Anarchist Nomocracy

[Legit.fm]

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

That's the whole point of protectionism. Do not deal with others. Keep all the wealth in your own country. It's protecting the local industry from global competion.

 

That's the whole point of protectionism. Do not deal with others. Keep all the wealth in your own country. It's protecting the local industry from global competion.

You introduced protectionism into the discussion. It is still unclear to me how you arrived at the conclusion that a nomocratic territory would forbid free trade.

An anarchist nomocratic territory may, if unwise, forbid its members from trading outside the nomocracy; But there is no reason it must be so. Further, inability to contract with other "states" would not stop or prevent individuals belonging to said nomocracy from trading with individuals from other states.

Help me understand your position. If for example I am a fisherman living in a nomocracy, what is to stop me taking my catch to Hong Kong and selling it at the port there?

 

[Legit.fm]

You introduced protectionism into the discussion. It is still unclear to me how you arrived at the conclusion that a nomocratic territory would forbid free trade.

An anarchist nomocratic territory may, if unwise, forbid its members from trading outside the nomocracy; But there is no reason it must be so. Further, inability to contract with other "states" would not stop or prevent individuals belonging to said nomocracy from trading with individuals from other states.

Help me understand your position. If for example I am a fisherman living in a nomocracy, what is to stop me taking my catch to Hong Kong and selling it at the port there?

I totally agree with you here, but you questioned whether you 'had to negotiate' a few posts earlier.

Do you need negotiations with other "countries"?

I said that not trading with other countries is protectionism, agreed? If you follow me now we can continue.

 

I said that not trading with other countries is protectionism, agreed? If you follow me now we can continue.

Forbidding members from trading with other organizations would be protectionism, yes.

 

[Legit.fm]

I don't think it would be possible. India under democracy is going downhill because they can't pass a 1 child law whilst if it was under communism it would be going better. Do you agree? So you actually grant the people more freedom yet it's not going better at all.

 

I don't think it would be possible. India under democracy is going downhill because they can't pass a 1 child law whilst if it was under communism it would be going better. Do you agree? So you actually grant the people more freedom yet it's not going better at all.

Sorry but what does this have to do with the topic at hand...

A nomocracy is not a country, it is a replacement for a country in the same way science is a replacement for religion.

 

[Legit.fm]

But you do are talking about a country (just let me call it a country) ran by nothing but the law, right?

 

But you do are talking about a country (just let me call it a country) ran by nothing but the law, right?

You could crudely regard it as such yes. Although its closer to an association of free traders each having no country.

 

[Plznate]

leaving only the just law of the land, which anyone may practice and apply.

Can you expand slightly on the bolded concept?

 

Can you expand slightly on the bolded concept?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Common_law

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natural_law

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lex_mercatoria


Law here is treated in the philosophical sense; where law is the product of the science of politics, which is no more arbitrary than medicine or biology.

The law is both discovered from experience and deduced (reasoned) from first principles to be established into a codified system of laws, in the same way physics or any other science is.

 

[Weasel2013]

Do you need negotiations with other "countries"?

You do when they decide to start to trouble with you, when you're provoked talking should always be the first course of action when applicable.

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

It's 2010 my friend, there's no way you're going to get even the majority of the universe to believe in one thing that hasn't been around for years.

Saying "that hasn't been around for years" because i'm sure the majority holds believe like the brown stuff in the crust of the Earth is soil, not some alien substance, etc.

I believe in practice it would be difficult to achieve.

Agreed; above.

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

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

Courts would no longer be judiciary, as judiciary BRANCH refers to part of a government. If they stood alone they'd be no different than a government.

 

[Angelmax]

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

Either you have individuals applying the so-called Hobbesian 'natural law' (ie lynch mobs), or you have this network of private courts, indistinguishable from what we have today.

 

You do when they decide to start to trouble with you, when you're provoked talking should always be the first course of action when applicable.

There's literally nothing to start trouble with. The only thing you could start trouble with would be individual people.

It's 2010 my friend, there's no way you're going to get even the majority of the universe to believe in one thing that hasn't been around for years.

Saying "that hasn't been around for years" because i'm sure the majority holds believe like the brown stuff in the crust of the Earth is soil, not some alien substance, etc.

Now I don't even understand what you're saying. Are you claiming that either the common law or a constitution based on it are a new concept?

Courts would no longer be judiciary, as judiciary BRANCH refers to part of a government. If they stood alone they'd be no different than a government.

Well you're using your terms loosely. They haven't the power to make dictates, issue money, or tax. I would not call them a government.

Either you have individuals applying the so-called Hobbesian 'natural law' (ie lynch mobs), or you have this network of private courts, indistinguishable from what we have today.

Natural law is not a lynch mob. It is the backbone of all modern legal systems. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natural_law#In_contemporary_jurisprudence

And in what manner would a network of private courts be "indistinguishable from what we have today" -- which is a god damn mess of hundreds of thousands of pages of incomprehensible contradictory statues adjudicated on the basis of nothing upon people who never agreed by courts that years to resolve basic cases.

 

[Weasel2013]

Trouble with individual people can sometimes be most devastating..if anything it is a problem no less than if thousands of people had a quarrel with you.

A government is the organization, machinery, or agency through which a political unit exercises its authority, controls and administers public policy, and directs and controls the actions of its members or subjects.

Therefore please tell me how your theory of Anarchist Nomocracy will play a role so miniscule in excercising it's authority it doesn't deserve the label of government. It seems they'd be in power, and be higher in the hierarchy than the normal "fishermen" (as you've used before.)

If it's solving disputes, as that's what courts to, precedents would be set and eventually it would basically be public policy.

This may be personal opinion, but every government controls the actions of it's subjects...I believe your anarchist nomocracy would do just that, as although it is designed to have the smallest role possible in a persons' life, any amount of influence whatsoever will guide your day-to-day life.

 

Therefore please tell me how your theory of Anarchist Nomocracy will play a role so miniscule in excercising it's authority it doesn't deserve the label of government. It seems they'd be in power, and be higher in the hierarchy than the normal "fishermen" (as you've used before.)

Who are they?

There are no offices in an anrchist nomocracy, or if there are then the offices are voluntarily held and solely for the purpose of authoritatively interpreting the constitution.

If it's solving disputes, as that's what courts to, precedents would be set and eventually it would basically be public policy.

This may be personal opinion, but every government controls the actions of it's subjects...I believe your anarchist nomocracy would do just that, as although it is designed to have the smallest role possible in a persons' life, any amount of influence whatsoever will guide your day-to-day life.

You're casting a state model onto something which is not a state. Think of a professional chess club; it's a group of people who sign contracts with one another agreeing to follow some specific rules (namely, a constitution). The club may have an office of 'rulers interpreter', so that in the event of dispute over the club's rules there is someone to give a final interpretation.

It does not have a 'public policy'. I don't know where you pull this stuff from...

 

[uselesspoop]

Everyone needs a leader

 

Everyone needs a leader

That is complete spam but let me issue you this:

Who leads the leader?

 

[uselesspoop]

Sorry , i might not have fully understood the topic...

but why is it considered spam?? Weren't you guys talking about government ( leaders ) and such??

back to your question :

Probably , when mankind was first started, the more intelligent and charismatic ones would then gather the rest of the people, and give out tasks to them.

The leaders in the present day are probably 'led' by the previous long dead leaders.

 

Sorry , i might not have fully understood the topic...

but why is it considered spam?? Weren't you guys talking about government ( leaders ) and such??

It's spam because it's unsubstantiated opinion. Read the rules sticky.

 

[Weasel2013]

Who are they?

The court system, sorry for the ambiguity.

There are no offices in an anrchist nomocracy, or if there are then the offices are voluntarily held and solely for the purpose of authoritatively interpreting the constitution.

You're to tell me a member of the courts won't be more respected than the fisherman that makes annual trips to Hong Kong to sell his wares?

Bolded suggests them being in power over other people, thus creating a power hierarchy in which they'd be on top.

You're casting a state model onto something which is not a state.

Bolded; see below.

It does not have a 'public policy'. I don't know where you pull this stuff from...

Public policy can be generally defined as the course of action or inaction taken by governmental entities.

Precedents can be defined as an example that is used to justify similar occurrences at a later time.

Precedents are practically public policy.

Sorry , i might not have fully understood the topic...

but why is it considered spam?? Weren't you guys talking about government ( leaders ) and such??

back to your question :

Probably , when mankind was first started, the more intelligent and charismatic ones would then gather the rest of the people, and give out tasks to them.

The leaders in the present day are probably 'led' by the previous long dead leaders.

Comment on the bolded please. I believe it justifies a look into how the more charismatic and intelligent "fishermen" would also rise above the less intelligent ones, thus further complicating the power hierarchy.