Do you have a social contract of buying coke and only using state transport? People need to get over this stigma of personal defense being any different from other services
What the crap? Dude, this isn't about "personal defense", this is about the instrument of war. This
is different from other services. PDAs will *not* simply be used for defense. This is because it is a more efficient method to enforce your will over others than money. You cannot threaten to kill someone through money. You can earn money through intimidation, and it's been pretty a successful method for the past 6000 years.
Laws work on retribution in any state just as well. Nothing prevents you from killing people, nothing prevents Russia from launching all its 5000 nukes at other countries, except the fear of negative consequences. The same principles can work at a smaller scale, if people are educated enough to support such ideas.
...there's other things that prevent me from killing people other than the fear of negative consequences, such as the fact that murder is immoral, but whatever. You're not going to get people in a stateless society to be educated as they will be worrying more about other things than education, such as survival.
Is every country in a constant state of war against each other simply because there is no central power that controls countries? No. When countries know that hostility leads to wrecked reputation and retaliations, they dont do it. Russia ignored that principle and lost tons of investors after Georgian war.
Absolutely every country is in a constant state of war against each other. The international system is entirely anarchic - there are no set of laws that binds nations together. This is true even despite the existence of international agreements, but those are
voluntary agreements.
How does the presence free riders hurt the PDA-s more than a state?
Because PDAs presumably wouldn't enforce taxation, and PDAs would be offering protection to others merely than those who protect If you're in some community which is being protected by a PDA but don't have the PDA defending you, if the PDA defends against some bandit raid against the community, you are a free rider.
after all, isnt the state a collection of relative free riders by itself(due to low efficiency of any work done by a state) and doesnt tax evasion(relatively easy thanks to inefficient goverment regulation) create the ultimate oppurtunity for enjoying services without doing jack for it. It seems to me like free-riderism is in correlation with the level of socialism.
No. The state exists to eliminate free riders. The state is the of the primary
means to eliminae free riders. The state eliminates free riders through taxation. The level of tax evasion is irrelevant when you're comparing to a system
in which there's no taxes.
PDA-s can impose their own codes of laws which people that choose to use their services also choose to obey.
You said "private court systems." So the PDAs own the law system now?
How is this society any different than a collection of chaotic microstates again? Doesn't sound very anarchist too me.
Negotiations between PDA-s representing different world views and the use of private courts(in whose interest it is to not to make the highest bidder win due to it ruining their reputation and possibility to earn profit) ease differences between the companies.
Again, why the hell won't a PDA simply try to influence private courts? Nothing is stopping corruption here, especially when the primary motivation is money, and it's pretty easy to gain a profit if you're being bribed. Or being intimidated through force.
at least provide some arguments other than ad.hominem to prove your point, otherwise we have no reason to take you seriously
You're
not being taken seriously, as it is quite obvious to
anyone that this system will not work, therefore you are being ridiculed.
Coercive force isnt necessary for authority to exist. People choose the private courts they trust and authorize them to have power by doing that. PDA-s have authority in that, they have the power to use the money from their clients to protect their interests.
First of all, people arn't going to be able to obtain as much money as in a system with full enforcement of property rights. Second of all, the reason why we have authority is precisely because it is eventually enforced through coercion. Your CEO may be your authority, and your contracts voluntary etc, but the existence of the CEO's authority is created by the state, which allows the formation of a corporation and enforcement of corporate law. You must do what your boss told you because in the long run if you do something illegal, such as stay at your job when you're fired, you will run afoul of the law.
Your system has absolutely no method to combat corruption outside of mere trust, and that does not work without the existence of a state to enforce the law. There is no rule of law as PDAs do not have any incentive whatsoever to weaken themselves by having the law apply to themselves. States, on the other hand, do have an incentive to reduce corruption, assuming that the states are not merely the possessions by the government - which PDAs will eventually do, anyway.
ANd dont bring the argument of PDA-s not being able to be formed, because of social contract and state immediately forming in anarchy, because a revolutionary change to an-cap is certainly not what im advocating, rather a steady evolutionary path to first a minarchist state, to then gradually eliminating public courts and allowing pda-s to form and create a mature market before complete freedom established
Read Jennifer Government.
in many cases people dont need enforcement, they just need someone neutral to decide over their dispute, and if a judge has a good rep, both of the people agree on him, then thats enough, no need to involve PDA-s in it except its criminal stuff.
Sure they need enforcement. There's plenty of failures of arbitration which is pointless if it's not enforced - see the UN. However, courts do much more than merely arbitration, they enforce sentences as well, such as compensation for crimes. There is no way in hell that a person who is told to give an item he stole back to the original owner will do it if there is no enforcement of the law.
Read up on your Leviathan, man. Along with the concept of the state of nature, in that very paragraph Thomas Hobbes invented the concept of the war of all against all - the most fundamental criticism of your anarchic society.
