I’d say you haven’t much regard for good ideas whether or not they are codified as law.

Fortunately, there are lots of people with sticks and guns to keep you from enforcing your “law of no laws” on the rest of us.

But the question is – in a free market, would choose legal provider A, which has as a rule that a parent has a legal obligation to support their child until maturity or transfer of custody; or B, which rules that parents can safely neglect their children with no legal repercussions?

Exactly. The only people who would choose B are the ones who already ascribe to that philosophy.

But under a non-free market in governance, such a “moral majority” gets to impose its opinions on others by force of law. It is the very nature of pre-emptive law enforcement, especially in a “democracy”, that the minority views get squashed. By law.

I lean very much to the an-archist side of this libertarian thing. I don’t even want laws I think are a good idea.

But the question is – in a free market, would choose legal provider A, which has as a rule that a parent has a legal obligation to support their child until maturity or transfer of custody; or B, which rules that parents can safely neglect their children with no legal repercussions?

You won’t be imposing a legal obligation on someone else by going with A – it will only be voluntary by those who subscribe to it. But it seems to me to be a moral failure to subscribe to B when you believe that there is a moral obligation. And I’m not very religious, so I would assume that there are people who will be even more strongly inclined to have this duty codified into law.

Dear God, no. I’m merely making the argument that there will be default rules governing certain aspects of behavior, and that in many, if not all instances, these rules will be arbitrary. As people keep pointing out, the classic hypo is infidelity between Garcia’s Commune and the New Faith Covenant agencies. There is no objectively right answer which one is right, and I don’t have the Randian faith that some do that all people will come to have the same values and beliefs, and therefore uniform legal systems, if only the state were removed. So there will still be disputes, and in these disputes, one of the people ostensibly won’t get the result they contracted for.

Further, a truism about contracts is that even the best drafter can’t foresee all possible issues, and even more true that even if you can, you don’t always have the time or inclination to spell them all out in an explicit contract. People will agree to certain default rules that govern “handshake” deals, just as a matter decreasing transaction costs. However, as noted above, the default rules may themselves be different, which will lead to a conflict.

My personal feeling is that people won’t get too involved with all the intimate details of their legal provider – they’re going to make decisions based upon a few salient points seen in the context of an overarching philosophy followed by the provider. So some will prefer the Hoppe Agency, while some will prefer the libertine agency, and still others will prefer, as one example, sharia law agency. The agencies will have pressures to make their packages uniform to a great extent, for marketing and branding purposes.

So I don’t see all this legal negotiation on every aspect of daily life – people don’t work like that, in my experience. The opportunity costs will be too high.

many people believe, like Curt, that there is an obligation on the part of parents to take care of their children, at least until they have successfully transferred custody to another person.

Ah! I said I believe there to be a moral obligation, in part because I accept such an obligation myself for my own offspring. I object to there being enshrined any kind of *legal* obligation.

I also agree with Vince that there would be a serious shaking out period if government were to bow-out. Not violent, or at least no more violent than the combination of criminals with and without badges that we have now, just the final recognition that people who cannot take care of themselves (or find someone to voluntarily do so) will get into trouble.

Even though this same argument, “falling through the cracks”, is used to justify the entire welfare state, the number who actually do will be quite small as all that mental energy spent figuring out how to milk the system is directed instead to creating wealth.

“There will be default rules of who is liable for what outcome, just like the common law evolved governing contracts, because even the most diligent person can’t foresee every possible future occurrence and explicitly contract for it.”

But it seems like you are implying a need for someone to enforce such rules, outside of a spontaneous order or voluntary protection agency.

The value of a private contract in a voluntary society is that the final arbiter of all disputes will be specified, that there will be no appeals to authority, and that this will be self-policing since remedies will be restricted to those specified, and remedies that impinge upon self-ownership not enforceable.

Will this mean some retrenchment or cooling of, say, the extension of unsecured credit to individuals? Sure – but wouldn’t that be a “good” outcome?

“It’s obvious that those of use who have been participating in this thread disagree considerably among ourselves, even to the point of hostility…. What are the implications of this for the broader society at large or a future libertarian nation or civilization?

Great question.

“Let’s say Paul, Curt, Person, Quasibill, Kevin, myself and others here are appointed to the Supreme Council of the Anarchist Peoples’ Common Law Court for the sake of revising property and contract law.”

Let me reformulate a bit because, at least at the outset, there is going to be no appointing to a supreme council, but rather completely voluntary offerings of such services. I presume the reason we have chosen anarchy here is to avoid state-like institutions.

So in this case, let’s say we each go into the business of offering court and protection services in conjunction with insurance. I would offer libertarian A-C court services that acknowledged the basic libertarian norms: self-ownership, homesteading, private property and contracts which implicitly included rental, lending and employment contracts. This would be the plain Jane non-aggression kind of court. Someone else might offer a mutualist variation that excluded the ability to enter into land rental agreements. Someone else might offer similar services but stipulate that they do not acknowledge lending and borrowing contracts. Another could offer courts that stipulate that employer/employee contracts are not enforced. Still others would stipulate that it is ok to employ people as long as one doesn’t earn a profit in the process which is a crime.

My thinking is this: only the first, the A-C courts would be popular to court and protection consumers, and so only it would prosper and by economic law, in the long run, would become what is supplied also by my competition. The others would either find small niche markets, or just die.

Capitalists and employees, lenders and borrowers, landlords and renters would like the A-C services, and they would be dubious of the odd and unnatural seeming restrictions offered by the competition. On the other hand, mutualists could be very happy also with the A-C services as they could quite legitimately enter into mutualist or communal covenants which would be enforced with enthusiasm by the A-C courts because this court recognizes contract, while never ignoring private property as the foundation of these agreements. The market would decide, and the state never rears its ugly head.

“There would be just as many divisions as there would be on any statist court like (like the USSC). Probably more.”

I think, because of human nature, the market would settle on a particular norm, the libertarian ethic; the one that strikes the most people as inherently just.

“The above exchanges between Curt and Paul over child support law is interesting. This is yet another area where libertarians, even the most hard-core libertarians, disagree. Would there not be a need for maintaining a means of reconciling these differences in a libertarian meta-system? And what about “irreconcilable differences”? It seems to me the only possible solutions are either decentralism, separatism and mutual self-segregation or pluralism and polycentrism.”

Let’s say my court said that having a child implied the obligation to care for the child until an alternate guardian could be found. And although this view was popular, there was a competing popular court that said the child had no right to expect to survive if the parent chose to neglect the child. Then, there would be required a final arbitration from a third court to make the final call that was on the arbitration list of both courts. In these sticky cases, it could go either way.

“What about disagreements between contending libertarian courts over an issue like child support? Would not a third court need to be called in as an arbiter? If so, how is this different from the way conflicts between contending parties are played out in a more conventional legistlative or judicial process?”

It’s different because it is voluntary. Everyone involved is in agreement in advance of the process and the arbitrator’s decision.

“And does this not blur the distinction between “anarchist” and “minarchist” versions of libertarianism a bit?”

Anarchists are very keen on law and order, courts, enforcement, restitution. It’s just that all this can and should be provided without a state via a free market. They are against coercive monopolies of any sort.

Again I agree, but I think you’re missing how thinks play out in reality. Even in a Rothbardian AnCap insurance provider scenario, people are going to buy “package deals” of laws, and that create default rules governing certain situations. Child support would likely be one – many people believe, like Curt, that there is an obligation on the part of parents to take care of their children, at least until they have successfully transferred custody to another person. The true outlier, who doesn’t belong to any insurance scheme will be immune to such rules, of course, but I would posit that large parts of most communities will agree to certain basic default rules, based upon their values.

I’m not arguing about creating state incentives (or even a state!) – but to think that 16-26 year olds are going to keep their pants on, and/or have pre-nups with them when out clubbing, is being a little naive to me. There will be default rules of who is liable for what outcome, just like the common law evolved governing contracts, because even the most diligent person can’t foresee every possible future occurrence and explicitly contract for it.

“Not every decision is made with consequences fully in mind. I think this arena is especially subject to irrational and spur of the moment decisions, especially among the young. You have to have some default rules in place where the parties don’t have an explicit contract dealing with every conceivable issue.”

You are perhaps forgetting the term “moral hazard”. The current dual / monopolistic system of state marriage and state welfare, being the default system, supports the type of irresponsible behavior you posit.

And if you are not one of the people who quickly “get the picture” in a privatized system, you will have to deal with the consequences, including being lawyered into the poorhouse.

That does NOT create a financial / government obligation on the part of the rest of the public, nor a claim on their income, both features of the current system. The stubborn few who will not get the picture no matter what will be amply served by private charity.

But more to the point, why should I even have to make the utilitarian case? Austrian economics, though profoundly utilitarian, is supposed to be value-free.

We who believe Mises and Rothbard were onto something also largely believe the moral nature of anarchocapitalism is sufficient, and do not need a utility justification for it.Which is why I think the overemphasis of some on the “dilemma” of unwanted children is a largely misplaced concern.

I think Rothbard MEANT to say (or should have – it would have been perfectly consistent) not that there would (or should) be a large class of abused, exploited children; he failed, also, to point out that the CURRENT system has resulted in exactly that, and that an Austrian or an anarcho-capitalist order would reduce or largely eliminate that. Children would have increased social value under an anarchist or voluntary order. Trying to achieve this by some kind of force is like pushing a rope, in Eisenhower’s phrase.

Cue smoky bar scene. After his 5th drink, and perhaps some “green”, Stud Muffin approaches Kitten and buys her a drink. After the couple hit it off (meanwhile imbibing quite a bit more), Stud asks Kitten if she’d like to go somewhere more private, to which Kitten responds by tapping the well dressed man next to her at the bar, conspicuously drinking only diet sodas “Larry, I need you to knock out a pre-nup agreement with Stud’s lawyer in the next 30 minutes before we leave the bar…”

Not every decision is made with consequences fully in mind. I think this arena is especially subject to irrational and spur of the moment decisions, especially among the young. You have to have some default rules in place where the parties don’t have an explicit contract dealing with every conceivable issue. These default rules are the kinds of things Keith is talking about having to have mediated between “FemPower, Inc.” and “Libertine Associates”.

“What about disagreements between contending libertarian courts over an issue like child support? Would not a third court need to be called in as an arbiter?”

Since marriage would be privatized in a full anarchist society, the disposition of custody would be a matter for inclusion into the marriage contract. Those who did not marry but had children anyway would find themselves in the quandary you propose above, but so what? Very quickly people would figure out that a good marriage contract would be an easier and cheaper way to guarantee parental rights, AND support the welfare of children – certainly far superior to the tripartite, terms-undefined state marriage contract / social welfare system we have now.

It’s obvious that those of use who have been participating in this thread disagree considerably among ourselves, even to the point of hostility. That’s in spite of the fact that all of us probably think of ourselves as “anarchists” or “libertarians” of some denomination. And it’s also in spite of the fact that at least some of us have spent years studying anarchist and libertarian political philosophy and theory. So the question is: What are the implications of this for the broader society at large or a future libertarian nation or civilization?

Let’s say Paul, Curt, Person, Quasibill, Kevin, myself and others here are appointed to the Supreme Council of the Anarchist Peoples’ Common Law Court for the sake of revising property and contract law. There would be just as many divisions as there would be on any statist court like (like the USSC). Probably more.

The above exchanges between Curt and Paul over child support law is interesting. This is yet another area where libertarians, even the most hard-core libertarians, disagree. Would there not be a need for maintaining a means of reconciling these differences in a libertarian meta-system? And what about “irreconcilable differences”? It seems to me the only possible solutions are either decentralism, separatism and mutual self-segregation or pluralism and polycentrism. What about disagreements between contending libertarian courts over an issue like child support? Would not a third court need to be called in as an arbiter? If so, how is this different from the way conflicts between contending parties are played out in a more conventional legistlative or judicial process? And does this not blur the distinction between “anarchist” and “minarchist” versions of libertarianism a bit?

Just some thoughts.

While I also consider these things wrong, I don’t think prior restraint is a good thing.

And if that again sounds like something completely unrelated, I will gladly blame the hour and the lack of sleep, and bid the discussion a good night.

Slow down a bit, you’re leaving me behind. Let me catch up.

“What I do not like is forcing my feelings on others. Just because I feel that way, does it mean I can impose my feelings on third parties, that they must live as I live?”

I think we’re not connecting. We don’t consider disallowing murder and theft to be forcing our feelings on third parties do we? What we, as peace-loving people do rather, is through logical argumentation, and proposition making attempt to come up with justifiable norms that allow peaceful cooperation and avoidance of conflict, etc etc, in a world of scarce and valuable resources. Upon enough debate, we do come up with the libertarian non-aggression axiom, and a set of rules consistent with and implied by this axiom.

From this line of thinking, we come up with, for instance that theft, murder, aggression, coercion, torture etc are all unjustified and are ruled out of court. The question we are discussing is how, if at all, does caring for a child fit into all of this. What I’m saying is, by my analysis, I think I am showing that just as theft is unjustified, so is allowing ones child to die of neglect also unjustified. I am not saying it is just immoral like an extramarital affair might be viewed and should therefore be considered illegal. I’m saying from a libertarian perspective, child neglect causing death or torture is unjustified. And I think I can come to this conclusion with help from the insight that Kinsella provided.

“No matter how ethically clear it may seem, I try very hard not to set any limits in stone lest they be used against me in the future (such as search and seasure, with a court order, so the government sets up a special secret court that almost never turns them down).”

So all I’m saying is we agree theft is unjustified and don’t mind saying so, it appears also that, so is child neglect similarly unjustified.

“One of the reasons that I prefer civil to criminal courts is because every case is considered separately.”

On this question I’m pretty ignorant.

What I do not like is forcing my feelings on others. Just because I feel that way, does it mean I can impose my feelings on third parties, that they must live as I live?

No matter how ethically clear it may seem, I try very hard not to set any limits in stone lest they be used against me in the future (such as search and seasure, with a court order, so the government sets up a special secret court that almost never turns them down).

One of the reasons that I prefer civil to criminal courts is because every case is considered separately.