John Clark wrote:
>-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
>Dan Fabulich <email@example.com> Wrote:
> >but doesn't the concept of a PPF sort of undermine the whole point of
> >anarcho-capitalism? I mean, this is my real problem/question. If
> >only one PPF making the laws, how can we expect the laws to be formed
> >fairly under legal market principles?
>The difference is that no one organization would be making the laws and
>would be living under the same law, you get what you pay for, you get what
you think is
>really important. Example: My PPA strongly embraces capital punishment,
your PPA is anti
>capital punishment but only moderately so. Everybody can't get exactly
what they want and this
>issue is more important to me than to you, so if you kill me your fate
will be determined by a
>arbiter known to be in favor of the death penalty. On the other hand if
you had paid to join a PPA
>that was fanatically anti capital punishment then the arbiter would be
someone who opposes
I've seen that example. But isn't a *PPF* an organization? Draw a circle around my PPA and your PPA and the arbitration agency that they chose. That's the PPF. What if someone wants laws that the PPF doesn't want? At that point, they have only two choices: join the PPF (through arbitration) or fight the PPF.
In short, it seems like the PPF is a government with a unique mechanism of legislature. Minmalist, in fact, as Nozick advocates. And, most importantly, not anarcho-capitalist any more.
-GIVE ME IMMORTALITY OR GIVE ME DEATH-