down system on people.
The core principle of this would be that everyone has a right to defend their rights and the rights of others, and there is nothing wrong with organizing on a voluntary basis to defend the rights of oneself and others.
Most thinkers who have attempted to describe what such a system would end up looking like have suggested that it would take the form of multiple competing insurance agencies employing competing protective services.
A similar system has been described by David Friedman in "The Machinery of Freedom", Michael Huemer in the second half of "The Problem of Political Authority" and by Robert Murphy in "Chaos Theory" likely others as well but these are the most comprehensive descriptions of how such a system might work that I'm aware of.
Also I'm not one to let the perfect be the enemy of the good. I am very much in favor of any reduction in government power even if we are left with a minarchist state even if such a state engages in immoral acts such as taxation IF it can keep itself limited to the protection of rights otherwise.
I define rights as those actions an individual can do without imposing on others.
Oh, I've got a lot of nitty-gritty sort of questions, but let's start with a couple of big ones, and maybe we can hit some more later.
(Side note: It's a shame a lot of folks aren't going to see this as the thread rolls off down to the bottomless void over the next couple days, but damn if I'm not interested in your answers.)
"Imposing" is a squishy sort of word, unfortunately; human nature is less rational than rationalizing, as this one blogger I used to follow would say. So the question is then, what happens when the members of your society start rationalizing what "imposition" means? Do you already have some concrete examples of what rights they enjoy, or do you wait until the conflicts begin before lining it out?
And more importantly, how do you get everyone in the society to agree to the definition you propose--and how do you hold them to it?
Which leads into another question, and I promise this is the last one for now: If someone new enters the society in question, how do you secure their agreement to those same terms?
Some examples of rights-based and -honoring societies that emerged from the pure market would probably go a long way toward helping. Surely there are some?
By imposition I mean by force, threat of violence that sort of thing. Another way of saying the same thing is that all rights are property rights. Property is properly acquired through original appropriation or voluntary contract. (See Hoppe "The Theory of Socialism and Capitalism" for more detail on this point.
The details of what constitutes aggression, how to detect it and punish it would fall to the contractual agreements between individuals and insurance agencies and between those agencies.
I'd point to black markets in the USSR (which some estimates put at serving 83% of the citizenry) as an example that markets can be established and flourish not only without government intervention, but in spite of government attempts to eradicate such markets.
Thanks for taking some time. I need to do some follow-up and redirect here:
But see, here's the thing. You used "imposing" in the context here: I define rights as those actions an individual can do without imposing on others. But the ordinary understanding of "imposing on others" doesn't involve force or violence; it includes being a disruption or a burden, placing upon them a duty they find onerous.
That example alone, right out of the gate, should highlight the problem with arriving at a meeting of the minds with no shared frame of reference or language/jargon. Without that, you can't have a valid contract. So, again, we're still stuck on the point of "How do you ensure that everyone understands and agrees to the same rights within your stateless society?"
And I still await an answer.
You mention insurance agencies, but we weren't talking about insurance agencies; we were talking of the basic question of rights as understood by the society as a whole, and thus the individuals within it.
But let's go ahead and advance on the point of "agreements between individuals" and put these nebulous "insurance agencies" aside for now. Does everyone in your society have a separate, independent, individual contract with everyone else in your society, properly negotiated and agreed? Or are you proposing a social contract, delineated in advance--and therefore in writing, and somehow deemed agreed-to for purposes of enforcement?
That's a market, however, not a society. Black markets exist in all societies, to varying degrees, but they are not a common culture, identity, or purpose. I'm talking about human beings functioning in social as well as economic activity, so...an example of a society that emerged from the pure market, please.