Unfortunately, force can never fully be taken out of the picture. It's the nature of a law: you must do this. If you do not do this, there will be consequences. Those consequences equal force.
Again, that's either going to be you at your party with your brute strength or your gun telling the drunkard to knock it off; or it's going to be a call to your local police. We are all a bunch of conflicting balls of will. Often (hopefully) we can talk and reason things out. But there are times when talking no longer works.
Or, you call security ...
Downvoting a post can decrease pending rewards and make it less visible. Common reasons:
Submit
Okay. But security is another form of force. I'm not sure what you're getting at.
Downvoting a post can decrease pending rewards and make it less visible. Common reasons:
Submit
Well, the point is that security can be private -- there are other solutions than the usual governmental ones.
Downvoting a post can decrease pending rewards and make it less visible. Common reasons:
Submit
Sure. But the other solutions still come down to competing force groups. There is no getting around force as the final arbiter.
The question then becomes: is it in society's benefit to split that force between competing groups? Or do we put that force into a government? Both choices come with certain costs. And clearly the value of each choice can be different depending on the circumstances (you probably don't want your force solely in the hands of Nazi Germany Or communist Soviet Union).
And by the way, this discussion seems to be restricted to clear-cut criminal actions - like theft or murder. But really, these are probably a minority of the cases. The thing is, even people with the best intentions can and will have conflicting perspectives and values. Many times these conflicts can be resolved through conversation; but many times they cannot. That's why we have civil courts, etc. While we may not think of small claims court as a place of violence and force, really, it is. Two people disagree. The court makes a decision. And the loser needs to pay up. Or else.
Downvoting a post can decrease pending rewards and make it less visible. Common reasons:
Submit
I accept your point about force. I have never said anything against it. I do of course think force should be used only in self-defense or in defense of the weak, but I do not believe there will ever be a world in which violence and aggression are absent. So let's agree to agree on this point, ok? ;)
Balance of power is always preferable to centralized power (which can be abused much more easily and more effectively, i.e. violently), in my view. Also, we believe in the Non-Aggression Principle (the NAP), which means we are much more inclined to have a constitutional republic based on Austrian principles and liberty than we are to accept communism or fascism.
Finally, I agree about your disputes, but I do not agree that government courts are the only or the best solution to such problems. I believe Scotland (or Ireland?) had a private arbitrator system that worked effectively for something like half a millennium. Basically, both parties in a dispute would agree on hiring one arbitrator (it was a business, with competition amongst them to keep prices down, and to ensure the two parties would try to find an arbitrator they both respected). At the end of the day, they had to both accept the arbitrator's decision.
Downvoting a post can decrease pending rewards and make it less visible. Common reasons:
Submit
I think we agree on a lot more than we disagree. :) Thanks for the thoughtful discussion!
Downvoting a post can decrease pending rewards and make it less visible. Common reasons:
Submit
Likewise. Keep in touch!
Downvoting a post can decrease pending rewards and make it less visible. Common reasons:
Submit