There might be some enlightened Libertarians out there sure, but I haven't met one that I can recall.
Btw, I'm a Federalist. Zombie Washington/Hamilton in 2012!
http://faculty.msb.edu/hasnasj/GTWebSite/MythWeb.htm
Edit: And I apologize for the background of that link!
For the mots part, that article was tldr, but I skipped down to find his discussion of this free market law, it's...mediation! The only enforcing mechanism for mediation I know is the backing of law. Also, I, as a matter of principle, will attempt at all costs not to pre-sign anything that required binding arbitration requiring me to give up my right to seek redress in court. It is my understanding the entity that goes through these 'pay for courts' the most form relationships with the mediators/arbitrators and have a much higher chance of winning cases.
Also, the forced mediation is a remedy suggested by the courts themselves, so I don't really think that's the market version. Many companies already attempt to require binding arbitration, which is what empirically appears to be the preferred form of 'marketized law'. So far in the real world, it appears to be heavily weighted against the rights of individuals seeking redress against wealthy corporations. Also, it is always backed up by the force of law, not just good will.
That said, there are times when I might enter into binding arbitration, but not unless I have decided it's better for me than the courts, I don't care to have the companies I do business with deciding that for me.
The first half of the article addresses the fact that it is impossible for the law to be objective. This is an extremely interesting idea in my opinion so I would encourage onlookers to check it out even if you are solidly convinced that free market law could never work. It's a bit hard to summarize the article so don't accept qdog's TL;DR at face value without reading it yourself.
My TL;DR, quoting from the article's conclusion: "The fact is that there is no such thing as a government of law and not people. The law is an amalgam of contradictory rules and counter-rules expressed in inherently vague language that can yield a legitimate legal argument for any desired conclusion. For this reason, as long as the law remains a state monopoly, it will always reflect the political ideology of those invested with decisionmaking power. Like it or not, we are faced with only two choices. We can continue the ideological power struggle for control of the law in which the group that gains dominance is empowered to impose its will on the rest of society, or we can end the monopoly."
So, it is therefore superior to have an accepted monopoly on the ability to arbitrate property disputes (or in other words, "be corrupt")?
Governments basically insulate themselves from being able to be sued. Look at how often the WTO finds against the US and the US just thumbs their nose at the ruling because the US is the big dog.
Also see #8 here. I wonder how long it will take on people to hit all 10:
http://www.lewrockwell.com/long/long11.html
> For the mots part, that article was tldr, but I skipped down to find his discussion of this free market law, it's...mediation! The only enforcing mechanism for mediation I know is the backing of law.
I don't get into arguments about things like cricket because I know jack shit about it. You really need to learn about what our position is first. Some libertarians even will say things like "Well, you can just boycott them!" in situations where it would be acceptable to go further and use force.
All law rests upon the ability to punish primarily. We might prefer to avoid fueding (it's certainly cheaper) but libertarian law is not toothless.
I can't make sense of the rest of what you talked about. It seems like you are mistaking the present day situation where governments have certain laws in place for a free market situation.
1) The market fully defined by exchanges underwritten by currency (read: a fluid medium of exchange).
2) Value can be assigned to anything and is therefore finite in all circumstances.
But there is a singularity where it all breaks down:
The value of one's life is infinite. Without it, no other value matters. If I could give you $10 trillion but I kill you 60 seconds afterward, what value does it have?
One's life cannot be underwritten by currency because currency is finite. Therefore the market as defined as an exchange of value underwritten by currency is inadequate for any exchange where one's continued life is a factor.
That is demonstrably false. Everyone of us could, at a cost, reduce his chance of dying tomorrow.
Are you confusing libertarianism with anarchism?
From what I can tell, there is 'little-l' libertarian, in which someone seeks to keep government small to prevent abuse of freedoms and rights by said government, and 'big-L' Libertarian, in which someone thinks that corporations working via free market principles can solve all/most societal problems and government just gets in the way.
I don't really buy the second, though I have some respect for the first.
At least in the USA, the breakdown between "big L Libertarian" and "little l libertarian" is usually positioned as whether or not somebody is a member of the Libertarian Party and/or registered to vote as Libertarian, versus simply holding to generally libertarian principles.
The distinction you're talking about, if I understand you correctly, sounds more like the distinction between "minarchist libertarians" and "anarchist libertarians" (or "anarcho capitalists"). Minarchists support some (very small) government for functions where it seems to make sense to share the responsibility communally (commonly cited examples are national defense, law enforcement, highway construction, etc.) where the more radical libertarians want to banish essentially all "government" (at least as we know it today).
Not necessarily. When you get to the most radical edges of libertarianism, you find the anarcho-capitalist types who are (depending on who you ask) a type of anarchist. Libertarians who hold to a strict adherence to the "NIF Principle"[1] are opposed to most of what passes for law enforcement in contemporary society since it largely involves initiation of force and isn't for self-defense.
which a lot of libertarians subscribe to.
"ie: get rid of all law enforcment some magic is going to happen and criminals won't be criminals".
What we might contend is that the current system doesn't do much to stop criminal from being criminals and probably (actually, almost certainly) creates even more criminals, and has all sorts of unintended consequences in the process... We might also contend that modern day law enforcement is largely reactive and does very little to stop crimes from happening, and that individuals should take on some degree of personal responsibility in terms of protecting themselves and their property.
I suspect life would be a lot like the show Deadwood, not really my ideal life)
Yeah, few libertarians contend that a "libertarian world" would be a "libertarian utopia" (as our detractors like to suggest)... we just argue that it would be a great deal better than the current system in many ways, and perhaps worse in some ways... but that the gain in freedom more than makes up for whatever failings such a society would have.
