The dumbest thing I've heard from a Libertarian.

[tempus]

How the fuck do you privatize laws?

Well according to the guy who makes these videos, each law firm would have it's own laws.

If person A commits a crime against person B that requires a certain punishment from law firm J which he is a part of, but a different punishment from law firm K which person B is a part of, the law firm that would lose a greater percent of people would be the one to enforce the punishment. Of course, what would probably happen is the firm with more customers will try to enforce it anyways, regardless whether they would lose a greater percent of customers or not.

And the result would be disputes that would at least occasionally wind up turning into gangland-style violence between the enforcers of rival law firms as each fights over turf and "customers."  Or into actual open warfare if, say, Baker & McKenzie decided that they wanted to expand by forcibly annexing DLA Piper's territory, with the losers' assets and customer base being serviced by the winners and their personnel being fired.  Literally. 

Bring back the magic and we're all living in a neverending Shadowrun campaign.  You know, on second thought, this doesn't sound so bad...

[Material Defender]

How the fuck do you privatize laws?

Well according to the guy who makes these videos, each law firm would have it's own laws.

If person A commits a crime against person B that requires a certain punishment from law firm J which he is a part of, but a different punishment from law firm K which person B is a part of, the law firm that would lose a greater percent of people would be the one to enforce the punishment. Of course, what would probably happen is the firm with more customers will try to enforce it anyways, regardless whether they would lose a greater percent of customers or not.

That sounds hilariously more complicated than just letting a sovereign state do it. Isn't the idea that it'd be less complicated, smoother, and better without the government? Even if we accept his insane logic and don't talk about how it's in the interests of companies to trump up expenses or make their 'debtor' prison last forever... that whole system seems very complicated. Even worse than our current legal system. Each lawyer not just has to learn one set of laws and precedents from one system, they have to learn 2 or more of those things. We already have a standardized system that is very complicated. dispersing this complication across several different systems is just going to result in a retarded complicated forest of legalese that nobody but experts could penetrate.

This... reminds me of... Computer Operating systems. Each COS requires programmers to program a program differently for each to make it complicated. If we had lots, making programs would be inherently more expensive or they would simply choose to make it for a few operating systems. But we instead have three, with one as the primary and you can program for just it and be generally A-Okay. It's more efficient to monopolize it, oddly enough.

[Cataclysm]

How the fuck do you privatize laws?

Well according to the guy who makes these videos, each law firm would have it's own laws.

If person A commits a crime against person B that requires a certain punishment from law firm J which he is a part of, but a different punishment from law firm K which person B is a part of, the law firm that would lose a greater percent of people would be the one to enforce the punishment. Of course, what would probably happen is the firm with more customers will try to enforce it anyways, regardless whether they would lose a greater percent of customers or not.

That sounds hilariously more complicated than just letting a sovereign state do it. Isn't the idea that it'd be less complicated, smoother, and better without the government?

He's a philosophical libertarian, not a pragmatic one. His oppisition to the government is due to the fact that he thinks using force against "innocent" people is immoral, and you can only use force if they violate the Non Aggression Principle.

Of course, using morality to justify your form of government is bull since everyone has different moral codes on what counts as the most ethical system.

Even if we accept his insane logic and don't talk about how it's in the interests of companies to trump up expenses or make their 'debtor' prison last forever...

What's even more disturbing is that this person used the death penalty as an example, and had the criminal in question be executed because the law firm of the victim would have lost a greater percent of customers than his firm if they didn't.

[Lt. Fred]

Anyone who has seen the Godfather knows that the US has libertarian law. It isn't a dream, it's a nightmare.

[Smurfette Principle]

How the fuck do you privatize laws?

Legitimately? ...you can't.

Thank you, because I couldn't tell that you can't actually privatize laws. There is no way I was looking for the dude's explanation and not an actual step-by-step process of actually privatizing laws. You are totally not deliberately being an asshole right now.

How the fuck do you privatize laws?

Well according to the guy who makes these videos, each law firm would have it's own laws.

If person A commits a crime against person B that requires a certain punishment from law firm J which he is a part of, but a different punishment from law firm K which person B is a part of, the law firm that would lose a greater percent of people would be the one to enforce the punishment. Of course, what would probably happen is the firm with more customers will try to enforce it anyways, regardless whether they would lose a greater percent of customers or not.

That sounds hilariously more complicated than just letting a sovereign state do it. Isn't the idea that it'd be less complicated, smoother, and better without the government?

He's a philosophical libertarian, not a pragmatic one. His oppisition to the government is due to the fact that he thinks using force against "innocent" people is immoral, and you can only use force if they violate the Non Aggression Principle.

Of course, using morality to justify your form of government is bull since everyone has different moral codes on what counts as the most ethical system.

Even if we accept his insane logic and don't talk about how it's in the interests of companies to trump up expenses or make their 'debtor' prison last forever...

What's even more disturbing is that this person used the death penalty as an example, and had the criminal in question be executed because the law firm of the victim would have lost a greater percent of customers than his firm if they didn't.

So using force against innocent people is immoral, but how do we define "innocent" under this ridiculous scenario? If law firm A makes littering illegal and law firm B has it be legal, and person Q (a customer of B) commits the crime on person W's (a customer of A) lawn, isn't Q technically innocent under B's laws? How is A then justified in using force against Q?

[Meshakhad]

This is my problem with the extreme anti-government types: government is a natural phenomenon. Destroying it will merely result in warlordism.

[RavynousHunter]

Just popping in to say that this law privatization talk is givin me a migraine because of how convoluted it is, in practice.

[Material Defender]

Anyone who has seen the Godfather knows that the US has libertarian law. It isn't a dream, it's a nightmare.

Cause movies are an accurate portrayal of society.

That said, the State Governments establish law, with some Federal and Local laws put in. But it is not established by private firms. The DA office is run by the government, as well as Judges. Only civil lawyers and some defense attorneys are private. We generally have libertarian laws regarding services compared to other places (Especially health care. Silly that.) but the law itself is not established by libertarian methods.

[Cataclysm]

So using force against innocent people is immoral, but how do we define "innocent" under this ridiculous scenario? If law firm A makes littering illegal and law firm B has it be legal, and person Q (a customer of B) commits the crime on person W's (a customer of A) lawn, isn't Q technically innocent under B's laws? How is A then justified in using force against Q?

I suppose property rights would come into play here, and since person Q littered on W's property he would have to be punished for it.

[Distind]

So using force against innocent people is immoral, but how do we define "innocent" under this ridiculous scenario? If law firm A makes littering illegal and law firm B has it be legal, and person Q (a customer of B) commits the crime on person W's (a customer of A) lawn, isn't Q technically innocent under B's laws? How is A then justified in using force against Q?

I suppose property rights would come into play here, and since person Q littered on W's property he would have to be punished for it.

Except with private enforcement of law exactly how do we know who's property belongs to who? No central legal requirements would leave no solid paper trail, no clear definition of even what ownership consists of.

I'd give it about 20 minutes before people were being bought and sold under this set of laws. This breed of libertarian seems to forget there's no higher source of rights which enforces itself. About all we've got is government and decency. Thus we need government.

[wrongfrog]

What strikes me as odd with Libertarians is how they're the kind of people from whom you normally hear the "communism can't work because of human nature" argument, while most Libertarians also factor out human nature in their philosophies. Funny how that works out.

[Lt. Fred]

Anyone who has seen the Godfather knows that the US has libertarian law. It isn't a dream, it's a nightmare.

Cause movies are an accurate portrayal of society.

Correct. Mario Puzo's books, and the films based around it, are a relatively close fictionalisation of stuff that happened.

Private law is basically the Mafia. It exists. You pay Don X to protect you- to enforce black market contracts, to punish thieves, to do little favours and so on. In return, the Mafia has all the power. The merit principle doesn't apply, because every job is a gift. And it's very violent. It doesn't work at all like glibertarians say it would.

As a smart person once said about Milton Friedman- the real weakness with his ideas is that they have been tried.

[Material Defender]

Anyone who has seen the Godfather knows that the US has libertarian law. It isn't a dream, it's a nightmare.

Cause movies are an accurate portrayal of society.

Correct. Mario Puzo's books, and the films based around it, are a relatively close fictionalisation of stuff that happened.

Private law is basically the Mafia. It exists. You pay Don X to protect you- to enforce black market contracts, to punish thieves, to do little favours and so on. In return, the Mafia has all the power. The merit principle doesn't apply, because every job is a gift. And it's very violent. It doesn't work at all like glibertarians say it would.

As a smart person once said about Milton Friedman- the real weakness with his ideas is that they have been tried.

Oh, you meant in the Mafia. I thought you meant US system of laws were that way. Yeah, I can see it that way.

[Lt. Fred]

Apologies for not being clear. I didn't mean it as an attack on the American legal system or anything- obviously, Australia has bad gang violence also as do numerous other countries. I just thought everyone would associate the Godfather with the Don.

[Material Defender]

Apologies for not being clear. I didn't mean it as an attack on the American legal system or anything- obviously, Australia has bad gang violence also as do numerous other countries. I just thought everyone would associate the Godfather with the Don.

You can also see libertarian national defense and Law in Feudalism.