POLITICS Libertarian Anarchism (was protestors considered suspected terrorists)

[Guest guest]

>> Now unless there is something that clearly states or implies otherwise

>> we can assume that God still holds that model valid, and that states,

>> of any sort, are going to do what he said the King would do, i.e. take

>> the first of their production and the best and brightest of their

>> children - without their consent - to further the cause of the state.

>> And that is exactly what states did/do, ancient or modern, before

>> Israel and after Israel.

>

> States are not the only aggressors.

But they are the only institution in society that has a legal right to

large scale aggression.

> But in any case, I agree that

> there are downsides to having a state.

Now that is one of the greatest understatements ever to appear on this list :-)

According to R.J Rummel's _Death By Government_:

http://snipurl.com/3g6jb, in the last century, apart from wars and

" collateral " damage, 262,000,000 died at the hands of the state.

Simply incomprehensible.

" Just to give perspective on this incredible murder by government, if

all these bodies were laid head to toe, with the average height being

5', then they would circle the earth ten times. Also, this democide

murdered 6 times more people than died in combat in all the foreign

and internal wars of the century. Finally, given popular estimates of

the dead in a major nuclear war, this total democide is as though such

a war did occur, but with its dead spread over a century. "

http://hawaii.edu/powerkills/welcome.html

Yeah I would say there are downsides to having a state.

> But I do not see a Biblical

> case for arguing that the state is criminal.

I do, if the state is engaging in criminal behavior. The only way you

get around that is if you re-define the state as some supranatural

organization that is no longer subject to the laws of God as regarding

robbery, kidnapping, and murder.

Whereas I see a biblical case against robbery, kidnapping, and murder

no matter who is doing it - and you don't - you see a biblical case

for re-defining these crimes when they are practiced by the government

- and I don't.

And it doesn't really help to try to limit it by saying that taxation

is okay (robbery/theft) but kidnapping and murder (conscription and

war) are not, because the latter two do not happen without the

foundation of stealing from a productive society. Without the power to

tax, the ability to wage aggressive wars and induct slaves is very

limited.

> Nor do I see how it is

> feasible to have a workable system of protecting and enforcing

> liberties and rights that does not involve at least some minimum of

> geographical universality of law,

That is correct.

> whether it is provided by a state or

> some other source, like divine revelation.

That is incorrect, or rather it is correct in as far as it goes but it

does not go far enough.

States historically normally don't provide geographical universality

of law, usually the agreed upon laws are already in place, and the

state simply co-opts the system or places it own super structure on

the system which is already in place. That is the history of a number

of societies both primitive and complex.

But the most compelling example is the " law merchant " which

necessarily had to develop its own courts and means of adjudication

beyond state boundaries as it involved people from different states,

different cultures, different societal norms, and varying local laws

and customs.

" ...the development of medieval commercial law, lex mercatoria, or the

" Law Merchant, " effectively shatters the myth that government must

define and enforce " the rules of the game. " Because the Law Merchant

developed outside the constraints of political boundaries and escaped

the influence of political rulers for longer than many other Western

legal systems, it provides the best example of what a system of

customary law can achieve. "

_____

" The Law Merchant evolved into a universal legal system through a

process of natural selection. As merchants began to transact business

across political, cultural, and geographic boundaries, they

transported trade practices to foreign markets. Those previously

localized customs that were discovered to be common to many localities

became part of the international Law Merchant. Where conflicts arose,

practices that were the most efficient at facilitating commercial

interaction supplanted those that were less efficient. By the twelfth

century, mercantile law had developed to a level where alien merchants

had substantial protection in disputes with local merchants and

" against the vagaries of local laws and customs. "

http://mises.org/story/2542

On your view we have the state dropping in with an already codified

law code, gift wrapped and ready to be opened and put to immediate

use. While that has happened when one group has conquered another

(although the conquering group may have developed their law code

without a state), it certainly does not account for most of the

history of the development of law, and at any rate such a scenario

only indicates universality brought by subjugation, not wide spread

agreement.

In other words on your view the only basis for law is authoritarian in

nature, but such does not reflect the historical record, for either

primitive or complex societies.

" The legal system evident in Kapauku culture — and in many other

primitive societies — exhibits several characteristics:

1. primary rules characterized by a predominant concern for

individual rights and private property;

2. responsibility of law enforcement falling to the victim backed

by reciprocal arrangements for protection and support in a dispute;

3. standard adjudicative procedures established in order to avoid

violent forms of dispute resolution;

4. offenses treated as torts and typically punishable by economic

payments in restitution;

5. strong incentives to yield to prescribed punishment when guilty

of an offense due to the reciprocally established threat of social

ostracism; and

6. legal change arising through an evolutionary process of

developing customs and norms.

" By studying the incentives and institutions of primitive law, it

becomes evident that precisely the same kinds of customary legal

systems have existed in more complex societies, ranging from medieval

Iceland, Ireland, and Anglo-Saxon England to the development of the

medieval Law Merchant, and even to the western frontier of the United

States during the 1800s. "

http://mises.org/story/2542

And I would not equate the authoritarian state imposition of law with

the giving of divine revelation. Certainly both are authoritative but

in very different senses.

State law is imposed with a minority designed to rigorously enforce

its dictates. Its obedience or your life.

Divine law was given without the state (in fact it represented freedom

from the state), and there was no visible minority apparatus in place

to enforce it. There also was a widespread agreement to obey it. There

were blessing and curses for sure, but those did not come via any

human institution.

And while the threat of force undergirds all law systems, it is very

different in a state imposed law system versus the Mosaic code or

customary law. You can read more about that in Benson if you are so

inclined.

In the authoritarian mode of law you have a top down enforcement of

universality that must be rigorously enforced by a minority, generally

in the customary mode you have law that is not heeded because some

ruling body or king says you have to heed it, but because the people

over time have come to widely accept it as being in their best

interest to follow it. Violence is a costly means to settle disputes,

and both primitive and complex societies have recognized that.

In all systems, even the Mosaic code, there is development of law.

That is bound to happen because no law code, not even the Mosaic code,

accounts for every situation and circumstance. Thus disputes lead to

precedents which eventually become codified.

Competing systems in the same territory through the dispute process

would work out common precedent. Competing systems would be more

likely to come up with just law than the statist controlled monopoly

system we have now. If competing systems in different territories can

come up with common law through their own separate courts, a la the

" Law Merchant " then surely those in the same territory can do such a

thing. Law is a valuable good like anything else, and subject to the

same pressures like any other good.

If you a have someone who belongs to an agency who uses a Muslim

Court, and someone else that uses a Mosaic court, then those courts,

probably through a third court, would have to come up with a common

law that is recognized by everybody in a pluralistic society. It can

be a challenge for sure, but it is a challenge that faces all law

systems, regardless of geographical proximity.

Anyway, whether or not you think its feasible, it is a matter of

historical record that it is in fact doable in a very effective

manner.

> And if you want a

> pluralistic society, you can't get it from divine revelation.

The ritual aspect of the Mosaic law is gone forever. The laws

regarding the land are gone forever. All those foreshadowed and found

their fulfillment in the birth, life, death and resurrection of Jesus

Christ. The civil code however still speaks to civil issues, and it is

quite possible for a pluralistic society to adopt aspects of the

Mosaic civil code. Our law code has much that is taken from divine

revelation. The concept of victims rights is difficult to find in

earlier authoritarian codes, but it is certainly the cornerstone of

Mosaic law and many anarchical i.e. customary law societies.

While disputes can lead to judicial precedents, it is not the only way.

" Dispute resolution is not the only source of legal evolution under

customary law. Individuals may OBSERVE others behaving in a particular

way in a new situation and adopt similar behavior themselves,

recognizing the benefit of avoiding confrontation. Institutions for

enforcement similarly evolve due to recognition of reciprocal

benefits. "

http://mises.org/story/2542

Boy, the above sure sounds familiar. Now where have I heard that

before? Oh yeah, that is what Moses said:

" When they hear all these decrees, they will exclaim, 'How wise

and prudent are the people of this great nation!' For what great

nation has a god as near to them as the Lord our God is near

to us whenever we call on him?

----------

and

----------

" And what great nation has decrees and regulations as righteous and

fair as this body of instructions that I am giving you today? "

Deuteronomy 4: 5-8

______