Two of the things I love about AnCap are [...]
CG, one of the things I love about
you is your inability to accept an answer to any of your questions, thereby providing endless opportunities to answer them over and over for the benefit of new lurkers, or to emphasize by repetition for those of longer standing.
You're quite right, you can't have a formal lawsuit when there are no laws. That doesn't stop us using "lawsuit" in what we might call a colloquial sense, a shorthand for "bringing a dispute to arbitration." That you seem to think objecting to this use of the term is an objection to AnCap of enough power to be worth expressing does no credit to the rest of your philosophical armament, though.
In
today's society, companies who can enforce use of their own pet arbitrators are backed up by the full force of government.
Who pays the arbitrator in an AnCap? There are all kinds of possibilities. The one currently in use in Fairbanks, Alaska's alternative system has some means of paying the "judge", the "court recorder" and all 12 "jurors" one ounce of silver per hour; I haven't listened to all the guy's talk to know just how theirs works, but it evidently does.
Another possibility is: no one. Personally, I'd serve as an arbitrator as a service, a duty if you will, to my community. I don't think "arbitrator" as a career, a means of making a living, is such a good idea, but maybe that's just me.
Other clever folks will no doubt present still more possibilities. See, in an AnCap, you're not bound by regulation to keep doing the same things over and over whether or not they work.
How does AnCap deter criminals? Bwahaha, you ask as if you think that laws and police and jails and hangings
do.
I know you read this of mine before, but thank you for allowing me to repeat it for new folks:
Those who commit crimes of passion are, by definition, not thinking ahead, so no threat of punishment is going to deter them. Deterrence is only possible for those who have at least a possibility of having a second thought.
Of those, we have the smart, the stupid, and the ordinary thinkers.
Really, genuinely smart criminals can figure out how not to get caught, so any threat of punishment isn't going to deter them. Indeed, some of them may find the threat of punishment just adds spice to the game.
Really stupid criminals
think they're smart enough not to get caught, so deterrence doesn't work against them, either.
That leaves those who aren't impassioned, who aren't brilliant but who are clever enough to consider the possibility of jail &c, to be deterred. At least some of those are simply going to take the risk, run the odds, and often, the immediate perceived benefit tends to outweigh a hypothetical later penalty. Some may just not give a damn -- while others may actually want to go to jail.
How well did George III's capital punishment for treason work to deter Nathan Hale?
AnCap has no means to "deter" criminals --
and neither does any government. Take your own question back, if you dare (if you can, which you can't, so you will ignore this, too): how does government deter those who would use the very functions of government for criminal ends, such as a politician who rigs the vote so he can embezzle tax monies, or for the sheer rush of power, or to harass his enemies a la Nixon -- or all of the above?
There is a role for some kind of enforcement. Todays world may not be perfect, but you can live in it.
Live -- like Steve Biko, you mean? Like the unarmed fleeing 12-year-old in Pennsylvania shot in the back by two/2 armed cops, one of 'em a repeat offender, kind of thing? At least, in an AnCap society, I can freakin'
shoot back.
"[W]e most solemnly declare ... [that we are] with one mind resolved to die freemen rather than to live slaves." Jefferson & Dickinson, On the Necessity of Taking Up Arms -- which was, of course, quite
illegal of them, dontcha know.
Go ahead, bend over and take it if
you want to.
So you've presented, 1) a nitpick over choice of language; 2), the argument from incredulity ("if it seems an insurmountable objection to me, then it is truly insurmountable" kind of thing); 3) demanding that the other side solve a problem that your own side can't; and 4) well, sheer cowardice. Dude.