Re: Nozick's Minimalism

Michael Lorrey (
Tue, 15 Dec 1998 15:05:42 -0500

Samael wrote:

> -----Original Message-----
> From: John Clark <>
> To: <>
> Date: 15 December 1998 07:57
> Subject: Re: Nozick's Minimalism
> >Hash: SHA1
> >
> >Dan Fabulich <> 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
> there's
> > >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 not
> everyone
> >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
> >capital punishment.
> So all criminals would join PPA's that were anti capital punishment?

Only anti-capital punishment policies apply to the criminals which violate your policy. If they have a ACP policy on their insurance, but they kill you or your dependant, and you have a Capital Punishment policy, they get handed over to your PPA for adjudication. Now, the two PPAs may have a arbitration precedent in which instead of handing the scum over for just punishment, the scumbag can pay you $100,000 for each year he clipped off the life of you or your family member, then he can get off. If he can't pay the exchange fee, then he gets handed over for, shall we say, resolution.

Mike Lorrey