jamesd on October 24, 2010, 05:55:12 pm
Think of it as working like the English Common Law. Precedents builds up over time, but are always based on the ZAP. Over time, arbitrators distinguish edge cases as to the application of the ZAP in real issues in conflict. Those distinctions become a part of the organic body of "law" for want of a better term.

In anarchic society "legal" is what you can usually get away with doing when everyone knows you did it, and "illegal" is what you cannot.

So if doing X is likely to provoke the the use of force against you, and people can get away with using force against you to stop you doing X, then X is illegal, and using force against people who do X is legal.

Now X might well be ill defined, or capable of being defined in several different ways, whereupon people hire lawyers and judges to resolve the definitions.

jamesd on October 24, 2010, 06:38:00 pm
Merry's advocate asks questions. "Why is it you sued Merry and not the actual perps? Why did you not sue the arbitrator who agreed to let them run around loose? Why only Merry?"

"Because out of all of them, Merry is the only one who has the money.

Which of course never happens under the benevolent rule of the state.


Sio on October 25, 2010, 08:47:31 am
Quote
Azure Priest doth spake:
Quote from: GaTor on October 22, 2010, 09:54:15 AM
Quote from: Sio on October 22, 2010, 09:27:06 AM
Our courts are not "Terry" courts.
Au contraire Mon frere.  Terry referes to  "Terran" meaning Earth.  Yes EFT is a work of fiction, but it is an extrpolation based on our world and projected into the future.  A possible timeline of where we may be.   And, given the authors posts in this forum, if you think the writers are not basing EFT on our current politico-governmental state of affairs I think your greatly mistaken. 

Especially the post where the authors say it's NOT based on the current world and any event that seems to be is purely accidental?

What Azure Priest said.  And that's "ma soeur", please.  If you're gonna claim kinship, at least get the gender right.

There may be some sarcastic (Sarcasm?  Here?  Quelle fromage!)  parallels drawn between Terry culture and our current mess, but to say it's an extrapolation is a bit much.  If you want to claim that EFT is an extrapolation, so is H. Beam Piper's "Terran Federation", for that matter, or any of a thousand other "future histories".

But don't read too much into it.  If it's an extrapolation, my original statement holds -- EFT Terry courts are not OUR courts, so don't get your panties in a bunch over the word "Terry".  They ain't us.

terry_freeman on October 25, 2010, 10:46:35 am
JThomas, you keep invoking "labor shortage" and "labor surplus". If there are no taxes and no other constraints on employment ( beyond those voluntarily chosen ), there is no surplus of labor. Supply will balance demand. There is never a shortage of economically useful work to be done - the question is "at what price?"

I offer a few articles on private law which address some of the issues which you have raised. You might, in fact, want to peruse lewrockwell.com and mises.org, as both are a fount of useful information about anarchy.

http://www.lewrockwell.com/hoppe/hoppe16.html
http://mises.org/daily/1874
http://mises.org/daily/4683 - this addresses law and appeals.

In your hypothetical case, where businessman A is minding his own business and caught by a bounty hunter from some remote location, Murphy suggests that the bounty hunter, in order to retain credibility, would only accept cases which were solid - for example, you have surveillance tapes and other solid evidence. In any case, if Businessman A has credible evidence ( such as a rock-solid alibi), he'd present it to the would-be bounty hunters in the presence of a credible judge, and odds are that the case would be dismissed. Given tanglenet, it is possible - as you suggest - to bring the digital recordings and evidence from the original trial to the appeal.

Some people ask "Who makes the final ruling? Don't we need a Supreme Court?" Most people, most of the time, will be satisfied with "good enough results." Per Murphy's exposition above, a person who tries repeatedly to appeal his conviction without adequate grounds will run out of judges willing to hear his case. The process will destroy his own credibility.

A person who "makes good" on any claims against him regains much of his reputation. "Gee, he made a mistake a few years ago, but he owned up to it and settled the claim honestly. He's entitled to a fair shake." versus "That fool not only cheated Smith, he spent years trying to wriggle out of responsibility. Who wants to deal with that?"


 

J Thomas on October 25, 2010, 02:34:02 pm
JThomas, you keep invoking "labor shortage" and "labor surplus". If there are no taxes and no other constraints on employment ( beyond those voluntarily chosen ), there is no surplus of labor. Supply will balance demand.

That is true in the long run, since if necessary the supply of living human beings will fall to meet the demand.

Quote
In your hypothetical case, where businessman A is minding his own business and caught by a bounty hunter from some remote location, Murphy suggests that the bounty hunter, in order to retain credibility, would only accept cases which were solid - for example, you have surveillance tapes and other solid evidence. In any case, if Businessman A has credible evidence ( such as a rock-solid alibi), he'd present it to the would-be bounty hunters in the presence of a credible judge, and odds are that the case would be dismissed. Given tanglenet, it is possible - as you suggest - to bring the digital recordings and evidence from the original trial to the appeal.

Yes. My thought is, given tanglenet it should usually be possible for any reasonable defendant to participate in arbitration without too much inconvenience. If he's on the other side of the belt he can still do it. If he has evidence that he has trouble presenting that way, he can ask for a delay while he finishes his business and returns. Depending on the importance of the case and his finances he might post bond to show his sincerity.

And depending on the privacy customs, it might be easy to find him.

So if he's willing to arbitrate, there shouldn't be much excuse to kidnap him.

If he refuses arbitration, then do you kidnap him on the basis of arbitration he has refused? Or kidnap him to stand trial he refuses to participate in? Some people have said to just publish the facts as a sort of warning to the rest of society about him. Or if it's worth killing him, do that.

Would you have an arbitrator look at your evidence and rule on it without his participation? Maybe, but why? If nobody makes a case against you after you kill him, you won't need that. And if they do, you'll still need another arbitration, right?

Say he owes you money and he refuses to arbitrate it so you can prove it. Well, if you rob him at gunpoint and he sues you, then you have your chance to present your evidence, right? Risky to rob him when he's armed, but it's a possible approach.

I can imagine a system where you never have to arbitrate about somebody without his agreement. I'm not sure how well it would work, but I can imagine a system with that sort of purity, that could work far better than what we have now. Comparing to what we have now is a terribly low bar, of course.

Quote
Some people ask "Who makes the final ruling? Don't we need a Supreme Court?" Most people, most of the time, will be satisfied with "good enough results." Per Murphy's exposition above, a person who tries repeatedly to appeal his conviction without adequate grounds will run out of judges willing to hear his case. The process will destroy his own credibility.

My thought is that if I agree to an arbitrator then I'd better go along with his judgement. If I get new evidence later, I should take it to him and see if that changes his mind. He could re-open it and see what the other guy says about the new evidence, and maybe he'll have something new too.

Quote
A person who "makes good" on any claims against him regains much of his reputation. "Gee, he made a mistake a few years ago, but he owned up to it and settled the claim honestly. He's entitled to a fair shake." versus "That fool not only cheated Smith, he spent years trying to wriggle out of responsibility. Who wants to deal with that?"

If I'm choosing who to do business with, I'd rather avoid people who have been in more than their share of lawsuits whether or not they won. There could be something about them that tends to result in lawsuits. Maybe they're good at writing contracts in ways that lead their contractors to fail. There could be lots of ways to do that. For example, penalties for delay, and then they can slow you down in ways that have no penalty. You wouldn't expect them to do that since the point of delay penalties is that they want it finished on time. Unless their point this time is to collect damages from you instead of to complete on time.... Rather than try to defuse every clause in a devil's bargain, better to just work for someone else. If you can get enough business.

People who get sued a lot might somehow be trouble magnets even if they usually win, and their troubles might affect you.

You're better off if you can avoid arbitration. Work out an arrangement privately if you can, and then make the arrangement public. If they skip out on their agreed contract with you, that's about as bad as skipping out on one an arbitrator assigned, isn't it?

Bob G on October 26, 2010, 06:44:02 am
Arbitrators Guild? What possible legitimate purpose could such an attempt to restrain free trade, serve? In a free society, anyone can serve as an arbitrator if the parties agree.

Okay, maybe not 'guild', maybe more of an association. Like an 'Underwriter's Laboratories' for services. I've long suspected that this is how a free society would develop. An association would develop a code of conduct (which, unlike 'building codes' today are not incorporated into 'law'), and members of the association would pledge to abide by that code. As long as they do so, they are able to advertise as such. If that standard remains recognizable as a badge of quality it becomes a competitive advantage. The association would have an incentive to 'police' their members in order to maintain their standards' rep, and 'go after' providers who falsely claim to be members for the same reason.  Anyone can practice, but members get a leg up. There can even be competing associations (think PADI, NAUI, NASDS, etc. for SCUBA diving instruction). But still, no one is *forced* to join the (an) association to practice. If you can build a rep on your own efforts, more power to you.
Whatsoever, for any cause, seeketh to take or give
  Power above or beyond the Laws, suffer it not to live.
Holy State, or Holy King, or Holy People's Will.
  Have no truck with the senseless thing, order the guns and kill.

The penultimate stanza of Rudyard Kipling's MacDonough's Song

Ensenadasailor on October 26, 2010, 11:38:49 pm
What I want to know is, why are all the men referred to as "Sov. So-and-So" while the woman lawyer is "Merry"?

Sv. is short for 'Sovereign" aka Sov... I think.  It's a unisex term applied to both males and fems.  Like sir or ma'am, lady etc.   as for Merry, well thats her name.  Kinda informal procedings. 

Go to the head of the class! "Sv" is like "Mr." or "Ms." "Sov" is like "Mister" or "Miz." Early on, Pedro tells Merry to call him "Pedro" or "Sv Rosenberg." Most Belters eschew honorifics except in situations where they wish to show respect or be more formal. So Pedro gave Merry a choice between informal or formal.

Geez guys - I can read. I know what Sov. STANDS for.  My question is about respect.  Pedro gave Merry a choice between informal or formal and of course the Terry lawyer chose formal.  Do you suppose she would then choose to be addressed informally?  All the men are continually addressed as Sovereign.  She is not.  As if she was being shown no respect.

wdg3rd on October 27, 2010, 12:53:49 am
What I want to know is, why are all the men referred to as "Sov. So-and-So" while the woman lawyer is "Merry"?

Sv. is short for 'Sovereign" aka Sov... I think.  It's a unisex term applied to both males and fems.  Like sir or ma'am, lady etc.   as for Merry, well thats her name.  Kinda informal procedings. 

Go to the head of the class! "Sv" is like "Mr." or "Ms." "Sov" is like "Mister" or "Miz." Early on, Pedro tells Merry to call him "Pedro" or "Sv Rosenberg." Most Belters eschew honorifics except in situations where they wish to show respect or be more formal. So Pedro gave Merry a choice between informal or formal.

Geez guys - I can read. I know what Sov. STANDS for.  My question is about respect.  Pedro gave Merry a choice between informal or formal and of course the Terry lawyer chose formal.  Do you suppose she would then choose to be addressed informally?  All the men are continually addressed as Sovereign.  She is not.  As if she was being shown no respect.
Sov Ensenadasailor, I've got no idea as to your personal gender or preference.  Grew up a couple hundred miles north of Ensenada, in an area where where where respect was rarely given.  (Managed to escape California to New Hampshire for my high school years, then was stupid enough to return and marry again).  As a kid in L.A., I learned never to respect anybody.  As a teen in New Hampshire, Grandma smacked me upside the head if I was lax in outward respect whether I felt it or not (as she often didn't feel it, we got along great).

Sov Ensenadasailor, tell us where we're wrong.  Then we can tell you to f u c k off.  With respect.
Ward Griffiths        wdg3rd@aol.com

Men will never be free until the last king is strangled with the entrails of the last priest.  --  Denis Diderot

dough560 on October 27, 2010, 04:20:59 am
Ok, I'll keep it simple.  J. Thomas, PAY ATTENTION!

The perps are totally responsible for their individual actions; before, during and after the arbitration.  Merry is posting a bond, a guarantee of payment, if the the perps skip.  Once the perps make restitution, Merry's bond will be returned.  The Guzmans are happy with this, for they are assured restitution.  The bond will be held and the perps will pay restitution  in regular payments.  However the perps are responsible for obtaining employment and handling all other factors regarding their survival.   

Bob G on October 27, 2010, 05:56:33 am
Geez guys - I can read. I know what Sov. STANDS for.  My question is about respect.  Pedro gave Merry a choice between informal or formal and of course the Terry lawyer chose formal.  Do you suppose she would then choose to be addressed informally?  All the men are continually addressed as Sovereign.  She is not.  As if she was being shown no respect.

Pg 550:"Sv. Petzger, do you have any questions for Bert or Ernie?"

Sorry, your contention doesn't wash.
Whatsoever, for any cause, seeketh to take or give
  Power above or beyond the Laws, suffer it not to live.
Holy State, or Holy King, or Holy People's Will.
  Have no truck with the senseless thing, order the guns and kill.

The penultimate stanza of Rudyard Kipling's MacDonough's Song

J Thomas on October 27, 2010, 11:31:40 am

The perps are totally responsible for their individual actions; before, during and after the arbitration.  Merry is posting a bond, a guarantee of payment, if the the perps skip.  Once the perps make restitution, Merry's bond will be returned.  The Guzmans are happy with this, for they are assured restitution.  The bond will be held and the perps will pay restitution  in regular payments.  However the perps are responsible for obtaining employment and handling all other factors regarding their survival.   

Dough560, that looks to me like a very good way for it to work.

AnCap societies may choose a variety of other ways, and some of those ways would have various flaws. If it goes your way I'd be happy with it.

KBCraig on October 29, 2010, 01:18:35 am
I'm still waiting to learn (perhaps I missed a response) who the real-life counterpart is to "Merry Petzger". I assume it's "Perry Metzger", but that's a name I'm unfamiliar with.

sologretto on November 03, 2010, 02:39:07 am
I thoroughly enjoy the comic.  Additionally I like the discussions about these concepts.  Multiple things I've wondered about have been discussed, but I find myself noticing an odd pattern....

There are a TON of intelligent people on this forum.  There tend to be the "defend ANCAP" side, the "what's ANCAP" side, and the "challenge ANCAP" side.   I notice the leadership is very skilled at introducing ANCAP to the "what's ANCAP" side and quite skilled at defending it.   I do notice however, that team "defend ANCAP" gets annoyed with team "challenge ANCAP" and has multiple times chosen to respond by verbally assailing the persons challenging ANCAP theories rather than focusing solely on their arguments.

As I understand the purpose of the comic is to introduce these ideas to positively bring them into the public focus.   One of the side effects is that persons like myself go... "That's a cool idea.  How would it handle X?  What about Y?"

The purpose of this questioning isn't to destroy or dispute the merit of the ideas, but to actually learn and challenge these cool ideas into being a cohesive, powerful and strong set of systems which could actually be implemented without a major "oh shit, we didn't think of..." set of experiences.

So my point is to present a challenge to the leadership.   Are the persons who hold the idealogy of ANCAP ready and willing to positively work with those of us who like the idea, and would like to help clarify or fix those issues that team "challenge ANCAP toward betterment" sees as impediments to implementation?   I know we can be annoying and like a dog with a bone, but if we truly didn't care we would just make personal insults and try to cause problems (or most likely, just not be involved). 

If we argue point/counterpoint we are in our way supporting the cause of the ideal.  I've seen a couple such persons who have carefully and positively continued to challenge the idealogy in the face of personal insult and wow....   I'm not sure I would be willing. 

Major respect to EVERYONE who is spending the time and care to positively flesh out the merits and challenges of these ideals on both sides.  ^)^

Bob G on November 03, 2010, 06:04:12 am
As I understand the purpose of the comic is to introduce these ideas to positively bring them into the public focus.   One of the side effects is that persons like myself go... "That's a cool idea.  How would it handle X?  What about Y?"

The purpose of this questioning isn't to destroy or dispute the merit of the ideas, but to actually learn and challenge these cool ideas into being a cohesive, powerful and strong set of systems which could actually be implemented without a major "oh shit, we didn't think of..." set of experiences.

  Questioning is good, and as you say can help refine and define the position in support. Unfortunately, the 'challenging' seems to come from those who feel AnCap *can't* work, and when their objections are answered keep adding conditions to the point of "but . . . but . . . What if fuzzy chartreuse aliens arrived and started singing 'The Road to Mandalay'?"

  Who knows? Who could know unless/until it happens? An old adage states that no plan survives contact with reality. I know only too well that you can game out scenarios in the comfort of your armchair to your heart's content, but when the fit hits the shan everything can go to hell.

Quote
So my point is to present a challenge to the leadership.

'Leadership'? These are *anarchists*!

 Anyway, welcome aboard. You're in for a wild ride.  ;D
Whatsoever, for any cause, seeketh to take or give
  Power above or beyond the Laws, suffer it not to live.
Holy State, or Holy King, or Holy People's Will.
  Have no truck with the senseless thing, order the guns and kill.

The penultimate stanza of Rudyard Kipling's MacDonough's Song

quadibloc on November 03, 2010, 08:08:49 am
Unfortunately, the 'challenging' seems to come from those who feel AnCap *can't* work, and when their objections are answered keep adding conditions to the point of "but . . . but . . . What if fuzzy chartreuse aliens arrived and started singing 'The Road to Mandalay'?"
I'm sorry you feel that way about the questions I ask.

But I've been trying to point out that the question of "how do you cope with a massive foreign invasion, or a long drawn-out struggle like the Cold War" isn't exactly all that hypothetical. The massive, apparently paranoid, military expenditures and preparations of the United States seem, instead, not just to me, but in my opinion, to most people, given the history of World War II, and then the similar threat posed by the U.S.S.R. - another country, like Nazi Germany, with secret police, labor camps, the knock in the middle of the night and so on - entirely necessary and justified.

(It's true that some Americans in the time of Ford and Carter stopped taking the Cold War as seriously as Americans did in the time of Kennedy, but those people were just insane - or the wool had been pulled over their eyes by the Red agents making trouble on college campuses.)

From this point of view, it seems, crazy as it might seem to you, that within about a week of the United States voting in an AnCap President who abolishes taxes peacefully... the free and armed American people would enjoy the thrilling delights of fighting a guerilla war against Chinese and Muslim invaders. Maybe free men can effectively defend themselves, but if anyone thinks this is an improvement over the current situation in the United States... I have doubts about their rationality.

And I am sorry if that seems insensitive to anyone in this community who may have lost a loved one to a no-knock search conducted at the wrong address for the home of a drug dealer. People die in car accidents too. Fixing that kind of problem, serious though it is, is not properly addressed to the benefit of everyone by demolishing your country's ability to survive in a very tough world.

You may think I'm talking about fuzzy chartreuse aliens; I think I'm talking about expected consequences of AnCap that are as obvious as the consequences of driving a car without brakes.

 

anything