Lagrange wrote:What you describe sounds a lot like a state -- a judiciary that is able to enforce property rights sounds like a kritarchy.
Any system that enables enforcement of laws would sound a little like a state.
The critical difference is any state (regardless of how it rules or how its rulers are determined) claims a
monopoly over its use of its powers.
In a Kritarchy, for example, the judges would assert jurisdiction over certain disputes.
In the system I am describing, judges only have authority by virtue of being consulted through the mutual agreement of both sides to a dispute. If a judge loses the confidence of members of society, he loses all power and authority.
IF a better judge comes along, one who is more appealing to the public, he will tend to get consulted.
This system might look like that of ancient Israel, but before it was consolidated into a single state in anything like the modern sense.
All of the feasible solutions involve some kind of third party that can enforce contracts, i.e. a state. Complex societies are impossible under anarchy precisely because people's rights are much easier to violate when there is not a state apparatus to defend against abuses.
You are partially correct. Yes, a third party is required to enforce contract. But there need not be a
single third party that
forces its "services" on the rest of society (which is part of the definition of a state).
Rather, you can have dispute resolution offered as a service in the market (more precisely, as a voluntary service, whether provided for or not-for profit basis).
Consider the international trade. Clearly, the system of international trade cannot function without a mechanism for dispute resolution. However, the Earth isn't ruled by a single government. Instead, parties to international trade choose the legal system under which contracts will be enforced. They use sophisticated mechanisms of reputation, third-party guarantees and collateral to ensure enforcement.
lucky wrote:Everybody already decides their own preferences. I think that what you're really venting about is that you don't always have the means to implement your own preferences.
No lucky. Everybody today decides their own preferences
and imposes them on those who don't agree.
It is the latter part that Rothbardian argues against.
It is entirely conceivable that the vast majority of Americans, for example, do decide to voluntarily live under the rules of the Federal Government. Further, it is even possible that they will refuse to trade with anybody who hasn't chosen similarly to be subject to those rules.
If that was the case, anarchists living in the US would find it very difficult to cope, and most are likely to "opt-in" and choose to be subject to the very same rules.
Under that scenario, you would have a good point.
But this is not the way things work now, is it? People aren't given the choice to opt-out. Federal agents will break down your door and threaten to kill you if you refuse to obey their orders.
This is the world we live in.
Free men are not equal and equal men are not free.
Government is not the solution. Government is the problem.