10 Apr 2014

Tom Woods and I Talk Private Law

private law, Shameless Self-Promotion, Tom Woods 10 Comments

We didn’t cover everything in this episode, but enough. If you want some quick reads, I recommend (in this order) the following things that I have written:

==> “The Possibility of Private Law”

==> “But Wouldn’t Warlords Take Over?”

==> Chaos Theory: Two Essays on Market Anarchy

10 Responses to “Tom Woods and I Talk Private Law”

  1. Major_Freedom says:

    The world is pseudo-anarchistic. No world monopoly, but smaller, limited geographical monopolies.

    Of course, many “international” laws, but they are not enforced by a world government either.

    “The absence of a State is a necessary, but not sufficient, condition to achieve the free society.”





  2. joe says:

    Wouldn’t warlords take over? No because if they do then it is not a free market and we are assuming a free market.

    Another merry go-round argument.

    If the little people could keep the planet clean with civil suits, there would be no polluted rivers.

    • guest says:

      If the little people would focus on their own health and safety, the pursuit of the regulation of emissions wouldn’t drain them of the funds necessary to pursue the specific polluter of their specific private property.

      Not only could they afford to buy equipment that cleaned their own water, but that equipment would be cheaper since regulations wouldn’t prevent production from emitting on NON-private-property.

      Defending the Undefendable (Chapter 26: The Stripminer) by Walter Block

      • scineram says:

        Yes, in the trufry market we all could easily afford hazardous material suits when going to the beaches.

        • guest says:

          Why would you need to wear hazardous material suits when the price of entry to those private beaches (or water parks) would pay for maintenance?

          If you want to play in a dirty commons, that’s your problem:

          Stossel – ‘The Tragedy Of The Commons’ 12/5/10 1 of 4

    • Bob Roddis says:

      Please explain how vastly strengthening and expanding the prohibitions upon criminal violence will lead to more criminal violence.

  3. Bob Roddis says:

    I don’t know if it is our fault or the fault of the listeners but AnCap is a proposal to vastly expand and strengthen the existing self ownership rights in bodies and things. It vastly strengthens and expands the prohibitions upon criminal violence whether by “private” persons and/or state actors. It has never been clear to me how that is interpreted as leading to anomie, crime or societal breakdown. Apparently, statists think of “the state” as some sort of physical edifice. In fact, it is nothing but a set of artificial rules and customs that allow arbitrarily chosen people to initiate violence against others in a manner that would otherwise be a crime if not conducted by state actors.

    I have a feeling that “Joe” did not listen to the interview. I have a feeling that “Joe” does not run our actual proposals through his mind.

  4. John says:

    Is the theory that Bob is describing of private law meant to be taken literally? In other words, is it an argument that a legal system without an enforcement mechanism other than the free market or community opinion is viable in reality, or that it would be superior if it were really viable in reality? On a related note, one of the things you can’t help but notice when you work in the current American legal system is the enormous power of corporations to use and affect the legal system. Do multi-national corporations of huge wealth exist in the anarcho-capitalist state? (I realize this may seem like an unpardonably naive question, but I just don’t know and couldn’t tell from quickly scanning the web.)

    • Bob Murphy says:

      In other words, is it an argument that a legal system without an enforcement mechanism other than the free market or community opinion is viable in reality,

      Yes I think government monopolies are just as bad when it comes to police and courts as most people would agree they are bad with food and computers.

      Did you read the articles though? I think you aren’t understanding what the actual vision is.

      • John says:

        I did read them. As someone who has worked in our legal system for a long time, including fairly large matters, the vision described in these articles seems entirely unworkable, and describes a world of human behavior that I don’t recognize at all. BUT I don’t know if in another sort of society, where literally everything is different from the way we live, where disputes remain small, where there is no concentrated wealth or corporate power, where all people share the same ethical and moral values and culture, such a system of private law might conceivably be possible, or even preferable. And maybe that other world would be a better world, although I think one very well might need a powerful enforcement mechanism to keep it that way (and I sure don’t mean the free market, which would I think pretty quickly concentrate wealth and power in a few talented people.). That’s what I was struggling with. Because I come from what might be called the conventional business world, most of the ideas about a free market and government that people on this site express seem pretty, well, unrealistic to me. But I try to remind myself that the conventional way of looking at things isn’t the only way of looking at things. But I do wonder if you believe that this system of private law could operate in the United States, or any modern western nation, as they exist today?

Leave a Reply