Anarchist Nomocracy

Anarchist - without rulers, Nomocracy - governed by law.

The concept is to remove parliament, statutes, democracy, elections and figureheads, leaving only the just law of the land, which anyone may practice and apply.

It's a radically different approach to organizing society; I think it can work, but to explore the idea I want to open the floor up to discussion.

So post your arguments against and we will see...

 

[Voda]

You mean No Goverment, Just a free for all around Laws?

If thats what you mean, Then I think its a bad Idea tbh, Although I dont agree with 90% of the things done by goverment we still need them for alot of things war being the main thing.

 

You mean No Goverment, Just a free for all around Laws?

If thats what you mean, Then I think its a bad Idea tbh, Although I dont agree with 90% of the things done by goverment we still need them for alot of things war being the main thing.

You need war?

 

[Voda]

You need war?

No thats why you need goverment, it would be hard to do Negotiations with other countrys Ect with out some one in control.

 

No thats why you need goverment, it would be hard to do Negotiations with other countrys Ect with out some one in control.

Do you need negotiations with other "countries"?

 

[Emperor Nero]

Well, lets consider:

If you removed all the figureheads from office you have no corruption and you have no human tendencies. (Greed, lust, etc.) Without Government wouldn't it be difficult for a large country, such as the U.S. or China to make and amend public policy and law, because you lack the support system. Unless you want to break these countries down into small city/states or something, but then you must contend with things such as civil wars and interstate wars.

 

[Voda]

Do you need negotiations with other "countries"?

Yes definitely would you rather try and talk about the war with other countries goverment or let 9/11 terrorist attacks happen freely?

 

Well, lets consider:

If you removed all the figureheads from office you have no corruption and you have no human tendencies. (Greed, lust, etc.) Without Government wouldn't it be difficult for a large country, such as the U.S. or China to make and amend public policy and law, because you lack the support system. Unless you want to break these countries down into small city/states or something, but then you must contend with things such as civil wars and interstate wars.

I don't understand where the notion of state is coming from here.

It's a law of the land, like the common law. It is general and universal.

 

[Emperor Nero]

I don't understand where the notion of state is coming from here.

It's a law of the land, like the common law. It is general and universal.

Wait, I misunderstood; I see where you are coming from. This seems reasonable but I believe in practice it would be difficult to achieve.

 

I believe in practice it would be difficult to achieve.

Ok, but this is what I am trying to work out. Which parts would be difficult?

 

[Schnell]

Who would enforce the law?

 

Who would enforce the law?

I imagine a network of private courts would. That is assuming victims of crime wanted justice against their attackers.

 

[Voda]

I imagine a network of private courts would. That is assuming victims of crime wanted justice against their attackers.

So they wouldnt be apart of any goverment? Who would pay them? Who would pay Teachers, Police, Doctors Ect Ect.

With out Goverment who is going to control Tax?

 

[Schnell]

I imagine a network of private courts would. That is assuming victims of crime wanted justice against their attackers.

I have my doubts this would work. It would have to be highly organized to be affordable for everyone, as well as the courts being consistent on which punishment fits which crime. There is also always the threat of corruption within the courts, which would be easier if there was no higher organ to control them. It sounds good on paper, but I don't think we can get equal rights for all without government control of the court system.

 

I have my doubts this would work. It would have to be highly organized to be affordable for everyone, as well as the courts being consistent on which punishment fits which crime.

I don't think I need to prove to you that market forces make things affordable in a way nothing else does. Look at the price of computers if you doubt this.

As to whether or not they make consistent rulings, history suggests that they will. And with a territorial constitution or nexus of contracts based on some commonly agreed upon legal axioms the consistency of the law should be ensured.

There is also always the threat of corruption within the courts, which would be easier if there was no higher organ to control them.

Malpractice is simply another crime to be punished like any other.

It sounds good on paper, but I don't think we can get equal rights for all without government control of the court system.

It's funny you should say that. Because the judiciary is not controlled by the government in any modern state. It is independent.

 

[Legit.fm]

Do you need negotiations with other "countries"?

Of course we do. The past has shown us that protectionism does not work at all.

 

[Schnell]

It's funny you should say that. Because the judiciary is not controlled by the government in any modern state. It is independent.

I don't mean direct control, rather supervision and ability to interfere if there is malpractice in the courts. Maybe I should have worded that better.

 

Of course we do. The past has shown us that protectionism does not work at all.

Protectionism? Where what or how did you come up with that?

 

[Legit.fm]

Do you need negotiations with other "countries"?

^
You're talking about not negotiating with other countries = no trading with other countries = protectionism.

 

^
You're talking about not negotiating with other countries = no trading with other countries = protectionism.

I don't see why individuals living under such a system can't trade with individuals living under other systems? What would stop them?