[Nunt]

i was wondering how a country deciding to go to genocide, which has happened more than once, was less likely than soneone buying every single road, river, and access route in an entire city.

Oh what if democratically elected governments start bombing civilians, what then?

From: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2011_milit ... n_in_Libya
^ "Libya Buries Dead Imams Killed in NATO Strike". The Express Tribune. 14 May 2011. Archived from the original on 2 July 2011. Retrieved 19 June 2011.
^ "NATO Air Strikes in Tripoli Kill 19 Civilians: Libyan TV". News From Middle East. 25 May 2011. Archived from the original on 22 July 2011. Retrieved 19 June 2011.
^ "Libya says NATO raids killed 718 civilians". Radio Netherlands Worldwide. 31 May 2011. Retrieved 19 June 2011.
^ "NATO Air Strikes Hit Residential House, Kill Seven Civilians". Tripoli Post. Archived from the original on 21 July 2011. Retrieved 19 June 2011.
^ a b "Libya: Nato 'Killed 15 Civilians' in Sorman Air Strike". BBC News. 20 June 2011. Archived from the original on 22 June 2011. Retrieved 23 June 2011.
^ "Libyan state media say NATO airstrike kills 15". USA Today. Associated Press (Tripoli). 26 June 2011. Retrieved 16 January 2012.
^ "NATO airstrike kills 8 Libyan civilians". PressTv. 29 June 2011. Retrieved Retrieved on 24 July 2011.
^ "Libya's Zlitan increasingly in rebel, NATO sights". CNN. 25 July 2011. Retrieved 14 September 2011.
^ Hafez Ahmed (26 July 2011). "NATO raids clinic in Libya: 7 killed". News Today. Retrieved 14 September 2011.
^ "NATO raid in Libya kills 3 reporters". Sky News. 31 July 2011. Retrieved 14 September 2011.

[Eran]

I understood mikema63's point to be that even genocide (not to mention lesser acts of murder such as the one you cite) is more likely than the relatively-benign scenario in which a city is entirely blocked by a monopolist road owner.

[mikema63]

^^

eran gets 2 points

[Pants-of-dog]

Actually, if rights are enforced by multiple organizations, they do NOT function as government precisely because "the parties involved have consented to allow this organisation (or group thereof) to enforce its decisions on them."

That, let's all acknowledge, is NOT the case with governments which do not enjoy the consent of the parties to enforce decisions.

But, having dispensed with semantics, we seem to both agree that property rights could be enforced by multi-centred, competitive and voluntary system. You can call it "government" if you wish.

Democratic governments enjoy consent.

The current system of capitalism relies on the consent of all parties involved to respect the government as the enforcer of property rights in the case of a dispute. This is why it is essential to write in a contract when and where it was signed.

If this consent did not exist, it would be impossible to sign a contract with someone else.

[Eran]

Democratic governments enjoy consent.

No, they don't. First, because the question of consent is never up for vote - the only thing people get to vote on is their preference between a handful (usually just 2 realistic) candidates for office.

Second, because at best, democratic governments enjoy the consent of the plurality of voters. This is far FAR from the kind of universal consent required to justify coercion.

The current system of capitalism relies on the consent of all parties involved to respect the government as the enforcer of property rights in the case of a dispute. This is why it is essential to write in a contract when and where it was signed.

Fair enough. Note that international contracts typically include an explicit election of which jurisdiction the sides to the contract accept.

I am proposing a different system of capitalism in which every contract would stipulate which court's jurisdiction is adopted by both sides to resolve any resulting disputes.

If this consent did not exist, it would be impossible to sign a contract with someone else.

I don't accept your logic. What you have demonstrated is the constrained preference of parties to the contract. Given current institutional arrangements, the parties indicate which of the available governments they want to resolve their disputes.

However, there is no consent content to that decision, most importantly because competitors to national governments in dispute resolution are either prohibited or severely limited.

[Pants-of-dog]

No, they don't. First, because the question of consent is never up for vote - the only thing people get to vote on is their preference between a handful (usually just 2 realistic) candidates for office.

Second, because at best, democratic governments enjoy the consent of the plurality of voters. This is far FAR from the kind of universal consent required to justify coercion.

I am not going to have the same discussion with you again about all the other methods outside of an election for making the gov't accountable in a democracy.

Instead I am going to focus on a simple fact: businesspeople all over the world decide every day to sign contracts in specific places all the time. In fact, they decide to sign contracts in specific places because of the laws surrounding property rights. They do this even though they could sign the contracts out on the open sea, where no state laws apply. Every time this is done, the consent is given.

Fair enough. Note that international contracts typically include an explicit election of which jurisdiction the sides to the contract accept.

I am proposing a different system of capitalism in which every contract would stipulate which court's jurisdiction is adopted by both sides to resolve any resulting disputes.

And that court plays the role of the gov't.

I don't accept your logic. What you have demonstrated is the constrained preference of parties to the contract. Given current institutional arrangements, the parties indicate which of the available governments they want to resolve their disputes.

However, there is no consent content to that decision, most importantly because competitors to national governments in dispute resolution are either prohibited or severely limited.

International companies (or companies in locales with legal pluralism) can choose between property rights paradigms by choosing the locale in which they sign contracts. This implies consent.

[Eran]

Every time this is done, the consent is given.

No. Every time this is done, a preference of government-enforcement is expressed over available alternatives.

Government suppression of free-market alternative empties this choice from any information content.

Compare that to my decision to use other government services. The fact that I am using government money and government roads doesn't mean in any way shape or form that I an consenting or approving of government provision of those services.

And that court plays the role of the gov't.

Fair enough. I agree that many of government's functions are legitimate. It is perfectly legitimate to provide education, health, quality assurance, roads, courts, policing and money. What's illegitimate is the fact that those services are provided through a coerced monopoly.

I am calling for a society in which all those services are indeed provided, but are provided in a competitive and free-entry market.

International companies (or companies in locales with legal pluralism) can choose between property rights paradigms by choosing the locale in which they sign contracts. This implies consent.

No. It implies preference of one jurisdiction over another. But it doesn't imply consent.

[Pants-of-dog]

No. Every time this is done, a preference of government-enforcement is expressed over available alternatives.

Government suppression of free-market alternative empties this choice from any information content.

Compare that to my decision to use other government services. The fact that I am using government money and government roads doesn't mean in any way shape or form that I an consenting or approving of government provision of those services.

Fair enough. I agree that many of government's functions are legitimate. It is perfectly legitimate to provide education, health, quality assurance, roads, courts, policing and money. What's illegitimate is the fact that those services are provided through a coerced monopoly.

I am calling for a society in which all those services are indeed provided, but are provided in a competitive and free-entry market.

No. It implies preference of one jurisdiction over another. But it doesn't imply consent.

Like I said, multinational corporations could easily sign contracts on the open seas, or Somalia, or even finance their own micronation. For some reason, this is not done. Instead, these corp's seem to choose to sign contracts in areas with established liberal democracies.

[Eran]

Sure. And by so doing, they are expressing a preference to being judged by the laws of, say, the US rather than the non-existing legal infrastructure of the open sea or Somalia.

But what does that tell us? Absolutely nothing.

IF the US government allowed free competition in the area of right-protection and contract-enforcement, such preferences might have some consent value. But as that is not the case, I don't see what you read into it.

[Pants-of-dog]

Sure. And by so doing, they are expressing a preference to being judged by the laws of, say, the US rather than the non-existing legal infrastructure of the open sea or Somalia.

But what does that tell us? Absolutely nothing.

IF the US government allowed free competition in the area of right-protection and contract-enforcement, such preferences might have some consent value. But as that is not the case, I don't see what you read into it.

The US government does allow such competition. The most famous open bid on the market is called "elections".

But let's assume that elections are not considered such, and there is a monopoly as you claim (which may in fact be beneficial). What does it tell us? It tells us that corporations choose to make business deals win environments with property rights that are enforced by governments and states. The reason may be simply that there is no effective method outside of the nation-state right now to enforce property rights, but that then suggests that it is not pragmatic to have one.

[Eran]

The most famous open bid on the market is called "elections".

Setting aside how rigged in favour of incumbent (both personally and by party affiliation) election procedures are, this is not what I would call open competition.

Competition is when any store can open its doors next to Walmart. Not when once every four years you get a vote over the Walmart board-of-directors (plus the right to protest in front of their stores in the mean time).

The reason may be simply that there is no effective method outside of the nation-state right now to enforce property rights, but that then suggests that it is not pragmatic to have one.

All it says is that as things are right now, there is no preferable method for adjudicating contracts. If my Mafia family broke the legs of anybody who tried to compete with us over garbage-collection municipal contracts, how much of a "consent" would you read into the decision to award us such contracts?

[mikema63]

Lex mercatoria (from the Latin for "merchant law") is the body of commercial law used by merchants throughout Europe during the medieval period. It evolved similar to English common law as a system of custom and best practice, which was enforced through a system of merchant courts along the main trade routes. It functioned as the international law of commerce.[1] It emphasised contractual freedom, alienability of property, while shunning legal technicalities and deciding cases ex aequo et bono. A distinct feature was the reliance by merchants on a legal system developed and administered by them. States or local authorities seldom interfered, and did not interfere a lot in internal domestic trade. Under lex mercatoria, trade flourished and states took in large amounts of taxation.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lex_mercatoria

its entirely possible and beneficial to set up courts privately, this system would no longer be allowed.

Merchant Law declined as a cosmopolitan and international system of merchant justice towards the end of medieval times, to the disappointment of Lex Mercatorius. This was to a large extent due to the adoption of national commercial law codes. It was also connected with an increasing modification of local customs to protect the interests of local merchants. The result of the replacement of lex mercatoria codes with national governed codes was the loss of autonomy of merchant tribunals to state courts. The main reason for this development was the protection of state interests.

government doesn't let these things exist but they are possible and very effective you cant deny that. government prevents them so you can only choose the least worst option.