[mikema63]

LTV is a lie, labor does not have any excess value exploited.

Carter, about 80% of the US has no people, we have exactly the same forest coverage as when we landed here.

[Soixante-Retard]

Actually Mike, you're mistaken. There are more tree coverage in the USA than there was, well, 100 or so years ago. If there's money to be made logging, then you'd sure love for it to be sustainable - a never-ending source of income! Dictum: incentives matter.

[Someone5]

Actually Mike, you're mistaken. There are more tree coverage in the USA than there was, well, 100 or so years ago. If there's money to be made logging, then you'd sure love for it to be sustainable - a never-ending source of income! Dictum: incentives matter.

The problem here is that logging replaces complex old growth forest environments with younger mono-cultural plots. Logging enterprises have gotten somewhat better at managing this problem with selective logging practices, but fundamentally they're still diminishing biological diversity in the affected areas. Or, in other words, they're still destroying usable habitats, even if there are new trees planted. That's the incentive the private market creates--replant trees only with a mind to harvest them later, not to minimize habitat loss.

[Soixante-Retard]

...diminishing biological diversity in the affected areas.

If they are so what? You've yet to argue why reduction in diversity is something about which we should be concerned. In other words why should we be alarmed if there is a reduction in diversity. We, as a genus (Homo), are less diverse now than we were tens of thousands of years ago - yet does this lack of diversity cause any concern?

[Paradigm]

If they are so what? You've yet to argue why reduction in diversity is something about which we should be concerned. In other words why should we be alarmed if there is a reduction in diversity. We, as a genus (Homo), are less diverse now than we were tens of thousands of years ago - yet does this lack of diversity cause any concern?

You can ask anyone who's taken an Ecology 101 class about the importance of biodiversity. An ecosystem that lacks biodiversity is much more susceptible to pests and parasites. You lose ecosystem services that filter air and water, prevent soil erosion, and keep things like the carbon and nitrogen cycle in balance in ways that we don't normally notice because it works so flawlessly. It's especially ironic that you mention human diversity, as a lack of genetic diversity in humans leads to similar imbalances as a result of what is known as inbreeding.

[mikema63]

The majority of tree farmers are picking up on that and logging plots near areas with lots of the other plants and critters you want to move in once you replant.

[Soixante-Retard]

@Paradigm, I think you missed the point I was trying to make.

[Someone5]

If they are so what?

Paradigm explained it well.

You've yet to argue why reduction in diversity is something about which we should be concerned.

For the dollars and cents libertarians out there; ecological services are worth trillions of dollars annually. They're basically the foundation of every economy everywhere, even advanced manufacturing economies (because everyone has to eat, breathe, drink water, etc). Reduction in habitat and overall biodiversity endangers the provision of these ecological services, often in ways that economies are unprepared to account for--and often unable to deal with, as in the case of desertification.

It's a pretty basic rule--don't shit where you sleep.

In other words why should we be alarmed if there is a reduction in diversity.

Because a precipitous loss of biodiversity poses an immense indirect threat to our economic and social well-being. And yes, such a loss of biodiversity is currently happening on a scale comparable to historical mass extinctions... except it's mainly caused by human development rather than enormous sudden catastrophes.

We, as a genus (Homo), are less diverse now than we were tens of thousands of years ago - yet does this lack of diversity cause any concern?

There was no alternative to that; we had no choice to avoid that collapse in diversity. We are aware of the consequences today, and we are able to mitigate the impact of our economic activities that reduce biodiversity. There's nothing that early homo sapiens would have done about the earlier mass die-off of other later hominid species--we have a choice when it comes to destroying the world around us today.

[Rothbardian]

On the subject of environmentalism, anyone know anything about the event that created the EPA?

Basically a river near the city of Cleveland caught on fire. The press ran an article about it with a picture of flames shooting up into the air, burning on the river. The hysteria that ensued lead to the EPA.

What's funny is, it was the government that was dumping sewage into the river causing the problem in the first place. And of course no one was allowed to sue for damages to property because the government owned it all. They even had the press run that article with a picture from 50 years earlier because in this case, the fire was so insignificant no one could snap a picture in time before it was out.

And then once the clean water act was established, what did the government do first? That's right, started handing out waivers to the few select businesses.

One last point, the U.S. government is the world's #1 source of pollution.

[Rothbardian]

Why is Rothbardian getting so worked up over "statists" and their immoral ways?

Rothbardian is an ancap.

An Anarcho-Capitalist society is not, and will never be, an anarchy.


:?:

I like Rothbard a lot, but this name is largely an inside joke for me. I don't know what kind of an anarchist you'd call me, maybe a voluntaryist? I don't really care what kinds of systems people create, as long as they're voluntary. As for what I'd prefer, I've always leaned somewhat to the left, but I'd sign on for whatever works well.

Which is what 99% of the populace would do as well, as soon as they are given the option to actually choose how they live.

Anyway I spent a lot of time discussing anarchy and left wingers would always accuse me of being 'rothbardian', which always made me chuckle. Apparently if you don't think people who disagree with you deserve to be brutalized, you're a right wing anarcho capitalist.

[Someone5]

On the subject of environmentalism, anyone know anything about the event that created the EPA?

Basically a river near the city of Cleveland caught on fire. The press ran an article about it with a picture of flames shooting up into the air, burning on the river. The hysteria that ensued lead to the EPA.

Back here in reality, the formation of the EPA was a culmination of a wide set of factors, not simply the Cuyahoga River fire--there were several other notable environmental disasters in 1969, and these did indeed heavily contribute to the public pressure placed on Congress to pass a body of law to address these problems--notably the Clean Air and Clean Water acts, but also the NEPA which established a requirement for environmental impact assessments in advance of federal projects. The EPA was established as an administrative response to the new regulations that Congress was passing--the executive branch had to actually have the means to enforce them, after all.

What's funny is, it was the government that was dumping sewage into the river causing the problem in the first place.

How is that funny, and how is the government's response to that inappropriate? If they discover they have been engaging in a pattern of problematic behavior, then take steps to address that by creating new regulations and a new agency to oversee them, how is that inappropriate? Are you of the belief that the EPA does not regulate other government agencies? Do you think the government does not observe EPA regulations?

Maybe DOD doesn't, but civilian government agencies and contractors certainly are supposed to. It's deep shit for someone up the hierarchy if they get found seriously and/or intentionally environmental regulations. It's even worse if they hide it and do nothing to correct the problem.

Getting a chuckle out of the government causing an environmental disaster then taking steps to try to keep it from happening again is kind of like getting a chuckle out of a company making a huge mistake then resolving to fix the problem so that it is less likely to happen again. It's not really inappropriate to take measures to address a problem, even if those measures may not be perfect.

And of course no one was allowed to sue for damages to property because the government owned it all.

Wow, talk about out of touch. First off, the normal procedure for getting compensation for damages from the federal government isn't to sue them! The first step is filing a claim for damages, which they may or may not refuse. Only if they refuse to pay for damage do you have grounds to take it to the federal courts--which people CAN do and can successfully pursue.

While the government technically does have sovereign immunity, Congress has also passed statutory legislation allowing the government to be sued in many common situations. I'm not sure how that worked in 1969, but it's certainly the case today.

They even had the press run that article with a picture from 50 years earlier because in this case, the fire was so insignificant no one could snap a picture in time before it was out.

No one, huh?




Want some more? There's plenty of them...

And then once the clean water act was established, what did the government do first? That's right, started handing out waivers to the few select businesses.

Sure, when they can adequately demonstrate that it's not necessary in their particular circumstance. There are very few rules that can be sanely applied 100% of the time. That's why waivers exist, and why it's important to put competent, well-paid people in charge of considering them.

One last point, the U.S. government is the world's #1 source of pollution.

It also performs more work than anyone else, and holds more land than just about anyone else, and engages in a wide range of inherently environmentally dangerous activities that most normal organizations don't have to deal with.

[Rothbardian]

Thank you for meeting me halfway, Rothbardian.

Oh, how joyous that would be...

...not!

Have you seen PoFoUK? Why do you think I have nearly ten thousand posts here and less than a hundred there?

I suppose the central difficulty I have, as a pragmatist, is one of time:


If it were within my power to ensure such a circumstance could exist for you and everyone else today, tomorrow - in this current time - I would exercise that power, but it isn't and neither is it in yours or anyone else's. I can't see any point in howling at the moon that the World isn't as we would wish it to be. The focus of one's endeavour should be in taking the steps necessary to begin guiding the World toward enlightenment. That will not be achieved by revolution - only by evolution, and evolution takes time and patience.

You're right, I cannot consent to your request...but that doesn't mean that I would not, if I could. Therefore, it is my sincere hope that you stay with us here on PoFo and afford us the opportunity for reasonable, polite discussion.

Obviously we can't have a voluntary society today because we're forced to live with statism. The question is, do you support a state? Do you advocate hurting people who disagree with whatever your ideal system is through a state?

[Rothbardian]

Someone5, I don't feel like taking out all the quotes just so this silly forum will let me post, so let me just say a few things. The long and short of it being, you are a-okay with pollution as long as it's your god creating it and I wish you the best of luck with that, but I'm not drinking the koolaid.

Here in reality, yes, the hysteria from that fire is what motivated the public to accept the EPA. Statists generally argue this as a justification for the EPA and the wonderful problem solving nature of the government in general.

Those pictures you linked are from the 1952 fire. They were used in 1969 to justify the EPA, because that was the only way to get people worked up enough to go rah-rah for their new statist enviro-overlords. The reason they had to do this was because in the 20 years between those two fires, natural, organic markets had improved the conditions of the river on their own. They were like 'omg there's actually fish in the river again, horray!' This river was a mess since the late 1800's when the Ohio state government made it impossible to sue for property damages and instead slapped offenders with a whopping $10 fine. Which was a lot more money from the 1890's to 1950 than it is today, but was still a pittance.

And of course, there is the fact that the government was the biggest polluter. I doubt it fined itself though. Basically the way it worked was, block common law from working, give people exemptions through permits, and have a river catching fire for the better part of a century. Go government, hooray!

I say it is funny because the government created that problem, then rushed in to 'fix' it....while still giving exemptions. Not only do the government exemptions protect from fines, they make it impossible to sue polluters for polluting.

But, it's a free market problem, you see. The only possible solution, of course, is the EPA! Does it get any more hilarious than that? Like watching history's version of idiocracy.

[Someone5]

Someone5, I don't feel like taking out all the quotes just so this silly forum will let me post, so let me just say a few things. The long and short of it being, you are a-okay with pollution as long as it's your god creating it and I wish you the best of luck with that, but I'm not drinking the koolaid.

The only god I believe in is a dedication to analyzing things as they really are, not as we would like them to be. I care very little for governments, but the EPA is certainly not anywhere near the top of my list of things that ought to go. If anything an organized response to environmental issues is rather a central function of governments--maintaining the commons ought to be a role of any central organizing people do engage in.

Letting some people shit where the rest of us sleep is just a bad idea. And since we don't have the civic and labor organizations in a position to administer the commons collectively, that means we need government agencies to do so--at least until the situations changes.

Here in reality, yes, the hysteria from that fire is what motivated the public to accept the EPA. Statists generally argue this as a justification for the EPA and the wonderful problem solving nature of the government in general.

You are dramatically, and incorrectly, under-emphasizing the other reasons for the creation of the EPA and NOAA. Which was, in fact, my entire point.

Those pictures you linked are from the 1952 fire.

Both were attributed to the 1969 fire, as are many, many others from different angles. There are also pictures of the later fires on the same river in the 1970s, because it caught fire fairly regularly.

They were used in 1969 to justify the EPA,

Among many other reasons which you have declined to mention. Most notably oceanic oil fires.

because that was the only way to get people worked up enough to go rah-rah for their new statist enviro-overlords.

People were already pushing for environmental regulation before that; these served as rallying examples, but not actual causes.

The reason they had to do this was because in the 20 years between those two fires, natural, organic markets had improved the conditions of the river on their own.

Yeah, that's why it kept catching fire a few times over the next ten years. Because the private market made it all better. Wow you libertarians are unbelievably naive.

And of course, there is the fact that the government was the biggest polluter. I doubt it fined itself though.

The modern practice is indeed for the government to fine the agency responsible, in addition to the head hunting and program restructuring.

Basically the way it worked was, block common law from working, give people exemptions through permits, and have a river catching fire for the better part of a century. Go government, hooray!

Whereas the private market method of handling it is to say; "Contaminants in the water? What contaminants in the water? There are no contaminants in the water. The fish are fine to eat. See? We're hosting a fish fry for all our employees. Don't mind us not eating, we're all vegetarians." And later when someone proves it, they say "You have no evidence that that is actually harmful! We can't be blamed! It had to have been someone else!" And then after that they navigate their way around the legal system until the people pursuing the damage give up and take an inadequate settlement.

That's how the private market handles things.

I say it is funny because the government created that problem, then rushed in to 'fix' it...

You libertarians have this bizarre view of "the government", as if all agencies at all levels were actually working according to some common plan or something. You see everything that's got any kind of funding as some part of some monolithic "big government" structure, when really it's a lot of different fiefdoms fighting it out among each other. You really ought to go work for a government agency for a year or two, it is instructional.

while still giving exemptions. Not only do the government exemptions protect from fines, they make it impossible to sue polluters for polluting.

It was impossible to sue anyway, without emission standards to compare emissions against! There is no suing for pollution in a purely private context because in a purely private context there is no objective standard by which a given amount of pollution can be measured--there is no way to determine what levels cause undue risk to the people exposed. There is no way to sue for damages if you cannot show that the company polluting was unjustified in their act.

Do you people even think about the practical aspects of your arguments before making them? Or is it just reflexive, that you argue that anything private must necessarily work fine?

But, it's a free market problem, you see. The only possible solution, of course, is the EPA!

The EPA was an executive branch solution to an executive branch problem--namely how they were going to administer the new regulations coming from Congress. Which by law they had to administer.

[Rothbardian]

The only god I believe in is a dedication to analyzing things as they really are

Fair enough. Then when I point out the contradictions in your arguments as applied to your position as a statist, being a rational empiricist you will surely correct your position.

You are dramatically, and incorrectly, under-emphasizing the other reasons for the creation of the EPA and NOAA. Which was, in fact, my entire point.

The hysteria this faux article caused lead to the epa the way that putting batter in the oven leads to a cake. Yes, there are other steps involved, but that is what sealed the deal, and without it the deal (creating the epa/cake) would not have happened. That was, in fact, my point.

Both were attributed to the 1969 fire, as are many, many others from different angles. There are also pictures of the later fires on the same river in the 1970s, because it caught fire fairly regularly.

I know that they were attributed to the 1969 fire, but they were taken in 1952. That was, in fact, my point.

People were already pushing for environmental regulation before that; these served as rallying examples, but not actual causes.

Some people were, they were called environmentalists. And the reason they had to go to creating something like the EPA is because the average person wasn't as hysterical as they were. Hence, almost blatant lies like what happened in 1969.

Yeah, that's why it kept catching fire a few times over the next ten years. Because the private market made it all better. Wow you libertarians are unbelievably naive.

It kept catching fire because it was a disgusting mess since the government took it over in the 1800's. The point is, and perhaps I need to use smaller words to get the point across, the state of the river had been improving WITHOUT THE EPA OR ANY INTERVENTION FROM ANY KIND OF GOVERNMENT.

The modern practice is indeed for the government to fine the agency responsible, in addition to the head hunting and program restructuring.

That's obviously not working since the government is still the #1 polluter. You claim to adhere to reality rather than bias, yet can you acknowledge this basic fact? Why is it so difficult? The government is the biggest polluter, by far. We're talking about mountains to anthills when comparing the state to private industry.

Whereas the private market method of handling it is to say; "Contaminants in the water? What contaminants in the water? There are no contaminants in the water. The fish are fine to eat. See? We're hosting a fish fry for all our employees. Don't mind us not eating, we're all vegetarians." And later when someone proves it, they say "You have no evidence that that is actually harmful! We can't be blamed! It had to have been someone else!" And then after that they navigate their way around the legal system until the people pursuing the damage give up and take an inadequate settlement.

I'm not sure if you're creating a strawman here or you are just ignorant. In a private system, there's no government to protect the corporation from property damage, and that includes damage to your body.

That's how the private market handles things.

I am laughing so hard right now at how silly this is.

[qu

You libertarians have this bizarre view of "the government", as if all agencies at all levels were actually working according to some common plan or something. You see everything that's got any kind of funding as some part of some monolithic "big government" structure, when really it's a lot of different fiefdoms fighting it out among each other. You really ought to go work for a government agency for a year or two, it is instructional.

As a rational empiricist myself, I view the government as what it is, a group of people who claim a monopoly on violence. The observations I made are, again, basic facts of the situation. Due to government laws, polluting industries and businesses were protected from being sued into oblivion and instead had to worry about a $10 fine for over polluting.

It was impossible to sue anyway, without emission standards to compare emissions against! There is no suing for pollution in a purely private context because in a purely private context there is no objective standard by which a given amount of pollution can be measured--there is no way to determine what levels cause undue risk to the people exposed. There is no way to sue for damages if you cannot show that the company polluting was unjustified in their act.

There's actually a simple objective standard: how much harm did your pollution due to my property? The government claimed ownership of the river and then protected polluters from repercussions. Yet you have this odd sort of god-stuck awe of the state as if it is of some sort of impeachable moral integrity and simply incapable of ever causing harm to anything.

Do you people even think about the practical aspects of your arguments before making them? Or is it just reflexive, that you argue that anything private must necessarily work fine?

Actually all anarchists do is take practical and moral concepts, and apply them equally to the group of people you'd call the state as well as the results of their actions, rather than put them on some kind of mental pedestal and alternate kneeling and bending over for them, as the deities they clearly are.

[

The EPA was an executive branch solution to an executive branch problem--namely how they were going to administer the new regulations coming from Congress. Which by law they had to administer.

That's because pollution is a problem.

Unless you have a permit.

Then, it's okay.

[Someone5]

Fair enough. Then when I point out the contradictions in your arguments as applied to your position as a statist, being a rational empiricist you will surely correct your position.

That's pretty funny. You have no idea what you're saying.

The hysteria this faux article caused lead to the epa the way that putting batter in the oven leads to a cake.

To use your cake metaphor, it was rather more like the egg that went in the cake batter.

I know that they were attributed to the 1969 fire, but they were taken in 1952. That was, in fact, my point.

So, how many people are you going to accuse as part of the conspiracy to hide... what, that you think the river didn't catch on fire? That the public shouldn't have been tired of the river catching fire? What is this grand conspiracy of your supposed to do.

If you think the conspiracy was about hyping up the need for environmental laws, how the fuck do you think that a story about a river fire was going to do that without pre-existing public demand for environmental regulations? Your vision of reality here is a sensationalist one, where you somehow seem to think that a shadowy cabal of reporters was single-handedly responsible for creating a mass public demand for environmental regulations. Which is absurd on its face. Precisely how many photographers do you believe were involved in your conspiracy?

Some people were, they were called environmentalists. And the reason they had to go to creating something like the EPA is because the average person wasn't as hysterical as they were. Hence, almost blatant lies like what happened in 1969.

I'm sorry, but you simply do not understand what you're talking about.

It kept catching fire because it was a disgusting mess since the government took it over in the 1800's. The point is, and perhaps I need to use smaller words to get the point across, the state of the river had been improving WITHOUT THE EPA OR ANY INTERVENTION FROM ANY KIND OF GOVERNMENT.

I'm sorry, but you're being contradictory here. You say it had been getting better, and you say "the government" (meaning the Ohio state government) had taken it over, and you say that the government had nothing to do with it getting better. One of those three positions has got to be a lie. And even then, what the hell does the Ohio state government managing the river have to do with the EPA, which is a federal agency?

That's obviously not working since the government is still the #1 polluter.

The government is also the world's #1 economic firm, so that's to be expected. The US state and federal governments do far, far more work than any other group of related organizations on Earth, so it's not surprising that they create a lot of pollution in the process. We could say that just about the federal government on its own, I think. No private company even comes remotely close to the amount of activity done by the US federal government, so the fact that none of them pollute more is not really very surprising.

You're basically saying that an organization performing many times the work of a smaller organization ought to pollute much less than the smaller organization, even when they both have to follow the same environmental regulations. And you're holding that bit of logical absurdity up as an example of the government not following its own environmental regulations? That is nonsensical. You are expressing a basic failure of logic. If two organizations have to follow the same environmental regulations, and one does many times the work of the other, you would expect the dramatically larger organization to pollute more. Expecting otherwise would be as stupid as expecting, say, Intel to limit itself to the emissions generated by a small mom and pop retail store. It's a basic misunderstanding of the scope involved.

That rhetorical bit--that the government is the #1 polluter--may impress people who do not understand the scale and scope of the difference between the government and its next largest competitor, but it does not impress me, because I know that its next largest competitor isn't even remotely close in scale.

You claim to adhere to reality rather than bias, yet can you acknowledge this basic fact? Why is it so difficult? The government is the biggest polluter, by far. We're talking about mountains to anthills when comparing the state to private industry.

And any private industrial organization is an anthill compared to the productivity of the state. So holding them up for comparison is stupid. It's not just silly, it's stupid and disingenuous.

I'm not sure if you're creating a strawman here or you are just ignorant. In a private system, there's no government to protect the corporation from property damage, and that includes damage to your body.

Oh, alright, in a fully private system without even the courts, the people pursuing damages get told to fuck off and don't even get an unjust settlement. You're right; in a completely private system, the company just uses its private security services to protect itself against looting by the people who've been damaged, so the people who were injured get nothing. In a private system, there is nothing to compel the corporation to even make the most basic of restitution, so they provide no restitution at all.

I am laughing so hard right now at how silly this is.

It is darkly humorous, isn't it?

As a rational empiricist myself, I view the government as what it is, a group of people who claim a monopoly on violence.

Then you're not a very rational empiricist, since you rely on an ideological view of the government rather than a real view.

Due to government laws, polluting industries and businesses were protected from being sued into oblivion and instead had to worry about a $10 fine for over polluting.

Even if we accept your disingenuous hyperbole, that is $10 more than they would worry about under a private regime, where they would have no reason to pay anyone restitution--let alone damages.

There's actually a simple objective standard: how much harm did your pollution due to my property?

So of course your healthy liver is worth only $250,000... Environmental damage does not confine itself to easily enumerated damages. You cannot assess real objective valuation to things like a child's well-being. Or, I suppose you could, but that would not really be any form of just compensation.

The government claimed ownership of the river and then protected polluters from repercussions. Yet you have this odd sort of god-stuck awe of the state as if it is of some sort of impeachable moral integrity and simply incapable of ever causing harm to anything.

Note; I believe the state should not exist. You are literally telling someone who thinks the state ought not exist that he has a god-struck awe of the state. You do not know what you're talking about, however, so that's probably to be expected.

Actually all anarchists do is take practical and moral concepts,

You are not an anarchist, because you believe in a government that does things like protect property rights, and manages courts. Your entire argument here rests on a notion that you have property, that it has an objective value, that you can recover damages to that objectively valued property through courts, etc. You are not an anarchist, you are a statist, even if you might like to dress that statism up in the fancy clothes of a "rights management agency" rather than "government".

and apply them equally to the group of people you'd call the state as well as the results of their actions, rather than put them on some kind of mental pedestal and alternate kneeling and bending over for them, as the deities they clearly are.

That's a laugh, really it is. You do none of these things.

That's because pollution is a problem.

Unless you have a permit.

Then, it's okay.

Spoken like someone who has no clue.

[Rothbardian]

Why would someone think a free market/anarchy means no courts? Are people really that ignorant?

[Someone5]

Why would someone think a free market/anarchy means no courts? Are people really that ignorant?

A) An anarchy is not even remotely the same thing as a free market; precisely for the reasons I will talk about in point C. Don't try to conflate the two.
B) You are making an inconsistent argument; either you support the state and the things that states do, like grant property rights, administer property claims, put in place a court system and a body of law to follow... or you don't support the state, in which case you don't support any of those things. There can be no consistent middle ground there. In this specific case, you either have a situation where private corporations will give aggrieved victims of pollution the runaround in the courts for years--or you have a situation where there are no courts to seek redress within. A "statist" society will have those courts, a fully private society will not. In either case, the person is going to get screwed, it's just a question of how they get screwed. There is exactly one way to resolve that problem in a way that is beneficial for the victim--eliminate the concentrations of private power that allow a private company such disproportionate power within a public court system.
C) Yes, if you were consistent and honest in your desire to have only a private society, you would have no courts. I will grant you that libertarians do want courts--but that is because they are not actually anarchists. They support the government--in the form of property rights, courts, property protection, etc--they just don't like to admit it. Libertarians--and I include "anarcho-capitalists" in that boat--are hypocrites. I will not, however, grant you that an anarchy will necessarily have courts. It might or it might not, as a community sees fit. Some communities might want them, others might not, and an anarchist society would allow for both.

[mikema63]

I see no problem with allowing other groups to have or not have courts, as a matter of fact I don't see where I hold an inconsistent view as you suggest.

[Nunt]

You are making an inconsistent argument; either you support the state and the things that states do, like grant property rights, administer property claims, put in place a court system and a body of law to follow... or you don't support the state,

Has it occured to you that the "either ... or" statement that you made is not a contrast. Someone can support the things that are currently being done by the state, but that does not mean that someone automatically supports the state. I can support the enforcement of property rights, without supporting that this is funded through taxation rather than voluntary contributions. I can support a court system without supporting that this court system is a legalized monopoly.

Do you see the arguement? In my country government has provided for: schools, hospitals, public transport, gas, electricity, water, air travel, mail,... I believe that its good that someone should provide these goods AND at the same time believe that these goods ought not be provided using taxation and a legalized monopoly.

Is it possible to fund courts without using taxation? This seems rather obviously true. Courts can get income by fining criminals, receiving donations from people who want to see justice done, from fees paid by users of the courts.

Is it possible to allow different courts to coexist? Of course. There isn't one world court. The Dutch court coexists with the Belgian court and follows different rules. The main thing that is required for multiple courts to coexists is that there are clear distinctions on who is judged by which court. Currently, these distinctions are made on the basis of nationality and territory. In a more anarchic situation, this distinction would be through voluntary agreement. This means that there need to be agreements between different courts about how to deal with trans-judicial problems. This is not an impossible problem. The Dutch and the Belgian court have solved this already. For example, if I have a conflict with a Dutch person, then the Dutch and Belgian courts have already agreed on the proper procedure.

One final problem may be that people will refuse to choose a court. Imo, this will not be a very large problem. First, most people will want to choose a court. If you are not planning on committing any criminal activities (and I guess most people aren't) then a court is an ally that will help you solve conflicts. So the only people who will refuse to choose a court are those who are planning to commit crimes. But if they want to take part in society, they make it very difficult for themselves. Not having chosen a court will mean that should any conflict arise, its gonna be a big mess to solve the problem. So nobody will be willing to make any long term contracts with you. You won't find a place to live, you won't find a job, you won't be allowed in stores, you will be an outlaw in the literal sense of the word, shunned by society. And should you commit a crime, you will still get punished.