Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP Posting-Version: Notesfiles $Revision: 1.6.2.16 $; site inmet.UUCP Path: utzoo!lsuc!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!bellcore!decvax!inmet!janw From: janw@inmet.UUCP Newsgroups: net.politics.theory Subject: Laws of Libertaria Message-ID: <28200585@inmet.UUCP> Date: Sun, 12-Jan-86 20:32:00 EST Article-I.D.: inmet.28200585 Posted: Sun Jan 12 20:32:00 1986 Date-Received: Fri, 24-Jan-86 22:33:38 EST Lines: 69 Nf-ID: #N:inmet:28200585:000:3150 Nf-From: inmet!janw Jan 12 20:32:00 1986 [Mike Huybensz ...decvax!genrad!mit-eddie!cybvax0!mrh] >> >How do "laws" get passed in a libertarian society? What coerces >> >someone into responding to a lawsuit or paying judgements aginst him? >> A very good question. There is an extensive literature on that. >> Defining one scheme as *the* libertarian solution would be wrong. >> The way I see it, laws would be contractual obligations. >> Enforcement would be private. >Please tell us more about the way you see it. OK, though you would do better with someone who has spent more time figuring out these things. Let me second Nat Howard in recommending "The Machinery of Freedom" by David Friedman. The following answers are mine but his are likely to be better. (You realize it is not a matter of true vs. false but of a better or worse solution to a practical problem). Those I give are *not known (by me) not to work* - and this is all I claim. >Who do you contract with for laws? Everybody you meet? A private law >maker/judge/enforcer? You shop around. Let's call an organization that performs all or some of these functions, a *jurisdiction*. It may be commercial, or cooperative, or a republic, or a cult, or a dukedom. You choose a jurisdiction (or several of them) to your taste and con- tract with them, as you do now with your phone company, or health plan, or insurance agency. Come to think of it, *crime protec- tion* could be usefully combined with *crime insurance* and *health care* with *health insurance*. At present people *also* belong to different jurisdictions; you enter one as you move to a town, county, state or country. >Why do you contract for laws? Are you fair game for anyone otherwise? Not entirely; the operation of other people's laws will give you some protection; but your rights may be reduced and you don't get the choice of laws. The first disadvantage is similar to the situation of an individual without a citizenship in a world of states. The second is the lot of everyone now. >What happens to someone who cannot afford to contract for laws? Partially answered above; but to do better than that: They can either cooperate and help themselves - or be helped by someone else. Cooperative jurisdictions are quite feasible. And it is strongly to the interest of everyone in a society that everyone have some orderly protection and some access to justice. Anything less is too dangerous. The problem is to channel that self-interest. The present system in USA, at least, does it *so* badly that any change is likely to be an improvement. I see a plethora of anarcho-libertarian solutions for the protec- tion of the poor. Protection agencies accepting non-paying cus- tomers in the area where they operate (the better to protect their paying customers); or accepting payment in kind (e.g. pa- trol duty); Guardian Angels; charity patrols. If all else failed (and it seems unlikely), protection vouchers could be issued, by whatever welfare system is in existence (welfare problem has to be solved anyway). Legal and judicial services can be similarly arranged. Jan Wasilewsky