From: cmk@athena.mit.edu (Charles M Kozierok)
Subject: Re: objectivism and anarchism (was -- Re: Thoughts on the group)
Keywords: Choice
Organization: Massachusetts Institute of Technology
Date: Fri, 8 Jan 1993 16:47:24 GMT

In article <8JAN199308534390@mivax.mc.duke.edu> seth@mivax.mc.duke.edu (Judge Not) writes:
>In article <1993Jan8.051526.28502@athena.mit.edu>, cmk@athena.mit.edu (Charles M Kozierok) writes...
>>In article <1993Jan8.014816.19283@shearson.com> pmetzger@snark.shearson.com (Perry E. Metzger) writes:
>>>cmk@athena.mit.edu (Charles M Kozierok) writes:
>>>>In article <7JAN199316314132@mivax.mc.duke.edu> seth@mivax.mc.duke.edu (Judge Not) writes:
>
>>so how can you have competing courts of law? who enforces the laws
>>controlling those who enforce the laws? please explain how this would work.
>>i'll keep my mind open, even if i need a crowbar... :^)
>
>1) You are free to join/recognize any/all/none of the competing courts.
>2) You are free to not enter an agreement with someone who is
>   not willing to recognize any/all the courts you do.
>3) Others are free to do the same.
>4) All of this is voluntary.
>
>The less you are willing to [voluntarily] abide by [voluntary] rules,
>the less likely you are to get someone to [voluntarily] "deal with" you.
>
>Society (individuals) are free to ostracize you for your unwillingness
>to follow the "rules" (so long as the ostracization does not include
>any transgressions against your person/property).  You are free to laugh
>at them for ostracizing you.  

the description above sounds like a reasonable start at a defence of
a anarchist system of *civil* law. i will save criticism of this
until later, because the criticisms there are more minor than my
problems with your extension of voluntary courts to criminal law below.

>As always, there will be some who use violence while obeying no "rules"
>or "courts".  Today we call these people murderers, and the good ol'
>government is down right ineffective at dealing with them. In anarchy
>as in today's society, when a murder tries to kill you, you are on
>your own and must defend yourself.

you are (i hope accidentally) invoking a subtle logic twist here.
in the beginning of the paragraph you are talking about "murderers",
which implies that the act has already been committed. in the latter
part of the paragraph you talk about "defend(ing) yourself" which implies
action *before* the act. this is an argument relevant to the police,
not the courts. a different time perhaps.

please explain how competing courts would deal with a murderer.
saying that the current system is ineffective is not *nearly* enough,
because "ineffective" is far better than what the system of criminal
law would be under anarchistic competing courts, from what i can see.

>If a serial killer is roaming the city, I'm sure enough of the society 
>(individuals) and the competing courts would be willing to help
>bring the person to justice (I admit this might be violent).

your system *totally* fails in this circumstance. because it is in
every court's interest to let the others take care of the problem.
i think what would happen is a lot of blaming and finger pointing.

also -- by what right does any one of these competing courts "bring
the person to justice"? *whose* justice? what if he chooses not to
associate with any court system (you describes your system as
entirely voluntary under point #4 above). even if everyone didn't
just stand around pointing fingers, it would degenerate into
vigilantiism and lynch mobs. chaos.

>All the governments since the beginning of time have never made life
>"more fair".  Is life fair?  Who cares!  The only "fairness" should
>be...am I finally arriving at common ground with objectivists?

i don't understand where this paragraph came from, nor what it means.
please elaborate.

--
charles
Newsgroups: alt.philosophy.objectivism