Law without Government, Part One: Principles

[bigboywasim]

The logical conclusion of libertarianism is no government. If something is bad then it does not matter if it is big or small because it is bad. Freedom and liberty can be protected by the people themselves through voluntary action rather than force or coercion. Government grows like a cancer, it does not matter if it starts small or can be made small at the end it will grow until is it completely removed. Anarcho Capitalism is is capitalism in its purest form.

[Bleakfacts]

This is a great explanations.

[1freesoul2another]

well, I think the problem with this is that people having the dispute may not agree on an arbitrator. Also how would the arbitrator enforce the law he created if the person does not want to agree to the law. What if arbitrators disagree on law. It could get quite messy. Established laws are fine if individual freedom is at it's basis. I don't know the answer, but I think we should work on creating a society that eliminates many of these conflicts.

[KeroroGunsouTX]

Ummm, we already have professional "arbitrators" in society and people CAN refer their issues to arbitrators if they want. If someone steals something from you, or murders you wife, or rapes your daughter, you can by all means refer the issue to an arbitrator if you feel so inclined. I have no idea why the perpetrator would be interested in arbitration however. And actually, the principles of having competition in the field of law actually DO change as society becomes larger and more complex.

[cthulhu11111111]

a system like this would be rapidly corrupted. My thoughts are as a society gets larger it becomes harder for it to remain free. A smaller society on this island with perhaps a few dozen people is a lot easier to understand so and tyranny is easier to spot, harder to hide and easier to overthrow. The problem with the modern world is that it's so complex with so many people that corruption can easily be hidden.

[grahampwright]

@cthulhu11111111 Corruption and the state go hand-in-hand, so if you're concerned about corruption, you should oppose the state.

[TrikkyMakk]

@cthulhu11111111 "The problem with the modern world is that it's so complex with so many people that corruption can easily be hidden."

So basically if we have a state or we don't this would be true. Except without the state you get to choose for yourself and watch out for yourself and you are accountable for yourself, etc

[cthulhu11111111]

@TrikkyMakk

if you dont have a state someone will make one. look at north korea or what's happening in libya. it might not be called a state, it might just be some big gang of bastards with guns, but they will grab the power

[amanuscar]

@cthulhu11111111 therefor we need to give legal sanctions to sociopaths with guns and call it a government to avoid what you consider to be the inevitable government anyways? That doesn't make any sense.

[cthulhu11111111]

@amanuscar

I am saying it'll happen whether we want it or not. Humans are social animals that have a tenancy towards seeking a leader for a group. When the group gets bigger you get a council forming. With even more humans the council soon drifts towards what people would recognize as a government.

Nothing can stop this natural progression short of force.

[amanuscar]

@cthulhu11111111 This human nature argument is bunk, sorry. You don't know human nature, I can safely say.

[cthulhu11111111]

@amanuscar

On every continent through history societies have moved towards forming governments. The only way to maintain a society without government is to force other people not to form one among themselves.

[cthulhu11111111]

@TrikkyMakk

"choose for yourself and watch out for yourself and you are accountable for yourself"

How can you enforce that though? What happens when a community of people near you decide to band together and work as a ground and elect leaders to govern them? Working as a team they will have an advantage, an advantage that will attract more people to their group. Over time they grow and their power will spread. Eventually there is a state whether you want it or not.

[tallswede80]

um this is the biblical model of the judges.

[StateExempt]

Last but not least, poverty was decreasing BEFORE the government stepped in. All welfare does today is force people to choose between improving their situation or getting a free check every month. That is a false choice that no one should be forced to go through.

Not to mention the higher efficiency of private charity over gunpoint (er, "Government") charity. I personally help those in need with my OWN money, I do not force other people to assist those in need just because they produce more.

[StateExempt]

As for social security, it exists in large part because people are forced to pay for it, have less savings as a result, and then must rely on it later on to get their money back. IRAs have been shown to provide better returns with the same amount of money.

[StateExempt]

I never cease to be shocked by how far kDest will go in ignoring what the opposition says on anything.

Minimum wages decrease employment because they increase the cost of hiring someone. Workplace injuries decreased at the same rate even after OSHA was put in place. The FDA has delayed many life-saving drugs, and drug companies do not profit from killing their own customers.

And irradiation is supposed to sanitize things, but you probably have yet to familiarize yourself with Google.

[Chaos511]

What some people in the comments seem to be missing is that this video is just a first example, and not the explanation of the whole big picture. An AnCap society would have mechanisms to make people HAVE TO subscribe to one law enforcement agency and have to agree with arbitration decision, but it's hard to explain in 500 chars.

I suggest studying how the Irish and Icelandic private-law Commonwealths worked and reading "Chaos Theory" by Bob Murphy (there's a free .PDF online, just google)

[ScientificExperience]

Cyberlink? :D

[Polymeron]

This is very much a flawed analysis.

In the first examples, Ben has no interest abiding by Charlie's ruling. If he were willing to give up resources to avoid conflict, he would not have initiated said conflict in the first place. Without force, there is nothing compelling Ben to abide by his earlier obligation.

The same is true for the idea on competition between law providers; without force, nothing compels the disputants to abide by the ruling of the selected firm.

[etzel33]

The issue is territory. No individual has a moral right to a specific 5000 acres of land. All territorial claims, by humans or any other species, is established by force and force alone. It is the nature of life. Claiming that "government" is immoral but that the actions of individuals to these "rights" are somehow justified is illogical. An individual, declaring himself sovereign over territory, is simply a monarch. Anarchism is nothing more than a defense of sociopathy.

[SrRulao]

And people take this seriously? No hesitation as to the democratic method, no mention of the separation of powers. Just jump into the "taxation is theft/slavery" line. Nice.

[Rmb2489]

So if, under this system, Alice is attacked by Bob, Claire, David and Eddy who proceed to beat and steal her apples what can she do then? If she turns to Zara and asks her to be an arbitrator how does that help if the attackers refuse to be arbitrated? Or refuse to follow the arbitrators rules? It will require that their violence is combated with violence. What you have here is vigilantism. How is that better than a police force regulated by a democratically elected government?

[Argonnosi]

"And so Charlie has produced a law." No he hasn't . He made a judgement, or ruling. He hasn't "produced a law" because a law is a rule. He didn't create a rule, he simply made a decision that was either based on accepted rules, rules written down, or pure whim. By the way, these three people have a government. It's direct democracy, where everyone has a hand in the running and operation of the government. There's still only one for their group.

[Bleakfacts]

@Argonnosi Laws are made of previously recorded judgements that have been collected and studied by judges to improve future judgments. It is a up to each individual judge to decide how previous judgments apply to his current judgement. No there's three governments. Each person can arbitrate over each other with out fear of being shot for taking charlies place of ruler. There's no voting, so two can't force one to do anything.

This is how responsible grownups solve problems.

[amanuscar]

@Argonnosi wrong 

[kDest]

Governments are organizations which define law and enforce it over claimed territory. All law requires the use of force or threat of force to be effective, and any time there is not a singular institution which maintains law in its claimed territory violence breaks out. This is why it is a good thing to have a monopoly upon governance. It is a way to maintain peace.

If anyone tries to suggest something other than this, they are either naive or lying for personal gain.

[wyvernlord23]

From what I understand the principle of government is to provide the service of maintaining order and supporting its citizens (be it judicial services,protection ect).By doing so the citizens under that authority must relinquish some rights to support this system (such as the right to kill and steal). For that service to be maintained the citizens have to support the government hence taxes. Those taxes are then used to provide for the citizens. It is essentially a payment for a service provided.

[wyvernlord23]

@wyvernlord23 Even in your example,you can see the beginnings of a judicial caste. The "good" mediators will be selected over time and will be narrowed down to a small number. This gives them a higher social status and so their decisions would be highly respected. These individuals might form a cadre giving them even more social power. It would eventually seem outlandish to oppose a decision made by the court as they are known for their fairness. Corruption in this group would only be inevitable

[kDest]

@wyvernlord23

That is correct. The libertarian opposition to taxes (and related groups like anarcho-capitalists) descend from a fundamental misapprehension of this trade-off and a desire to tear down society and erect something that they can use essentially for free.

It is severely narcissistic and anti-social, but they have momentum on the internet.

[Chaos511]

@kDest What a straw man. The dislike of taxes and Government action doesn't come from a "desire to tear down society", but a belief that institutions currently held by Government can be supplied by other means outside of Government and in a more efficient way. Libertarians favor free association, contract and free exchange, how can they be "anti-social"?

Now, most don't go as far as wanting Non-State law, this is the AnCap case that Graham is trying to prove, and another issue entirely.

[kDest]

@Chaos511

>>What a straw man

Incorrect use of the term.

>>doesn't come from

Reread my statement. I did not say that.

>>a belief that institutions currently held by Government can be supplied by other means outside of Government

The purpose of government is to provide those institutions. If something provides them, it is a government by definition.

>>how can they be "anti-social"

They are anti-social because they believe in values which are antithetical to society, or cooperation.

[Chaos511]

@kDest With a mainstream-Libertarian stance, the purpose of Government is to protect life, liberty and property, everything else can be supplied other way.

>It is a Government by definition.

Not. At. All. A Government is a monopoly on the use of force. Are charities a "Government" because they supply welfare?

Randroids do have anti-social values. But if you knew anything at all about Libertarianism you'd know it is completely based and fundamented on human cooperation and association.

[kDest]

@Chaos511

>>With a mainstream-Libertarian stance

It appears you don't understand libertarianism. All factions of (American) libertarian are about property rights. Liberty, human rights, and peace are all secondary to property. Liberalism is about liberty and human rights.

>>A Government is a monopoly on the use of force

Please abstain from libertarian tracts. Government exists to enforce order, defend territory, and provide the legal basis for society.

[Chaos511]

@kDest I suggest you read an article, "Human Rights as Property Rights" by Murray Rothbard. Liberty, human rights and peace are an important part OF property rights.

John Locke argued we had one fundamental right, the one to Property (which to him meant Self-Ownership , ownership of your body and mind), and the rights to Life, Liberty and Estate (property), all came FROM this right. Libertarianism has the exact same view.

I am using the Max Weber, Sociological definition of Government.

[kDest]

@Chaos511

>>I suggest you read an article

His argument is fallacious, as are all arguments that human rights et al descend from property rights.

>>Liberty, human rights and peace are an important part OF property rights

You have it precisely backwards. Property rights are an example of a human right, as is freedom of speech, religion, etc. They do not exist naturally, but must be enforced through a government that recognizes their existence.

>>John Locke argued

Again, wrong.

[kDest]

@Chaos511

>>But if you knew anything at all about Libertarianism

Here's a litmus test: ask any libertarian if they support affirmative action and the civil rights act. If they were concerned about human cooperation, etc. they would answer "Yes, we support it. Minorities deserve the right to be treated equally." Instead you'll get a reply that it violates property rights, because that is all libertarianism concerns itself with. Not human rights or equality, but property rights.

[Chaos511]

@kDest Libertarians usually support the fact that the Civil Rights Act destroyed Jim Crow Laws, which were really horrible and were the big part of what the movement was about. They just don't like the intervention in private business that came with it. You see, you don't end discrimination by decree, only societal and cultural pressure can end it, and Libertarians argue that there are societal and market-pressures againt discrimination and that Govt. intervention don't actually help them.

[kDest]

@Chaos511

>>They just don't like the intervention in private business that came with it.

There are no "buts" here. Libertarians use affirmative action as an emotional wedge issue to argue against the Civil Rights Act. That is because they do not care about human rights, but property rights. Specifically, the property right of a man to refuse service to black people is a higher priority to them than the black person's right to be treated equally in society. They simply ignore his right.

[kDest]

@Chaos511

Those values are selfishness being more important than the welfare of society, eliminating personal responsibility and consequences for said selfishness. It is pure narcissism under the guise of philosophy, and no society could exist that way.

>>to make people HAVE TO subscribe

Ergo the voluntary society isn't voluntary.

>>I suggest studying how the Irish and Icelandic private-law Commonwealths

Why don't you? People who study them know they were violent, undesirable societies.

[Chaos511]

@kDest You are implying ALL Libertarians = Objectivist Randroids. Libertarianism is based on the premise that people will voluntarily associate and cooperate/exchange to solve their problems, and will do it better than a Govt. monopoly as they don't suffer incentives and calculational problems. Libertarians believe in the welfare of society, but also believe individuals pursuing their self-interest will reach this welfare.

Those societies were better than everywhere else in their time period.

[kDest]

@Chaos511

>>You are implying ALL Libertarians = Objectivist Randroids

Libertarianism is heavily influenced by Objectivism, they are virtually indistinguishable from each other.

>>Libertarianism is based on the premise

Libertarianism ripped that off of liberalism as a mask to legitimize itself. Because libertarianism redefines force to suit property rights, it is actually about manipulating people into circumstances that serve property owners, such that the exploited cannot retaliate.

[Chaos511]

@kDest I'll admit newbie Libertarians are heavily influenced by Rand, by virtually indistinguishable? That's awfully innacurate.

The fundamental "Property right" of Libertarianism is the right of Self-Ownership of Locke, and all other rights flow from it. And Libertarians define force as any physical coercion, theft, fraud/deceit and damaging of your body and property. Libertarianism being about manipulating people into exploitation? Fucking bullshit.



[kDest]

@Chaos511

>>virtually indistinguishable? That's awfully innacurate

Libertarianism decrees that property ownership is of utmost importance (see how you tried to argue that every other right comes from property? That is a crutch libertarians use to legitimize their obsession with it), in fact it is so important to them that they are willing to gamble the safety of the environment, civil rights, all for a person's absolute power over his possessions. The greatest sin being taxes, giving back.

[Chaos511]

@kDest You seem to be implying that Society = Government. Not at all.

Society is people cooperating in the free market everyday. Whenever you and other people you associate with make any private decision, you are being part of society. Society is free association.

Government is the institution that is truly anti-social, as it imposes it's decisions upon the rest of society.

And i'm not even supporting Anarcho-Capitalism here, i'm just saying one shouldn't disregard it by default.

[kDest]

@Chaos511

>>Society = Government

Government makes society larger than a tribe possible.

>>Government is the institution that is truly anti-social

Government exists to maintain order. Voluntarism does not work to punish criminals.

>>Those societies were better than everywhere else in their time period.

No they weren't. Society was booming all around them, and the fact that they were conquered proves my point. A thriving society would not be conquered by inferior societies.

[Chaos511]

@kDest I am not even arguing for Voluntaryism, i am arguing that Government is here to protect Life, Liberty and Property and that all other things can be supplied outside of Government.

Icelandic and Irish Commonwealths were known for being great economic and cultural centers in their time, and they were conquered by enemies with much bigger populations after centuries of struggle. Iceland lasted 300 years, Ireland lasted a MILLENIA.

And don't forget the French Champagne Fairs.

[kDest]

@Chaos511

>>i am arguing that Government is here to protect Life, Liberty and Property and that all other things can be supplied outside of Government

You would still be wrong according to history. The reason our government is so big is that leaving things to the private sector failed.

>>Icelandic

Decentralized government.

>>Irish Commonwealths

Violent anarchy.

>>were known for being great economic and cultural centers in their time

Actually not. It helps if you read more than Mises.

[Chaos511]

@kDest

>The reason our government is so big is that leaving things to the private sector failed.

Oh God you actually believe that? The reason Govt. is big today is as follows: It creates one intervention. It causes negative effects. It creates another intervention to control the effects of the previous one. And so on and so forth until it's as big as it is right now.

Also, for historical data forget about Mises, go read about David D. Friedman and his sources.

[kDest]

@Chaos511

>>Oh God you actually believe that?

Why do we have minimum wages, OSHA, labor laws, etc.? Because the private sector failed to be humane. Why the FDA? Because the private sector was selling irradiated water and poison as foods and medicines. Why social security, and the New Deal? Because people were destitute and relying on charity and family wasn't good enough. Why poverty programs? Because it was very high in the '60s until the government stepped in.

[kDest]

@Chaos511

>>Also, for historical data forget about Mises, go read about David D. Friedman and his sources.

Well, I was half-right anyway. He is an anarcho-capitalist theorist, which means everything he writes about will be biased to fit the conclusion that anarcho-capitalism must work.

[GenericGenerator]

Human nature is to align yourself someone you believe (based on history) will likely arbitrate in your favour. Of course the other party may do the same. So do you agree an arbitrator of the arbitrator?

A government forming law is fine IF the representatives are democratically elected AND the judiciary is independent. Which is basically a big version of your model applied to (eg) the US. Or am I missing something here?

[kshackleton]

The dispute resolution mechanism in this video would never work in practice. Unless everyone decided to cooperate, any person who thought that he could get away with force would use that force.

[Jaluzaga]

Excelent!

[KilllaCaleb]

the disagreement of who should be arbitrator is resolved through no preference. if one party has a preferred judge and the other party also has a preferred judge then they know that neither judge can be arbitrator in their dispute, they will have to find an arbitrator of mutual association or mutual non-association. the context of an anarchic dispute would insist that the two parties find such an arbitrator if they wish to resolve the dispute in the least self-harming way.

[TheStrangerInTheRye]

What if there is a disagreement on who should arbitrate?

[2tru2self]

The government makes laws and this is why we are not living in a democracy!

[maxgunn555]

ignore my stfu1000 comment. problem is with each of those arbitrators ie third persons the're just essentially creating a majority rule just like when we elect a government. but refering to part 2 how does an arbitrator the one who resolves teh security firm dispute gain reputation? you need to describe how the economics of reputation work in more depth coz im struggling to understand.

[maxgunn555]

ignore my stfu1000 comment. problem is with each of those arbitrators ie third persons the're just essentially creating a majority rule just like when we elect a government.

[TheStfu1000]

i thought law was provided by the government rather than individuals like your diagram showed?

[SwePw]

Exellent and informative, it really made me understand what anarchism is REALLY about. That said, I am not convinced, I can see at least one problem,.Humans are greedy, after all, and would likley choose a judge that is biased towards them (or their social group, etc). The two parties would then be in a conflict about who should solve their conflict and need some kind of even higher judge to solve that particular conflict, creating a pyramid until there is only one Supreme Judge/Dictator left.

[grahampwright]

@SwePw Thank you.

Everyone has a father. But from this it does not follow that someone is everybody's father.

Get my point? You're making the same non-sequitur in your comment.

[Holmenisten]

@SwePw Hey, I recommend checking out chapter 12, "The Public Sector, III: Police, Law and the Courts" of For A New Liberty: The Libertarian Manifesto by Murray N. Rothbard. He addresses your question directly and provides a comprehensive model of how an anarcho-capitalist legal system would work.

You can read the book on Mises.org.

[jaminunit]

@SwePw When you create a contract with someone both parties would nominate and agree to a dipute resolution company before any dispute arises.

[lightswitchvideo]

@SwePw People are bad so we need a government made up of... people?

[MikesMarketInfo]

This is an outstanding video.

Thanks for your wonderful effort for true liberty

[Phantompumpkin7]

I'd love to continue this discussion with you in a venue that doesn't limit me to 500 words. Feel free to send me a message if you'd like to continue this. :)

[grahampwright]

@Phantompumpkin7 Ha! I was about to suggest the same thing!

[mphello]

@grahampwright Great video!

But, I wish the entire world legal and philosophical system (philosophy departments in universities across the globe) would refer to laws as ALGORITHMS. Algorithms to decide strategies.

Those are the correct game theory terms.

Should we kill each other? Should we split the apple? etc.

[Phantompumpkin7]

The reason Law works is because it's a monopoly. Your quotes about taxation being legal theft is hokum. Our own constitution grants Congress the right to levy taxes to raise funds.

Competing versions of "law" would be incredibly difficult to deal with.

[grahampwright]

@Phantompumpkin7 What's so special about law? Monopolies fail in every other industry, so why would expect law to be any different?

Taxation is obviously theft. If you disagree, please define taxation and theft, because it would seem we are using different definitions.

Saying rights come from the constitution is circular. The constitution is illegitimate. It is a piece of paper. Where does it's magical power to grant rights come from?

[Phantompumpkin7]

@grahampwright Then let me ask you this, what is a right?

Taxation is not theft. You are living in a governed society, and as such, you agree to certain rules and terms. The ability to tax you is one of those rules. Again, if you don't like it, leave. No one if forcing you to live under those rules.

I am curious about this lack of government world though. Tell me, who upkeeps the infrastructure?

[deltaxcd]

@Phantompumpkin7

taxation is not theft if government is providing you something of roughly equivalent value (infrastructure) in exchange for your tax. however If I pay for box of apples and get just one that is theft.

if I pay for a box of apples in advance and seller uses my money to buy a gun which he uses to threaten me when I demand my goods being delivered that is our government.

[kDest]

@grahampwright

>>Monopolies fail in every other industry, so why would expect law to be any different?

Law is not an industry. Law supersedes industry. You have made a categorical error.

>>Taxation is obviously theft.

Taxation is obviously not. Try again?

>>circular

No, it is a core treatise of law which has authority upon all derivations. Your categorical error causes you to make fundamental reasoning errors.

>>Where does it's magical power

The consent of the governed.

[extropian314]

@grahampwright ,

It's not a circular argument. A Constitution is just an agreement by enough of the populace, that it holds on. (And we're all so close to the same, we're bound to find something that this will work for).

We can banter with symantics, but the fact is, taxes are something society as a whole decided were necessary. This could change, sure. But the bottom line with all this is, we need a system that works sustainably, given all the different personalities out there.

[extropian314]

I think everyone can empathize with being born into a society whose system you don't necessarily endorse 100%. And bringing ideas onto the table for dicsussion is a very healthy thing. Kudos.

[RetroTheSkywalker]

@grahampwright coercion lol and if there is no legal document binding then how will people's rights be upheld?

[StateExempt]

@RetroTheSkywalker - Coercion is a defining characteristic of government. Why do you need a regional sovereign of legitimized coercion to uphold the rights of individuals?

[grahampwright]

@RetroTheSkywalker Why do you think there'd be no legal documents? See the title of the video... you can have law without government.

[Wazabooz]

But if by some chance they do (or flip a coin) then Ben may very well not respect part or all of the decision. He may, for example, return the apple - but balk at further compensation. After all, he has had his time wasted too. Then something will be needed to ENFORCE the decision. Otherwise Adam will probably take matters into his own hands, with a mandate to back him up. He'll be forced to use aggression to get justice. And on it goes. "Competing" justice system would never work.

[grahampwright]

@Wazabooz Arbitrators decisions may well be enforced. See part 2 in the video response section.

A competitive justice system does not mean a non-coercive justice system. Retaliatory coercion probably will be a feature of a competitive justice system. Retaliatory coercion is not aggression, since aggression is the INITIATION of coercion.

[Wazabooz]

This is all very nice, but in reality would be more like this:

Adam would suggest arbitrator Arthur, while Ben would prefer arbitrator Bobby. Each has a pretty good idea which "free market court" is tends to be more in his favor. They won't agree on the arbitrator any more than they agreed on the apple.

[grahampwright]

@Wazabooz And then what? Do Adam / Arthur and Ben / Bobby fight it out? A war over an apple? Or would the two sides seek arbitration from someone they can both agree on in advance?

[heavym3tal]

And where is the power to enforce the judgment outcomes? How is this not anarchy?

[00niro00]

In the second chapter, what if the blue dude say's to the yellow one "help me, then you ow me just one apple my friend....

[Sadotu]

@00niro00 read the book Atlas shrugged from the author Ayn Rand. There is a good possibility you will find your answer in that book. It's a story where a revolution will take place and in the end there are no services (not even between friends) wich go unpaid in money.

N-

[TheDemocracyDelusion]

would you be interested in the being the narrator for The Democracy Delusion channel?

[adriansrfr]

Competing governments, yes. Government implies law, not monopoly of coercion. What implies monopoly of coercion? The state implies monopoly of coercion. If what you are saying about government really made sense, then self-government, corporate government, and church government would necessarily be using physical coercion. We both know that would be non-sense. Being against government is more of an ancom term than an ancap term. If you want to sound like an ancom, then by all means keep using it.

[LiftYourSkinnyFist]

Where's part 2!

[grahampwright]

@LiftYourSkinnyFist

Coming soon...

[LiftYourSkinnyFist]

@grahampwright To a theater near me, I hope.

[adriansrfr]

Law without state would be a more accurate title. Government implies law, but not necessarily monopoly. State implies law, but it necessarily implies monopoly.

[grahampwright]

@adriansrfr

I don't find it useful to distinguish State from government. What would a "non-monopoly government" be? A government that you can subscribe freely to, one of a number of "competing governments"?

That would just be market anarchism, and these "governments" are much better referred to as private security or private arbitration firms, since that is what they would do. To "govern" is to rule (by compulsion), so government is a coercive ruler, and anarchists oppose coercive rulers.

[Heretic696]

You have explained the matter very neatly, and for that I applaud.

However, there are problems with your arguments. For instance: what if one side will consider the ruling by the third party unfair, and rejects it? The conflict will return, is that it?

Also: how will the ruling be enforced? And if it can be enforced, then why can't one side just hire a gang of thugs?

The argument on government is problematic also. You forgot that governments are monopolies, but only on a given territory.

[grahampwright]

@Heretic696 These are good questions. I can't do justice to them in this small space. I will definitely seek to provide satisfactory answers to them in Part 2 of this series. In the meantime, consider reading the chapter on courts and police in For A New Liberty (Murray Rothbard).  Or the equivalent chapter in The Machinery of Freedom (David Friedman). Both available online.

[orthzar]

I had heard of this before, and this is so far the best explanation of both law in general and competitive law in particular.  I await further videos.

[grahampwright]

@orthzar Thank you!

[grahampwright]

@ctminarchist The same way a restaurant's income depends on serving tasty food. It's the life and soul of the business they are in. It's what the organization exists to do.

The reputation of an arbitrator is precious; any unfair or unwise decision could cost them dearly in the form of lost customers.

[NihilistMonk]

@ctminarchist

the "judge" wouldn't be chosen by the one person, so it would deter the liklihood of someone having a beneficial stance unless their opponent is ignorant of the act.

all systems have flaws, there isn't a perfect one. this one would indeed be that there are people willing to take advantage of others just like in the system we have now.

[NihilistMonk]

@ctminarchist

this is talking about a society without government, not today's society. what he is say that if someone chooses to attempt to become corrupt and tries to control disputes with a biased stand point; word will get around and no one will longer want to allow this person to assist with these disputes and thereby will no longer be able to profit from assisting others.

[gryphonauto]

Fantastic video, I look forward to more videos from you.

[grahampwright]

@gryphonauto Thank you