Ep. 272 More on Voluntary Law, and Comments on the Open Borders Controversy
Bob elaborates on law enforcement in a voluntary society, and then offers commentary on Dave Smith’s Twitter feuds regarding Open Borders.
Mentioned in the Episode and Other Links of Interest:
- Bob’s previous discussion of voluntary law.
- Help support the Bob Murphy Show.
The audio production for this episode was provided by Podsworth Media.
About the author, Robert
Christian and economist, Chief Economist at infineo, and Senior Fellow with the Mises Institute.
People would likely specify who would resolve any conflicts in the actual contracts, wouldn’t they? So you wouldn’t go looking for someone afterwards–you would both already know exactly what would happen if there was a conflict. Then if the person refused to show up to the arbitrator they had agreed to use, the judge could issue a judgment and the person’s bank would transfer the funds.
It might be the case that a specified arbitrator would come to be viewed as a necessary part of a valid contract. Anything else is just a handshake between friends without an enforcement mechanism.
And then “the law” would emerge organically from the contracts people enter with various organizations, where they would consent to follow various rules in exchange for certain benefits (namely being able to sue other people who are subscribed to the same system, or who their system has an agreement with).
Why on earth would you use a bank in such a world, especially when they can just steal your money because a judge ordered it?
readers of bob murphy are encouraged to study
https://christogenea.org
it is scientific christianity
it is correct
Regarding immigration under statism:
Wouldn’t it still be the case that any private business could invite anyone to work for them, or rent or sell property?
If so, wouldn’t the practical result be “open borders” since there is never a shortage of renters/employers/employees in most geographical areas.