Gents,
I got into a friendly debate with my well-educated uncle on economics. Im a free market purist and my uncle is a Keynesian enthusiast. Pretty much, I believe I lost a debate regarding the bailout. I believe and attempted to explain that the bailout ultimately hinders the economy in the long run and that the free market would work itself out. Well, my uncle was very capable of countering with the great depression and the whole new deal fiasco as well as explaining that without government intervention during crises, a depression of that magnitude can't bounce back. He advocated deficit spending saying that it increases GDP and all this other stuff. I say I lost because I was unable to convince him that Free market purism was better than government intervention. Any tips?
If you wanted to talk about the recovery and bailouts from a free market point of view I would bring up the point of the 'moral hazard'. Bailing out wall st and other companies will only encourage the reckless and dangerous behaviour that was happening before the crisis.
Just look up some clips of Ron Paul about the crisis and recovery.
Quote from: redlom xof on October 30, 2012, 06:52:03 PM
If you wanted to talk about the recovery and bailouts from a free market point of view I would bring up the point of the 'moral hazard'. Bailing out wall st and other companies will only encourage the reckless and dangerous behaviour that was happening before the crisis.
Just look up some clips of Ron Paul about the crisis and recovery.
I definitely brought that up, but I was unable to unhinge the fact that keynesian policies have gotten the government out of economic crises
Thomas Sowell explains the Great Depression (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AQQon4tjlSA#) Thomas Sowell talks about the great depression.
I'm 95 % sure this is the clip where he talks about how government caused/increased the depression. ( I can't watch it atm for this pc doesn't have sound.)
Quote from: For Liberty on October 30, 2012, 06:24:20 PM
Gents,
I got into a friendly debate with my well-educated uncle on economics. Im a free market purist and my uncle is a Keynesian enthusiast. Pretty much, I believe I lost a debate regarding the bailout. I believe and attempted to explain that the bailout ultimately hinders the economy in the long run and that the free market would work itself out. Well, my uncle was very capable of countering with the great depression and the whole new deal fiasco as well as explaining that without government intervention during crises, a depression of that magnitude can't bounce back. He advocated deficit spending saying that it increases GDP and all this other stuff. I say I lost because I was unable to convince him that Free market purism was better than government intervention. Any tips?
If you can't win that debate, then you are probably one of them.
QuoteBailing out wall st and other companies will only encourage the reckless and dangerous behaviour that was happening before the crisis.
Of course that argument would never apply to bailing out General Motors (note the use of the Sarcastica font)
QuoteIf you can't win that debate, then you are probably one of them.
I think I just found my new signature.
Taxed, judging by this comment and others you have made in previous threads, you don't have anything to add to the debate. You just have a one liner that is usually calling someone anti-american, liberal or just stupid. Of course never with any evidence.
Knowing people like liberty, aka Libertarians, they're alot more right wing and pro free markets than you.
You're just a neo-conservative nationalist who roams around trying to find someone you can label a liberal and act hard ass towards.
Quote from: redlom xof on October 30, 2012, 07:29:00 PM
I think I just found my new signature.
Taxed, judging by this comment and others you have made in previous threads, you don't have anything to add to the debate. You just have a one liner that is usually calling someone anti-american, liberal or just stupid. Of course never with any evidence.
Just liberals, who are anti-American, and most often void of intellect. I calls it likes I sees it.
Quote
Knowing people like liberty, aka Libertarians, they're alot more right wing and pro free markets than you.
I was a libertarian for a long time. If a libertarian can't argue the basics of the free market, then they really shouldn't call themselves libertarian.
Quote
You're just a neo-conservative nationalist who roams around trying to find someone you can label a liberal and act hard ass towards.
Go grab a hankey and dry your tears...
Thank you for proving my point.
QuoteIf a libertarian can't argue the basics of the free market, then they really shouldn't call themselves libertarian.
People like you never question if what they believe is wrong or right, never listen to what another person who has a different political point of view. You simply label anyone who isn't identical to you as a liberal or whatever your word of the day is.
You mistake conviction for blind head strong stupidity.
Quote from: redlom xof on October 30, 2012, 07:09:58 PM
Thomas Sowell explains the Great Depression (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AQQon4tjlSA#) Thomas Sowell talks about the great depression.
I'm 95 % sure this is the clip where he talks about how government caused/increased the depression. ( I can't watch it atm for this pc doesn't have sound.)
Gotta love Sowell. I didnt know that fact about how the market was correcting itself before the huge intervention by FDR. Thanks.
Quote from: redlom xof on October 30, 2012, 07:41:23 PM
Thank you for proving my point.
People like you never question if what they believe is wrong or right, never listen to what another person who has a different political point of view. You simply label anyone who isn't identical to you as a liberal or whatever your word of the day is.
You mistake conviction for blind head strong stupidity.
I'm sorry I see the world differently than you. Maybe you should try and educate yourself.
Quote from: redlom xof on October 30, 2012, 07:41:23 PM
Thank you for proving my point.
People like you never question if what they believe is wrong or right, never listen to what another person who has a different political point of view. You simply label anyone who isn't identical to you as a liberal or whatever your word of the day is.
You mistake conviction for blind head strong stupidity.
You would think this forum was conducive to further educating the economic conservative base. That comes with challenging our beliefs sometimes to ensure that we stay sharp. Obviously someone doesn't believe that, but he also is a neoconservative so...
ahhh god, you're just impossible.
Talk about the bailouts and economic recovery. You run around talking shit all day, you tell us in depth about government and free market forces in responce to economic crisis.
Don't give us some one liner about how much you hate left wing America.
Quote from: For Liberty on October 30, 2012, 07:48:06 PM
You would think this forum was conducive to further educating the economic conservative base. That comes with challenging our beliefs sometimes to ensure that we stay sharp. Obviously someone doesn't believe that, but he also is a neoconservative so...
It does, but you have been pretty firm in your belief that you know what you're talking about. Now, you show ignorance on a subject that you should be rooted firmly in.
I wouldn't belittle you if you were just some random guy posting, but you have made it clear that you think you know what you're talking about.
Quote from: taxed on October 30, 2012, 07:51:10 PM
It does, but you have been pretty firm in your belief that you know what you're talking about. Now, you show ignorance on a subject that you should be rooted firmly in.
I wouldn't belittle you if you were just some random guy posting, but you have made it clear that you think you know what you're talking about.
TAXED dont give yourself too much credit, its impossible for you to belittle me. Get over yourself and whenever you want to challenge me on an issue bring it on. :popcorn: Otherwise shut your big government face up while grown adults speak.
QuoteYou would think this forum was conducive to further educating the economic conservative base. That comes with challenging our beliefs sometimes to ensure that we stay sharp. Obviously someone doesn't believe that, but he also is a neoconservative so...
Exactly. How do you expect to understand something like economics unless you try to understand all points of view.
I'm not a libertarian myself ( At this point in time) , but I have a lot of respect for people like Sowell, Friedman and Paul.
Quote from: For Liberty on October 30, 2012, 07:54:51 PM
TAXED dont give yourself too much credit, its impossible for you to belittle me. Get over yourself and whenever you want to challenge me on an issue bring it on. :popcorn: Otherwise shut your big government face up while grown adults speak.
If you aren't going to back up your assertion that I'm big government, then I'd appreciate it if you'd retract it.
Quote from: taxed on October 30, 2012, 07:56:16 PM
If you aren't going to back up your assertion that I'm big government, then I'd appreciate it if you'd retract it.
Negative, what you can do is retract the assertion of me being an economic liberal. Second option is that you can kick me off the site since you realize that you screwed up and need to save face. Respect demands respect buddy.
Quote from: For Liberty on October 30, 2012, 08:02:02 PM
Negative, what you can do is retract the assertion of me being an economic liberal. Second option is that you can kick me off the site since you realize that you screwed up and need to save face. Respect demands respect buddy.
You can't defend the free markets in a discussion with a Keynesian. That is sad, and embarrassing if I was you.
Quote from: taxed on October 30, 2012, 08:06:14 PM
You can't defend the free markets in a discussion with a Keynesian. That is sad, and embarrassing if I was you.
:cool: Like I thought.
Thanks for the insight redlom.
Quote from: For Liberty on October 30, 2012, 08:10:16 PM
:cool: Like I thought.
Thanks for the insight redlom.
hahahahahaha I can't believe I'm talking with a kid who doesn't even know about free markets and the New Deal. It's like a 3rd grader just threw down his backpack and wants to fight me.
Here, maybe this video can help you with some basic concepts:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d0nERTFo-Sk (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d0nERTFo-Sk)
QuoteLike I thought.
Thanks for the insight redlom.
Not a problem Liberty, it's good to have a libertarian on the forum.
Quotehahahahahaha I can't believe I'm talking with a kid who doesn't even know about free markets and the New Deal. It's like a 3rd grader just threw down his backpack and wants to fight me.
You're so hardass taxed. You call him a kid and 3rd grader.
Of course you havn't related anything back to the original question of the thread.
Quote from: redlom xof on October 30, 2012, 08:17:08 PM
Not a problem Liberty, it's good to have a libertarian on the forum.
You're so hardass taxed. You call him a kid and 3rd grader.
Of course you havn't related anything back to the original question of the thread.
hahahaha now THAT'S funny.....
Quote from: For Liberty on October 30, 2012, 06:24:20 PM
Gents,
I got into a friendly debate with my well-educated uncle on economics. Im a free market purist and my uncle is a Keynesian enthusiast. Pretty much, I believe I lost a debate regarding the bailout. I believe and attempted to explain that the bailout ultimately hinders the economy in the long run and that the free market would work itself out. Well, my uncle was very capable of countering with the great depression and the whole new deal fiasco as well as explaining that without government intervention during crises, a depression of that magnitude can't bounce back. He advocated deficit spending saying that it increases GDP and all this other stuff. I say I lost because I was unable to convince him that Free market purism was better than government intervention. Any tips?
His argument is that akin to pissing on a forest fire and claiming his pissing was the cause of inevitable demise.
The mkt corrected itself in spite of the damage done by the left.
To argue for free mkt principle, one needs to understand it in context to history.
It's for this reason I give you shit for claiming Libertarian status, until you understand the damage Libertarianism has on society, I will continue to give you crap.
QuoteIt's for this reason I give you shit for claiming Libertarian status, until you understand the damage Libertarianism has on society, I will continue to give you crap.
Solar explains this.
I thought you would have considered yourself at least an economic libertarian ?
FL, I am on my phone and trying to do about four things right now, and perhaps the Sewell video covered it, but the great depression did not just effect the US, it hit every industrialised nation. Not only had the recovery started before the New Deal, but in places like Germany, where they relied more on the market to correct the problem, they saw recovery far and away better and faster than our own. I have no links, so that was more of a tip where to look for an answer than actually giving you the answer, but hey, I am in teacher mode right now. :toungsmile:
Quote from: redlom xof on October 31, 2012, 07:33:09 AM
Solar explains this.
I thought you would have considered yourself at least an economic libertarian ?
I am, but with a pragmatic understanding in context to history.
One cannot truly understand the world around them, without understanding the history.
Quote from: For Liberty on October 30, 2012, 06:24:20 PM
Gents,
I got into a friendly debate with my well-educated uncle on economics. Im a free market purist and my uncle is a Keynesian enthusiast. Pretty much, I believe I lost a debate regarding the bailout. I believe and attempted to explain that the bailout ultimately hinders the economy in the long run and that the free market would work itself out. Well, my uncle was very capable of countering with the great depression and the whole new deal fiasco as well as explaining that without government intervention during crises, a depression of that magnitude can't bounce back. He advocated deficit spending saying that it increases GDP and all this other stuff. I say I lost because I was unable to convince him that Free market purism was better than government intervention. Any tips?
Well he is wrong.
First off, the claim that without government intervention, the economy wont bounce back, has been proven wrong during recession of 1920.
The government did nothing and the economy came roaring back in little more than a year.
Secondly, FDR's actions were partly focused on price stability, just as Hoover's had been. So credit and money was injected into the economy to prop prices up. And price controls were implemented to keep prices from falling. The result was a market that could not clear. In a recession, businesses contract, jobs are lost and prices fall. As economic activity decreases, so does the velocity of money, and then prices follow.
But if prices are prevented from decreasing and finding a "bottom," the "adjustment" or correction process that we call recessions, is stretched out over many years, as the market is pulling one way, and the state is pulling another.
This hobbled any recovery.
Secondly, the New Deal created many new government agencies and promises, and with them, taxes. Taxation diminishes private capital and turns it over to the state. This removes the incentive to invest and produce.
The New Deal made massive new promises that would require massive new taxes. This creates uncertainty in the minds of investors and producers regarding future tax rates, so they invest less. Robert Higgs has called this "regime uncertainty."
The New Deal came and went without any positive economic consequences.
In 1936, the FED started contracting the money supply, in order to halt the inflationary pressures their previous actions had created. This plunged the economy back into a recession.
Let us not forget that the reason the economy was in a recession in the first place is that dollar was debased and artificial credit was created, in order to make the pound appear stronger against the dollar, so the level of pound debasement during WWI was hidden and Britain could go back on the gold standard at their pre-war par level. Injecting credit and money to decrease the value of the dollar against the pound had the unintended consequences of igniting a credit fueled bubble, complete with a bubble in housing and in the stock market, not too much different from the one Greenspan gave us.
So the booming 20s were created by monetary policy intervention, just as the crash was exacerbated by it.
Finally, it wasn't until after WWII, when the war time planning controls (our version of socialism) were lifted and the economy returned to a market based economy, that we had positive economic growth.
Up until then, even during WWII, economic growth was depressed. The official statistics tell a different story, regarding GDP growth turning positive during WWII, but we have to remember that these GDP stats, during the war, are fictions. Prices under a socialist economy are mere labels handed down from above. They are not as information rich as market prices.
Therefore, GDP stats calculated in a "command economy" are not accurate.
Now to leave history and step into current events, the argument that the bailout of the banks was good for the economy is simply untenable.
For one, you cant have capitalism without bankruptcy and failure. A failed enterprise sheds it capital and resources to production processes that are more efficient. When that process is halted, it maintains a production structure and a distribution of capital that is at odds with consumer preferences. It is inefficient.
Sure the bailouts preserved a few jobs, but the cost is all those jobs that would have been created with these resources in others hands.
And the moral hazard of bailing out big firms who take big risks is partly the problem in the first place. This "moral hazard" has just been strengthened! The big banks now have incentive to take even bigger risks.
Make no mistake, the bailouts had nothing to do with saving the economy, and everything to do with saving special and powerful interests.
Quote from: Solar on October 31, 2012, 06:58:58 AM
It's for this reason I give you shit for claiming Libertarian status, until you understand the damage Libertarianism has on society, I will continue to give you crap.
I'd like to hear more about that!
Quote from: TowardLiberty on October 31, 2012, 09:27:18 AM
I'd like to hear more about that!
Taking conservatism, or libertarianism if you will to its logical conclusion leads to anarchy, as we've discussed in the past. Anarchy would lead to total disaster in the short term, but would necessarily lead to people grouping together for defense, and the support of such activities as agriculture and manufacture over the long haul.
The problem with libertarianism, as you see it, is that a man can be completely self-sufficient, and no social structure of agreement with others is necessary.
In its extreme form, libertarianism is basically saying that "you can't tell me what to do." That won't, and never has worked. You end up with You end up with a crude form of society built on an eye for an eye mentality that ends up in clan warfare. Although that is a form of government, it's not a preferable one, as it leads to might makes right. We formed our government, from a bottom up prospective so that this wouldn't happen, and so that even the weak would have their natural rights protected. Without a strong local government, the big guy next door could decide he liked the house I built, and take it on a whim. I, as the weaker present couldn't do a thing about it.
I agree that the central government is too strong, and overbearing. I don't agree that we can all be completely independent, and do as we wish. Some delegation to others of our individual autonomy must take place to ensure that peace and property is maintained. Might makes right would work well for a very limited part of the population, and we would end up being ruled, and have no autonomy at all. Yes, we would end up as slave because of an irrational demand that everyone mind their own business.
Those are my problems with libertarianism as you see it.
That said, every one of those political tests you can take on line that I've taken call me a libertarian.
Quote from: Harry on October 31, 2012, 09:49:04 AM
Taking conservatism, or libertarianism if you will to its logical conclusion leads to anarchy, as we've discussed in the past. Anarchy would lead to total disaster in the short term, but would necessarily lead to people grouping together for defense, and the support of such activities as agriculture and manufacture over the long haul.
Well I disagree with that, in a fundamental way.
Taken to its logical conclusion, libertarianism leads to social coordination, the rule of law and peace.
It is statism, government and socialism which leads to anarchy, as these things destroy the rule of law and with it, society.
Quote
The problem with libertarianism, as you see it, is that a man can be completely self-sufficient, and no social structure of agreement with others is necessary.
That is a form of libertarian that I have never encountered or heard of.
In fact, the libertarianism that I adhere to is the polar opposite of this.
Quote
In its extreme form, libertarianism is basically saying that "you can't tell me what to do." That won't, and never has worked. You end up with You end up with a crude form of society built on an eye for an eye mentality that ends up in clan warfare. Although that is a form of government, it's not a preferable one, as it leads to might makes right. We formed our government, from a bottom up prospective so that this wouldn't happen, and so that even the weak would have their natural rights protected. Without a strong local government, the big guy next door could decide he liked the house I built, and take it on a whim. I, as the weaker present couldn't do a thing about it.
I agree that the central government is too strong, and overbearing. I don't agree that we can all be completely independent, and do as we wish. Some delegation to others of our individual autonomy must take place to ensure that peace and property is maintained. Might makes right would work well for a very limited part of the population, and we would end up being ruled, and have no autonomy at all. Yes, we would end up as slave because of an irrational demand that everyone mind their own business.
Those are my problems with libertarianism as you see it.
That said, every one of those political tests you can take on line that I've taken call me a libertarian.
No offense Harry, but this is not a critique of libertarianism. Libertarians are all about laws, society and cooperation.
They just dont believe the state can improve on market outcomes, even in the realm of law, police and defense.
Quote from: TowardLiberty on October 31, 2012, 10:16:13 AM
Well I disagree with that, in a fundamental way.
Taken to its logical conclusion, libertarianism leads to social coordination, the rule of law and peace.
It is statism, government and socialism which leads to anarchy, as these things destroy the rule of law and with it, society.
That is a form of libertarian that I have never encountered or heard of.
In fact, the libertarianism that I adhere to is the polar opposite of this.
No offense Harry, but this is not a critique of libertarianism. Libertarians are all about laws, society and cooperation.
They just dont believe the state can improve on market outcomes, even in the realm of law, police and defense.
Conservative thought necessarily leads to anarchy when taken to its logical conclusion. Liberal thought being the obverse, leads to tyranny.
In reality though, it's one big circle, because anarchy also leads to tyranny.
The state is a necessity for the reasons I stated in my original post. Lack of cooperation through government structure leads to might makes right, and true slavery of all but the strongest. It leads to a monarchical structure such as that that old Europe lived under for hundreds of years. A monarchical structure is no different than a totalitarian dictatorship, or a communist form of government. They differ in name only, and lead to the strongest "owning" all resources, including individuals.
Quote from: Harry on October 31, 2012, 10:27:08 AM
Conservative thought necessarily leads to anarchy when taken to its logical conclusion. Liberal thought being the obverse, leads to tyranny.
In reality though, it's one big circle, because anarchy also leads to tyranny.
The state is a necessity for the reasons I stated in my original post. Lack of cooperation through government structure leads to might makes right, and true slavery of all but the strongest. It leads to a monarchical structure such as that that old Europe lived under for hundreds of years. A monarchical structure is no different than a totalitarian dictatorship, or a communist form of government. They differ in name only, and lead to the strongest "owning" all resources, including individuals.
I cant say I agree with anything you have said here.
I dont agree that the state is necessary. I dont agree that government structures lead to cooperation, much the reverse, they are based on exploitation.
And I dont agree that conservatism leads to anarchy.
I especially take issue with your description of libertarianism. It seems highly flawed, to me, in pointing toward social isolation, when the theory of libertarianism cannot be separated from the theory of social evolution.
But this looks more like a topic for a thread of its own.
Quote from: TowardLiberty on October 31, 2012, 10:31:30 AM
I cant say I agree with anything you have said here.
I dont agree that the state is necessary. I dont agree that government structures lead to cooperation, much the reverse, they are based on exploitation.
And I dont agree that conservatism leads to anarchy.
I especially take issue with your description of libertarianism. It seems highly flawed, to me, in pointing toward social isolation, when the theory of libertarianism cannot be separated from the theory of social evolution.
But this looks more like a topic for a thread of its own.
I don't see how you can disagree. Without a state, you have no agreed upon law. Without agreed upon law, you have anarchy.
It's that simple.
Quote from: Harry on October 31, 2012, 10:37:17 AM
I don't see how you can disagree. Without a state, you have no agreed upon law. Without agreed upon law, you have anarchy.
It's that simple.
That is exactly what I disagree with.
The state did not create law, no more than it created language, money or property.
These things are the product of the spontaneous order.
Quote from: TowardLiberty on October 31, 2012, 10:38:17 AM
That is exactly what I disagree with.
The state did not create law, no more than it created language, money or property.
These things are the product of the spontaneous order.
Spontaneous order created the state. The state didn't create the concepts of law, money, or property. Instead the need for the security of these things created the state, and they could not survive without it.
Quote from: Harry on October 31, 2012, 10:42:02 AM
Spontaneous order created the state.
No, particular men created the state.
It was never a spontaneous order.
Quote
The state didn't create the concepts of law, money, or property. Instead the need for the security of these things created the state, and they could not survive without it.
Disagree.
The state was forced on people and not the product of any mythical social contract.
The state is institutionalized plunder.
Harry- this disagreement between us is utterly profound.
Quote from: TowardLiberty on October 31, 2012, 10:49:08 AM
No, particular men created the state.
It was never a spontaneous order.
Disagree.
The state was forced on people and not the product of any mythical social contract.
The state is institutionalized plunder.
Harry- this disagreement between us is utterly profound.
Explain how rights can be protected with no mechanism in place to protect them.
Quote from: TowardLiberty on October 31, 2012, 09:27:18 AM
I'd like to hear more about that!
Harry pretty much spelled it out as to why in it's purest form, Libertarianism can't and never has worked and never will.
Quote from: Harry on October 31, 2012, 10:51:15 AM
Explain how rights can be protected with no mechanism in place to protect them.
Who said anything about no mechanism?
Do you think the state is the only mechanism for ordering society?
What about customary law, reciprocity and ostracism?
How do we understand the evolution of British common law any other way?
Quote from: Solar on October 31, 2012, 11:01:45 AM
Harry pretty much spelled it out as to why in it's purest form, Libertarianism can't and never has worked and never will.
All I saw was a severe mis-characterization of libertarianism.
Quote from: TowardLiberty on October 31, 2012, 11:03:57 AM
Who said anything about no mechanism?
Do you think the state is the only mechanism for ordering society?
What about customary law, reciprocity and ostracism?
How do we understand the evolution of British common law any other way?
Any mechanism in put in place would be some form of "the state."
Are you saying that British common law formed in a stateless environment?
Quote from: Harry on October 31, 2012, 11:08:37 AM
Any mechanism in put in force would be some form of "the state."
Disagree.
The state is a particular form of organization, and not the only.
Quote
Are you saying that British common law formed in a stateless environment?
Yes. It was formed by custom before it was codified into common law, after the Norman invasion. It was spontaneously evolved and the enforcement mechanism was reciprocity and ostracism.
The only crimes were acts creating victims and all restitution was turned over to the victim.
Quote from: TowardLiberty on October 31, 2012, 11:10:45 AM
Disagree.
The state is a particular form of organization, and not the only.
Yes. It was formed by custom before it was codified into common law, after the Norman invasion. It was spontaneously evolved and the enforcement mechanism was reciprocity and ostracism.
The only crimes were acts creating victims and all restitution was turned over to the victim.
British common law was formed within a monarchy that still exists. It didn't form in a vacuum, and came about very slowly as people asserted their rights.
Without a structure to work within, common law would have never been conceptualized, much less enacted.
Quote from: Harry on October 31, 2012, 11:15:22 AM
British common law was formed within a monarchy that still exists. It didn't form in a vacuum, and came about very slowly as people asserted their rights.
Without a structure to work within, common law would have never been conceptualized, much less enacted.
I'd rethink this.
The customary law origins of pre-Norman Britain is what common law came from.
And the origin of customary law is spontaneous, rather than the outcome of a monarch's will.
Below is a good article, taken from an even better book, on the history of Anglo-Saxon customary law.
http://mises.org/daily/2542#3 (http://mises.org/daily/2542#3)
Quote from: TowardLiberty on October 31, 2012, 11:27:09 AM
I'd rethink this.
The customary law origins of pre-Norman Britain is what common law came from.
And the origin of customary law is spontaneous, rather than the outcome of a monarch's will.
Below is a good article, taken from an even better book, on the history of Anglo-Saxon customary law.
http://mises.org/daily/2542#3 (http://mises.org/daily/2542#3)
The argument is not that common law isn't right; the argument is that common law cannot survive without a structure to protect it. This structure is known as the state. I explained earlier how the state came about, and as of this point in the discussion you have not shown an alternate way of protecting common law, even though I've asked you to.
Quote from: Harry on October 31, 2012, 11:37:16 AM
The argument is not that common law isn't right; the argument is that common law cannot survive without a structure to protect it. This structure is known as the state. I explained earlier how the state came about, and as of this point in the discussion you have not shown an alternate way of protecting common law, even though I've asked you to.
I clearly have.
Customary law relies on reciprocity and ostracism. I even listed an article describing this process as it regards Anglo Saxon law.
And it is not limited to just one example. The same mechanism ordered medieval Iceland and Ireland.
The same mechanism gave us the ancient commercial law codes of the "Law Merchant."
And the same process is alive today in settling disputes in the realm of international commercial law, and even more traditional disputes between people living under the same country, because of clogged courts or a need for more specialized expertise, to render sound judgements.
People are increasingly turning to private arbitration for settling disputes, because it simply works better.
Monopoly can never be a more efficient method of producing anything, even law.The state is one structure for maintaining the rule of law, but not the only one, and certainly not the best one, as politics cannot help but pervert the rule of law.
I take issue with your explanation of how the state came about.
You characterize it as a bottom up process.
Bollocks I say!
It is a top down process, through and through.
Quote from: TowardLiberty on October 31, 2012, 11:52:11 AM
I clearly have.
Customary law relies on reciprocity and ostracism. I even listed an article describing this process as it regards Anglo Saxon law.
And it is not limited to just one example. The same mechanism ordered medieval Iceland and Ireland.
The same mechanism gave us the ancient commercial law codes of the "Law Merchant."
And the same process is alive today in settling disputes in the realm of international commercial law, and even more traditional disputes between people living under the same country, because of clogged courts or a need for more specialized expertise, to render sound judgements.
People are increasingly turning to private arbitration for settling disputes, because it simply works better.
Monopoly can never be a more efficient method of producing anything, even law.
The state is one structure for maintaining the rule of law, but not the only one, and certainly not the best one, as politics cannot help but pervert the rule of law.
I take issue with your explanation of how the state came about.
You characterize it as a bottom up process.
Bollocks I say!
It is a top down process, through and through.
You've just described a form of governance. Congratulations!
Quote from: Harry on October 31, 2012, 12:02:04 PM
You've just described a form of governance. Congratulations!
A form of governance that is utterly and completely without any trace of the state or
government.
Now that we have "done our dance" let's get back to the Keynesian arguments against the free market, and the market based counter arguments..
Quote from: TowardLiberty on October 31, 2012, 12:08:32 PM
A form of governance that is utterly and completely without any trace of the state or government.
Governance without ruling authority isn't possible. What you've described is an individual state, as well as an agreement between individual states.
Quote from: TowardLiberty on October 31, 2012, 12:12:39 PM
Now that we have "done our dance" let's get back to the Keynesian arguments against the free market, and the market based counter arguments..
I haven't argued against a free market. Also, let me remind you that you brought this up in reply to Solar. :tounge:
Quote from: Harry on October 31, 2012, 01:29:06 PM
Governance without ruling authority isn't possible. What you've described is an individual state, as well as an agreement between individual states.
Not at all.
What I have described is without a state and without a coercive authority.
Quote from: Harry on October 31, 2012, 01:30:06 PM
I haven't argued against a free market.
No, you haven't. But those arguments are what this thread is all about!
I just added a long post full of new points of argument, certainly there is something in there we can discuss and flesh out further.
Quote from: TowardLiberty on October 31, 2012, 01:44:09 PM
Not at all.
What I have described is without a state and without a coercive authority.
It contains both. You need to get over the notion that just because you say something, it becomes truth.
If you think what you say is true, offer proof.
Quote from: Harry on October 31, 2012, 01:47:00 PM
It contains both. You need to get over the notion that just because you say something, it becomes truth.
It contains neither, and I would say you should heed your own advice!
Quote from: TowardLiberty on October 31, 2012, 01:47:51 PM
It contains neither, and I would say you should heed your own advice!
Repeat it as many times as you like. Repetition does not make it true.
Quote from: Harry on October 31, 2012, 01:47:00 PM
If you think what you say is true, offer proof.
Already have.
That article I linked you to describes the production of law without the state, through the spontaneous order.
And I can point to the "Law Merchant" as well as modern international commercial law, which is rooted in private arbitrage.
Quote from: Harry on October 31, 2012, 01:49:03 PM
Repeat it as many times as you like. Repetition does not make it true.
You have yet to form an argument.
You need to explain how customary law involves a coercive authority.
Show me the coercion in customary law.
Simply repeating over and over that any order implies a government, is simply lazy argument.
Quote from: TowardLiberty on October 31, 2012, 01:50:10 PM
Already have.
That article I linked you to describes the production of law without the state, through the spontaneous order.
And I cant point to the "Law Merchant" as well as modern international commercial law, which rooted in private arbitrage.
International commercial law is a set of agreements between states, and would not be possible if it were not for those states participating.
As to your other claim, law does not exist where an enforcement mechanism is not available to enforce it. That enforcement mechanism is the state.
Law is not possible without enforcement, and enforcement is not possible without governing authority. Governing authority is the state whether it rests in the hands of one man, or in the hands of the people as a whole.
These are exceedingly simple concepts.
Quote from: TowardLiberty on October 31, 2012, 01:51:52 PM
You have yet to form an argument.
You need to explain how customary law involves a coercive authority.
Show me the coercion in customary law.
Simply repeating over and over that any order implies a government, is simply lazy argument.
I just made it again above. You obviously cannot refute it, as this makes several times that I've restated, and shown the flaws in your thinking.
We don't live in a utopia, TL.
Quote from: Harry on October 31, 2012, 02:00:56 PM
International commercial law is a set of agreements between states, and would not be possible if it were not for those states participating.
No, it is not.
Is a set of contracts and agreements between firms operating under different states.
It is private.
Just as the Law Merchant, its ancient parent, was private.
Quote
As to your other claim, law does not exist where an enforcement mechanism is not available to enforce it. That enforcement mechanism is the state.
The state is not the only enforcement mechanism and not all enforcement mechanisms are governments.
That is the core truth you are evading.
Quote
Law is not possible without enforcement, and enforcement is not possible without governing authority.
This is wrong.
You are demonstrating that you do not understand how customary law works, the role of reciprocity in it, or the enforcement mechanism of ostracism.
Try reading that article, and you will be able to begin to understand these issues on a different level.
Right now, you are arguing about something you dont fully understand.
Quote
Governing authority is the state whether it rests in the hands of one man, or in the hands of the people as a whole.
These are exceedingly simple concepts.
Apparently it is not so simple, at all, for order does not necessitate a governing authority.
That is your blind spot, in this argument.
You assume all law and order must of necessity imply a government, because you define government to be any example of law and order.
This is because you do not understand the spontaneous order, or customary law, nor do you really have a grasp on the essence of government.
You have a central planning view of law, where the king or the state create and enforce the law, as if it would not exist without them.
Your argument is a logical continuation of the old Thomas Hobbes myth that without a central authority, in a state of nature, men will act like animals. Thus an entity must monopolize legal coercion to force people to get along.
That myth is at the heart of your entire understanding of the nature of law, society and government.
And that myth must be rooted out and crushed.
Quote from: Harry on October 31, 2012, 02:02:25 PM
I just made it again above. You obviously cannot refute it, as this makes several times that I've restated, and shown the flaws in your thinking.
We don't live in a utopia, TL.
Ah yes, the old utopia charge...
Never mind that you cant show the coercive nature of customary law, nor have formed a coherent argument.
Quote from: TowardLiberty on October 31, 2012, 02:07:58 PM
No, it is not.
Is a set of contracts and agreements between firms operating under different states.
It is private.
Just as the Law Merchant, its ancient parent, was private.
The state is not the only enforcement mechanism and not all enforcement mechanisms are governments.
That is the core truth you are evading.
This is wrong.
You are demonstrating that you do not understand how customary law works, the role of reciprocity in it, or the enforcement mechanism of ostracism.
Try reading that article, and you will be able to begin to understand these issues on a different level.
Right now, you are arguing about something you dont fully understand.
Apparently it is not so simple, at all, for order does not necessitate a governing authority.
That is your blind spot, in this argument.
You assume all law and order must of necessity imply a government, because you define government to be any example of law and order.
This is because you do not understand the spontaneous order, or customary law, nor do you really have a grasp on the essence of government.
You have a central planning view of law, where the king or the state create and enforce the law, as if it would not exist without them.
Your argument is a logical continuation of the old Thomas Hobbes myth that without a central authority, in a state of nature, men will act like animals. Thus an entity must monopolize legal coercion to force people to get along.
That myth is at the heart of your entire understanding of the nature of law, society and government.
And that myth must be rooted out and crushed.
Regardless, Harry is correct, even the dictionary states that Govt:
(government) the system or form by which a community or other political unit is governed.What you describe is a rudimentary form of Govt whether you want to believe it or not.
Quote from: Solar on October 31, 2012, 03:46:09 PM
Regardless, Harry is correct, even the dictionary states that Govt:
(government) the system or form by which a community or other political unit is governed.
Both of you are wrong.
What I have described is without a political unit.A government is a particular form of social organization. It is political.
A stateless society ordered with customary law does not have a government. No one in this situation has any authority over anyone else.
This type of community is not political.
Just because order exists, does not mean that someone is in charge.
QuoteWhat you describe is a rudimentary form of Govt whether you want to believe it or not.
Saying something does not make it true.
Where is the political component, the coercive component, the authority, in a stateless customary law society?
Harry was unable to do so. He fell back on the same lazy dictionary based argument you have put forth here.
Quote from: TowardLiberty on November 01, 2012, 07:44:37 AM
Both of you are wrong.
What I have described is without a political unit.
A government is a particular form of social organization. It is political.
A stateless society ordered with customary law does not have a government. No one in this situation has any authority over anyone else.
This type of community is not political.
Just because order exists, does not mean that someone is in charge.
Saying something does not make it true.
Where is the political component, the coercive component, the authority, in a stateless customary law society?
Harry was unable to do so. He fell back on the same lazy dictionary based argument you have put forth here.
Again, your view is myopic in your understanding the English language.
Political:
Of or relating to your views about social relationships involving authority or power
And again:
Of or relating to the profession of governing
Quote from: Solar on November 01, 2012, 07:56:39 AM
Again, your view is myopic in your understanding the English language.
Political:
Of or relating to your views about social relationships involving authority or power
And again:
Of or relating to the profession of governing
The definition you have posted here is spot on and proves you wrong.
It clearly defines political as a power relationship.
The customary law society is without any such relationship. There is no entity with authority or power.
Therefore, there is no political unit, no state and no government.
Check please.
Oh and dont bother insulting me, that just makes me sharper.
Somehow posting a dictionary definition has come to be thought of as equivalent to making an actual argument..
Let's see if we can't raise the bar on that some...
Show me the political unit, the authority, in customary law.
Find it and I will happily concede the point and fall on my sword.
Quote from: TowardLiberty on November 01, 2012, 07:44:37 AM
Both of you are wrong.
What I have described is without a political unit.
A government is a particular form of social organization. It is political.
A stateless society ordered with customary law does not have a government. No one in this situation has any authority over anyone else.
This type of community is not political.
Just because order exists, does not mean that someone is in charge.
Saying something does not make it true.
Where is the political component, the coercive component, the authority, in a stateless customary law society?
Harry was unable to do so. He fell back on the same lazy dictionary based argument you have put forth here.
There is no such thing as a stateless society, and there never has been.
Quote from: TowardLiberty on November 01, 2012, 08:57:00 AM
The definition you have posted here is spot on and proves you wrong.
It clearly defines political as a power relationship.
Then your version of customary law is pure BS without any authority to back it up.
Look up the definition of law itself.
QuoteThe customary law society is without any such relationship. There is no entity with authority or power.
Then it has absolutely no authority beyond those that participate.
In other words, how would you get other states to agree with your Utopian idealism when there is no authority to back it up?
QuoteTherefore, there is no political unit, no state and no government.
Then you have no law!
QuoteCheck please.
Oh and dont bother insulting me, that just makes me sharper.
I find that statement insulting, nowhere have I even come close to insulting you, but it is evidence that you lost this debate.
Carry on...
Quote from: Solar on November 01, 2012, 12:48:49 PM
Then your version of customary law is pure BS without any authority to back it up.
Look up the definition of law itself.
Then it has absolutely no authority beyond those that participate.
In other words, how would you get other states to agree with your Utopian idealism when there is no authority to back it up?
Then you have no law!
I find that statement insulting, nowhere have I even come close to insulting you, but it is evidence that you lost this debate.
Carry on...
This is an insult:
QuoteAgain, your view is myopic in your understanding the English language.
And further, customary law is a stateless creation. It involves no political unit and not coercive authority.
Everything about it is voluntary.
This is a real form of social order that has existed in many places, and exists today.
It is law without the state.
You have lost this argument for you do not know what customary law is, and therefore, cannot argue it.
Quote from: Harry on November 01, 2012, 10:31:43 AM
There is no such thing as a stateless society, and there never has been.
The dont confuse me with facts, my mind is already made up, approach.
I love how neither Harry nor Solar can point to the political unit or authority in customary law societies, but still feel they are correct in assuming it must exist.
A board of directors governs a firm, but that is not a government.
A government is a very specific form of social relation.
It sounds like to me, a lesson in just what is meant by the word "government" is needed.
Quote from: TowardLiberty on November 02, 2012, 07:41:15 AM
This is an insult:
And further, customary law is a stateless creation. It involves no political unit and not coercive authority.
Everything about it is voluntary.
This is a real form of social order that has existed in many places, and exists today.
It is law without the state.
You have lost this argument for you do not know what customary law is, and therefore, cannot argue it.
TL, do you even know the meaning of Law?
What you describe as law, is nothing more than social agreement, something that is simply nonenforceable, it has absolutely no authority!
It carries no teeth, the law of the jungle has more power than your idea of law.
No, I understand customary law far more than you, I also understand it is an agreed upon law, but one that carries no enforceable qualities.
As I stated earlier, the law of the jungle usurps customary law every time someone feels they were cheated and will take law into their own hands, it's human nature where actual law is absent.
Quote from: Solar on November 02, 2012, 08:21:53 AM
TL, do you even know the meaning of Law?
Yes. You might say I have studied legal systems and the evolution of law.
Quote
What you describe as law, is nothing more than social agreement, something that is simply nonenforceable, it has absolutely no authority!
Yes, that is customary law.
It is not enforceable, the way the government enforces law. In customary law, obedience is incentivized through ostracism and reciprocity.
Quote
It carries no teeth, the law of the jungle has more power than your idea of law.
It carries the sharp teeth of ostracism.
Quote
No, I understand customary law far more than you, I also understand it is an agreed upon law, but one that carries no enforceable qualities.
You did not understand it's ostracism enforcement mechanism, so I would question your understanding of customary law at its core.
Quote
As I stated earlier, the law of the jungle usurps customary law every time someone feels they were cheated and will take law into their own hands, it's human nature where actual law is absent.
Then how did it become so successful in so many different places and times? How did it order society?
How does it order international commercial transactions today?
I'll say it again, neither you nor Harry have the first clue about customary law and how it works.
Quote from: TowardLiberty on November 02, 2012, 07:42:13 AM
The dont confuse me with facts, my mind is already made up, approach.
Huh? You've produced no facts.
Quote from: TowardLiberty on November 02, 2012, 08:46:32 AM
Yes. You might say I have studied legal systems and the evolution of law.
Yes, that is customary law.
It is not enforceable, the way the government enforces law. In customary law, obedience is incentivized through ostracism and reciprocity.
It carries the sharp teeth of ostracism.
You did not understand it's ostracism enforcement mechanism, so I would question your understanding of customary law at its core.
Then how did it become so successful in so many different places and times? How did it order society?
How does it order international commercial transactions today?
I'll say it again, neither you nor Harry have the first clue about customary law and how it works.
First off, what you are describing is a Utopian dream, secondly, you assume everyone is willing to buy into the dream, which means you also assume everyone has your same Utopian ideal in mind.
Do you even take into consideration human nature?
TL I pretty much have always agreed with all your posts, except this thread, what you are selling, completely slaps in the face of human nature, people are not all alike, some are extremely greedy, while others would give the shirt off their back.
You are living in a fantasy world if you think ostracizing people is punishment.
What will you do with murderers, or rapist, ground them?
Quote from: Harry on November 02, 2012, 09:44:22 AM
Huh? You've produced no facts.
I most certainly have.
That the Law Merchant is an example of customary law is a fact I listed.
Same with the legal systems of Ireland, pre-Norman Britain and Iceland.
And then I described the nature of customary law, again, more facts.
What you have failed to do is point to the coercive or political component in customary law.
You have failed to do so, even after claiming it exists.
Quote from: Solar on November 02, 2012, 12:41:36 PM
First off, what you are describing is a Utopian dream, secondly, you assume everyone is willing to buy into the dream, which means you also assume everyone has your same Utopian ideal in mind.
Quote
That is not true and you know it.
Utopian dreams are not realizable in reality.
But we have all kinds of evidence and examples of customary law. Some are even in effect today.
If you are making an argument that this is utopian, then you have to explain how this is utopian, for it is a historical reality, no less than it is a current one.
For my money, this utopian nonsense is just a rouse useful for avoiding the difficult work of forming an argument.
Quote
Do you even take into consideration human nature?
This too, I consider an insult.
Of course I do.
In fact, customary legal systems are better suited to human nature, much better than authoritarian legal systems.
Quote
TL I pretty much have always agreed with all your posts, except this thread, what you are selling, completely slaps in the face of human nature, people are not all alike, some are extremely greedy, while others would give the shirt off their back.
Doesnt matter.
For customary law to work people do not need to be alike, and that some are greedy and others are not, matters not.
I dont know why you think it would.
I also dont know why you think human nature is ignored, nor do I understand the utopia charge.
What I think is you dont really understand customary law, how it worked or what it is, and therefore resort to this petty level of argumentation, rather than actually debating the issue of customary law.
Quote
You are living in a fantasy world if you think ostracizing people is punishment.
What will you do with murderers, or rapist, ground them?
You shouldnt have to ask, if you understand customary law.
Why dont you tell me how customary law deals with these cases and then we can see how well you know the issue you are discussing.
I am stilling waiting to see someone point me toward the political component in customary law.
Big claims were made, dictionary definitions were trotted out.
Where is the proof of the existence of a government in the customary law society?
Quote from: TowardLiberty on November 03, 2012, 07:17:55 AM
I am stilling waiting to see someone point me toward the political component in customary law.
Big claims were made, dictionary definitions were trotted out.
Where is the proof of the existence of a government in the customary law society?
I'll respond to this one since the previous one is so screwed up.
The burden of proof is on you to prove your case, we know that any group deciding the fate of other people in a community is considered Govt, yet you haven't given us examples where it's currently working, only a Utopian vision of what it may look like.
Quote from: Solar on November 03, 2012, 07:39:02 AM
I'll respond to this one since the previous one is so screwed up.
The burden of proof is on you to prove your case, we know that any group deciding the fate of other people in a community is considered Govt, yet you haven't given us examples where it's currently working, only a Utopian vision of what it may look like.
I have already described how the customary law society is without any entity that decides the fate of other people.
And I have linked the forum to a series of articles by a legal scholar describing the customary law framework.
And I have given examples of it currently working: modern international commercial law.
And I have given examples of it working in the past.
So the utopia charge has just been refuted, again.
Quote from: TowardLiberty on November 03, 2012, 07:52:24 AM
I have already described how the customary law society is without any entity that decides the fate of other people.
And I have linked the forum to a series of articles by a legal scholar describing the customary law framework.
And I have given examples of it currently working: modern international commercial law.
And I have given examples of it working in the past.
So the utopia charge has just been refuted, again.
And you want to apply it to society as a whole.
And I explained why it won't work. I can see where it works in a microcosm, that's simple, but to apply it across the entire spectrum is ludicrous.
Show me how it would work if the US were to collapse and replace it with your version.
Quote from: TowardLiberty on November 03, 2012, 07:09:21 AM
I most certainly have.
That the Law Merchant is an example of customary law is a fact I listed.
Same with the legal systems of Ireland, pre-Norman Britain and Iceland.
And then I described the nature of customary law, again, more facts.
What you have failed to do is point to the coercive or political component in customary law.
You have failed to do so, even after claiming it exists.
All of those show governance of a population, a state.
Quote from: Solar on November 03, 2012, 08:18:38 AM
And you want to apply it to society as a whole.
Yes, just like Ireland, pre-Norman Britain and Iceland.
Quote
And I explained why it won't work.
You might want to point me to that post, for I didnt see it.
And how can you explain how something can't work, until you properly understand how it is supposed to work?
Quote
I can see where it works in a microcosm, that's simple, but to apply it across the entire spectrum is ludicrous.
Oh?
For what reason?
Quote
Show me how it would work if the US were to collapse and replace it with your version.
First off, this is not "my" version of law.
This is a form of law that has historical precedent. In fact, our legal system would not exist without it.
I can't "show" you how exactly law would be produced here without the state, prior to it occurring. Just as I cannot describe the exact firms, agreements and prices that would arise if money were competitively produced, or if the Postal Service was privatized.
We cant predict these things. But we can outline the laws of economics that will govern these relationships.
Robert Murphy has done a great job doing so, by combining insurance markets with customary law/ private arbitration, in his "Chaos Theory."
Quote from: Harry on November 03, 2012, 12:49:44 PM
All of those show governance of a population, a state.
It looks like you have learned nothing, Harry!
There is no governance in any of these examples. This is more like the voluntary association of a private firm.
I love to see how you have failed, utterly failed, over and over again, in epic fashion, to point to even a shred of political authority in customary law.
What makes this failure all the more spectacular is your repeated insistence that this political relation in fact exists, in a customary legal environment.
Though, pointing out and describing just where the coercion is, has been a bridge too far!
One wonders why you continue repeating a claim that you can't argue for!
The challenge has been laid but no one has stepped up to the plate.
Describe the coercion and authority in customary legal societies.
Or admit that this legal system is without a state, without authority and without a political component.
Quote from: TowardLiberty on November 03, 2012, 02:40:41 PM
Yes, just like Ireland, pre-Norman Britain and Iceland.
Great, lets start there, link to these and note the date as well.
Quote from: Solar on November 03, 2012, 06:33:50 PM
Great, lets start there, link to these and note the date as well.
On the theory itself:
Customary Legal Systems with Voluntary Enforcement
http://mises.org/daily/2542#1 (http://mises.org/daily/2542#1)
Private Law in the Emerald Isle
http://mises.org/daily/6060/ (http://mises.org/daily/6060/)
The Beginnings of Common Law
http://mises.org/daily/2542#3 (http://mises.org/daily/2542#3)
Medieval Iceland and the Absence of Government
http://mises.org/daily/1121 (http://mises.org/daily/1121)
Quote from: TowardLiberty on November 03, 2012, 08:57:30 PM
On the theory itself:
Customary Legal Systems with Voluntary Enforcement
http://mises.org/daily/2542#1 (http://mises.org/daily/2542#1)
Private Law in the Emerald Isle
http://mises.org/daily/6060/ (http://mises.org/daily/6060/)
The Beginnings of Common Law
http://mises.org/daily/2542#3 (http://mises.org/daily/2542#3)
Medieval Iceland and the Absence of Government
http://mises.org/daily/1121 (http://mises.org/daily/1121)
Yet you claim this is not a form of Govt?
Sorry TL, but try as you may, it was govt, just not in the form of others, but still a Govt.
Note, it did fail, but in all fairness every system evolves, generally in revolt, civil war,or tyranny, but they all fail at some point, as will ours.
Point is, that system only worked for one reason, it was isolated, it was a system unto itself, a world never to exist again.
Quote from: Solar on November 04, 2012, 08:26:11 AM
Yet you claim this is not a form of Govt?
Sorry TL, but try as you may, it was govt, just not in the form of others, but still a Govt.
Note, it did fail, but in all fairness every system evolves, generally in revolt, civil war,or tyranny, but they all fail at some point, as will ours.
Point is, that system only worked for one reason, it was isolated, it was a system unto itself, a world never to exist again.
Yes, that is right.
Not a form of government.
So far, no one has been able to point to a single instance of government or authority in the customary law legal system.
Yet the claim that this system necessitates a government has been made over and over. And it will no doubt be made again.
One wonders if those making this claim were so sure of themselves, why can't they describe the exact location of the locus of authority in this legal system?
So far nothing has been forthcoming that even begins to answer this question.
Quote from: TowardLiberty on November 04, 2012, 10:23:18 AM
So far, no one has been able to point to a single instance of government or authority in the customary law legal system.
Yet the claim that this system necessitates a government has been made over and over. And it will no doubt be made again.
One wonders if those making this claim were so sure of themselves, why can't they describe the exact location of the locus of authority in this legal system?
So far nothing has been forthcoming that even begins to answer this question.
They are much like the state Govt with no Fed overseer, but it is still a rudimentary form of Govt.
Anytime a Democracy sets laws and regs. it's considered a Govt., regardless of what some author want to call it.
Don't get me wrong, I would love to see this applied and in action here, but sadly in today's world, it just wouldn't work, which is why I don't think Libertarianism won't work on this principle as well.
It's also the same reason were in the mess were in today.
Quote from: Solar on November 04, 2012, 11:12:53 AM
They are much like the state Govt with no Fed overseer, but it is still a rudimentary form of Govt.
Anytime a Democracy sets laws and regs. it's considered a Govt., regardless of what some author want to call it.
Show me where a democracy sets laws and regulations in this form of legal order?
So far there has been no answer on this question.
Quote
Don't get me wrong, I would love to see this applied and in action here, but sadly in today's world, it just wouldn't work, which is why I don't think Libertarianism won't work on this principle as well.
It's also the same reason were in the mess were in today.
Any idea as to why it wouldn't work?
And if it wouldn't work, as you say, how do we explain it working, in the ordering of international commercial law?
And why do we see more and more people turning to private arbitration when specialized knowledge is needed to understand a particular dispute?
Quote from: TowardLiberty on November 04, 2012, 11:32:00 AM
Show me where a democracy sets laws and regulations in this form of legal order?
So far there has been no answer on this question.
Any idea as to why it wouldn't work?
And if it wouldn't work, as you say, how do we explain it working, in the ordering of international commercial law?
And why do we see more and more people turning to private arbitration when specialized knowledge is needed to understand a particular dispute?
QuoteBecause of Iceland's geographical location there was no threat of foreign invasion, so the demand for a national military force was absent.
Arbitration is also backed by the local Govt laws.'
Care to guess where they turn when arbitration fails and the losing party refuses to pay up?
Answer: The courts.
I still fail to see how this could be implemented in today's social programed society, a society addicted to handouts.
Again though, I reiterate, I would love this form of Govt. but it just isn't feasible in the modern world.
Care to tackle how it would be implemented?
Quote from: Solar on November 04, 2012, 11:38:21 AM
Arbitration is also backed by the local Govt laws.'
Not so.
You obviously didn't read the articles.
The laws were not government creations, but rather evolved from the decisions of private arbitration.
Quote
Care to guess where they turn when arbitration fails and the losing party refuses to pay up?
Answer: The courts.
There were no other courts.
This was the only legal system in existence, for these societies.
Quote
I still fail to see how this could be implemented in today's social programed society, a society addicted to handouts.
We have yet to fully understand the theory of customary law, so understanding how it would work today is putting the cart before the horse.
Quote
Again though, I reiterate, I would love this form of Govt. but it just isn't feasible in the modern world.
Care to tackle how it would be implemented?
You have yet to explain how this is a form of government, when a very clear argument as to why it is not, has been presented and ignored.
How did the bailout actually help GM? The company was going down the toilet and Obama rode in on a white horse and dropped a sackful of money in their lap with instructions on where to spend it. Well, the money was spent but the reasons why the company, and the industry in general are in trouble were never addressed.
Quote from: TowardLiberty on November 04, 2012, 01:24:36 PM
Not so.
You obviously didn't read the articles.
The laws were not government creations, but rather evolved from the decisions of private arbitration.
There were no other courts.
This was the only legal system in existence, for these societies.
, You're talking pas tense, I'm talking present tense.
QuoteWe have yet to fully understand the theory of customary law, so understanding how it would work today is putting the cart before the horse.
You have yet to explain how this is a form of government, when a very clear argument as to why it is not, has been presented and ignored.
In your view, not mine, just because a bunch of people claim it isn't, doesn't make it so!
Anytime a community sets laws and regs, they in a sense, are setting up a Govt, granted it is not a country or a state, but even a town of ten people can create laws within t=it's jurisdiction, which is called city Govt.
I don't even know why I'm bothering with this, it's ridiculous on all counts, your form, or rather dream of Govt will Never happen, Period!
Quote from: Solar on November 04, 2012, 04:22:05 PM
, You're talking pas tense, I'm talking present tense.
In your view, not mine, just because a bunch of people claim it isn't, doesn't make it so!
Anytime a community sets laws and regs, they in a sense, are setting up a Govt, granted it is not a country or a state, but even a town of ten people can create laws within t=it's jurisdiction, which is called city Govt.
I don't even know why I'm bothering with this, it's ridiculous on all counts, your form, or rather dream of Govt will Never happen, Period!
And just because you say it is, doesn't make it so.
In the present, when arbitration breaks down, ostracism is the next option. There is no court that has jurisidiction, in many of these cases, as the parties reside in different legal monopolies.
They are in a legal anarchy, vis a vis each other.
As it regards the past, in these societies there was no body, small or big, which set laws and regulations for others.
That body does not exist in customary legal societies.
Now if such a body did exist, certainly we would be able to find it and point to it but when we study the history of customary law, all we have are voluntary relations among legal equals.