Law without Government, Part One: Principles

Part One of a series of films exploring a society where there is law and order, but no government.

This part introduces the definitions of law and government, illustrating the concepts using a simple desert-island scenario.

Category:

People & Blogs

Tags:

• law
• government
• territorial monopoly
• aggression
• political means
• conflict
• dispute
• property
• rights
• ownership
• scarcity
• diversity
• libertarianism
• liberty
• anarchy
• anarchism
• anarchist
• island
• society
• arbitrator
• judge
• justice

[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.

[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.

[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.

[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.

[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

[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.

[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.