The Machinery Of Freedom: Illustrated summary

> Okay, let's say there's no governing body. Now, there's a dispute. How is it resolved? Fight to death? You've got an excellent question and I've got an excellent answer for you: ▶ this video It's a short video, but I highly recommend it to you (skip the first minute or so for a short historical intro). Please come back here and let me know if it answered your question. I also hope it doesn't just answer your question, but sets in your in a different mode for thinking, mode in which problems that seemed unsolvable can now be solved.

> There would be no courts for those who cannot afford to pay for them. That's one major difference. There would be no police, fire agencies, etc etc, I highy recommend you watch this video, it's an illustrated talk by David D. Friedman, explaining how police, courts and other things would exist and work in a world without government: ▶ this video All of those things are just services. And the poor would be able to afford them too, just like the poor can afford cars, shoes and computers. > So it is outright impossible for groups of people to gather to cause serious violent harm towards members of a minority, leading to loss of life with no potential legal recourse? Is this what you are saying? It's possible, but they'd be paying for violence out of their own pocket. How many people, do you suppose, would oppose gay marriage or, say, pot if they were presented with a bill for outlawing it? My guess most of them would prefer to keep the money and make their peace with it. But because the cost of outlawing certain things is paid by all the taxpayers, they essentially pay for what they believe is right out of everyone else's pockets.

Funnily enough, as an anarchist, I never heard before that removing the government (or hierarchical use of violence) would remove violence from the world. There are plenty of ideas on how to keep law and order in an anarchic society. I recommend you to read The Machinery of Freedom (by David Friedman) or check out a summary here: ▶ this video TLDR: One way to keep order is having private law enforcement / private insurance you voluntarily subscribe to. This can be provided by multiple companies competing on the market. These entities can agree between each other on how to settle disputes, use a third party private arbitration system or physically fight against each other. A war between law enforcement agencies would be expensive and hard to predict, so I think these businesses would pick peaceful resolution over war. How contracts are resolved by law enforcement agencies can become a selling point, letting consumers decide with their wallet what kind of laws they agree with. Charities can collect money, voluntarily provided by citizens, and pay the fee required to protect people without money.

I suggest you watch this short video then, which explains how laws, protection and private property can be created and enforced in a free market: ▶ this video

As another reply has suggested, David Friedman's Machinery of Freedom is an excellent book which describes how private defense, law and dispute resolution might happen. This video is a good introduction to the ideas presented in the book ▶ this video

This is similar to, although one step removed from, the anarcho-capitalist proposal in David Friedman's 1973 book The Machinery of Freedom [0]. In this proposed society, monopoly government is replaced completely by a market for everything that government currently does, including law production, law enforcement, arbitration (courts), roads and infrastructure, and even "national" defense. I'm admittedly a big fan of Friedman's proposal, and I wonder what supposed advantage this futarchy provides over Friedman's proposal. There's a decent 20 minutes illustrated summary video on YouTube [1]. [0] link [1] ▶ this video

> However, in my experience they seem to try to vastly simplify many issues by waving their hands and talking about the non-aggression principle as if that automatically solves everything. The truth is, while there may be laws which are unjust, unfair, or plain silly, most of them were created to meet a need or solve a problem. This is very true, but it doesn't represent the views of all libertarians or even all anarcho-capitalists. For a much better approach to anarcho-capitalism—one that focuses primarily on economics and not on morality—check out David Friedman's writings and talks. Here's a basic introduction to his proposal of a polycentric legal system where the market produces all goods and services including law, law enforcement, arbitration (courts), and even national defense: ▶ this video . Along with Murray Rothbard's primarily moral/ethical/legal arguments (which seem slightly more prominent, and seem to be the ones you've encountered), Friedman's economic arguments make up the main "branches of anarcho-capitalism."

No, we don't. A great talk and an illustration about how law and protection could work in a stateless society: ▶ this video by David D. Friedman (an economist AND a lawyer).

Not OP, but we already have examples showing where communism lead. No amount of brainwashing will convince everyone to give up their property and their labor for the common good; you'll always need a totalitarian regime to enforce socialism / communism (for some, if not all). You can even see it in our modern mixed society, everything is a voluntary transaction - minus paying taxes to the government for the "common good". A few people willing to signal their virtue will say they're happy to pay for taxes. But why not just use voluntary donations to charity? They have the added benefit of being auditable by third parties (unlike the government, which polices itself) and they have arguably less bureaucracy than a government, increasing the amount available to help whoever you're helping. From my side, I'd love to try a society based on the Machinery of Freedom: ▶ this video One can dream

Your ignorance doesn't make me a troll, and your citations for "working very well" are laughable. Check my comment history, I've been here almost four times longer than you, with over ten times more karma than you, and have had the same view of political authority for the entire time. Your unfamiliarity with the dangers of political authority and the idea held by many people for the past half century that it must be destroyed doesn't change any of that. In fact in light of it, I'm probably also significantly older and better read on the associated topics than you. ▶ this video Mark my words; unless political authority is destroyed there is no future that isn't a dystopia once this technology is widely available and employed. It's quite depressing to see this venue spiral into the lack of critical thinking necessary to not see the blazingly obvious, irreconcilable and irreparable problem of allocating these powers to an agency that also has the unlimited undischargeable right to coercion, but I guess that's just the way the world is failing these days.

>The US government is abolished, but the legal system is preserved? Not how it works. I said this was a thought experiment to sort of isolate this one issue. It's how we (praxeologists of law) might give suggestions to the polycentric legal system rising from a previously state-ruled region. You might not have this misunderstanding but many do. Anarchy simply means a lack of rulers. It doesn't necessarily entail chaos and it certainly doesn't mean a lack of law. Anarchist libertarianism or anarcho-capitalism is distinguished from early leftist-"anarchism" by two main characteristics. The former is radically and uncompromisingly for free markets and anti-state, with a focus on sound legal theory (a combination of a set of static legal grundnorms , viz. the praxeological aspect or a set of laws reasonably suited to all humans, with room for free variation among groups/cultures understanding that personal ideology will shape jurisprudence). The latter—leftist-"anarchists" as you'll probably see protesting the next Gx Summit or depicted on the TV—make varieties of socialist or communistic ideological proposals which results in a total lack of consistent legal theory. As an ideology, "an-cap" is relatively new and our body of attendant legal writings already dwarves theirs. Where leftist-"anarchism" has been tried, it's failed to maintain civil order and the "leaders" have been nigh-indistinguishable from other despots. >There would be a vacuum and a brutal rush to reappropriate r

While states dominate history, private law has proven successful. You could see the Law Merchant throughout Europe as one example or medieval Iceland, where civil order was maintained for longer than the US has existed so far, as another. link link Regarding your other concerns see points 8 & 6 here: link While I have some differences with this author, you could consider this video as well: ▶ this video