- 11 Aug 2018 00:45
#14938753
@Saeko
There are two possible solutions to this:
1. The state's own legal system
This is the most obvious solution. The state is necessary anyways to prevent the creation of legal systems which may endanger others and those under that particular legal system and to do so it would require a common prescriptive law which prevents such legal systems from being created while not damaging the autonomy of individuals or communities. Given these considerations, it would make sense for the state to also resolve conflicts between the various legal systems under it's fold using the common law it has in place.
2. Voluntary organizations or legal entrepreneurs
For a more ancap solution, we can have voluntary organizations or legal entrepreneurs which see to bridge the gap between conflicting jurisdictions and legal systems. The idea is that entrepreneurs would recognize that there is demand for an organization which would resolve conflicts between different legal systems and thus different voluntary organizations or businesses would spring up to satiate that demand. These organizations wouldn't resolve conflicts using a legal system but using something call interest analysis.
If you didn't know, "interest analysis" is the umbrella term used to describe a way to approach legal conflicts between states/provinces/cantons/districts/etc. in which courts identify those states/provinces/cantons/districts/etc. with interests in a particular issue before the court and then determine which of the competing states should have its law applied to the issue. Currently interest analysis doesn't work but some argue that this is due to the coercive nature of statist law and that, under an ancap system, interest analysis would flourish due to the prominence of these voluntary legal organizations. a judge in a purely private legal system could determine which jurisdiction has the strongest interest at stake by comparing the fees charged for providing the laws at issue. Alternatively, a judge could allow parties from conflicting jurisdictions to bid for the right to have their laws enforced, with the winner's bid going to the loser. David Friedman notes that such a market in laws will tend to protect individual rights because people "are willing to pay a much higher price to be left alone than anyone is willing to pay to push them around."
Out of these two solutions, I prefer the state one. I find myself skeptical of the ancap solution given that it is reliant on the market to protect individual liberties and a communities access to money. All this does is let larger communities push around smaller ones and I completely disagree with the idea that people are more willing to pay a higher price to be left alone. Companies already pay ridiculous amounts of money to push people around, I wouldn't put it past communities to do the same.
@Beren
As long as they don't have a law that says "kill all Jews at sight" or prevent people from leaving their community then I don't see why you can't tolerate it. It simply won't effect you. They aren't going to have their own private army or something and take over the world. Chances are, under this system, most of what makes Nazi governance fascist would be removed. They won't be able to form armies or exclude anyone from their communities and they won't be able to brainwash people into their ideology either or cut off contact from the outside world. All that would remain is just collectivism and a somewhat passive aggressiveness towards other ethnicities outside their own. A Nazi community in such a system would be neutered completely.
There are two possible solutions to this:
1. The state's own legal system
This is the most obvious solution. The state is necessary anyways to prevent the creation of legal systems which may endanger others and those under that particular legal system and to do so it would require a common prescriptive law which prevents such legal systems from being created while not damaging the autonomy of individuals or communities. Given these considerations, it would make sense for the state to also resolve conflicts between the various legal systems under it's fold using the common law it has in place.
2. Voluntary organizations or legal entrepreneurs
For a more ancap solution, we can have voluntary organizations or legal entrepreneurs which see to bridge the gap between conflicting jurisdictions and legal systems. The idea is that entrepreneurs would recognize that there is demand for an organization which would resolve conflicts between different legal systems and thus different voluntary organizations or businesses would spring up to satiate that demand. These organizations wouldn't resolve conflicts using a legal system but using something call interest analysis.
If you didn't know, "interest analysis" is the umbrella term used to describe a way to approach legal conflicts between states/provinces/cantons/districts/etc. in which courts identify those states/provinces/cantons/districts/etc. with interests in a particular issue before the court and then determine which of the competing states should have its law applied to the issue. Currently interest analysis doesn't work but some argue that this is due to the coercive nature of statist law and that, under an ancap system, interest analysis would flourish due to the prominence of these voluntary legal organizations. a judge in a purely private legal system could determine which jurisdiction has the strongest interest at stake by comparing the fees charged for providing the laws at issue. Alternatively, a judge could allow parties from conflicting jurisdictions to bid for the right to have their laws enforced, with the winner's bid going to the loser. David Friedman notes that such a market in laws will tend to protect individual rights because people "are willing to pay a much higher price to be left alone than anyone is willing to pay to push them around."
Out of these two solutions, I prefer the state one. I find myself skeptical of the ancap solution given that it is reliant on the market to protect individual liberties and a communities access to money. All this does is let larger communities push around smaller ones and I completely disagree with the idea that people are more willing to pay a higher price to be left alone. Companies already pay ridiculous amounts of money to push people around, I wouldn't put it past communities to do the same.
@Beren
Besides that this is getting more and more unrealistic, I wouldn't be willing to tolerate the Germans reestablishing a Nazi legal system for themselves to accommodate their precious conscience with it.
As long as they don't have a law that says "kill all Jews at sight" or prevent people from leaving their community then I don't see why you can't tolerate it. It simply won't effect you. They aren't going to have their own private army or something and take over the world. Chances are, under this system, most of what makes Nazi governance fascist would be removed. They won't be able to form armies or exclude anyone from their communities and they won't be able to brainwash people into their ideology either or cut off contact from the outside world. All that would remain is just collectivism and a somewhat passive aggressiveness towards other ethnicities outside their own. A Nazi community in such a system would be neutered completely.
- By skinster