What makes law "legitimate?" - A question from an anarchist - posed to the minarchistSubmitted by Enjoying The De... on Fri, 06/13/2014 - 14:27
So the "anarchist vs minarchist" debate is on pretty strong here at the DP. I like it, let's keep that topic open. Jan, Marc, and BILL3 have been doing well at keeping this topic alive at the DP.
So one thing that minarchists claim to be SO NECESSARY that a government or state court system supposedly has, is the "power to pass and enforce legitimate laws."
So minarchists basically say that "state courts are necessary in order to enforce laws, and the authority of the court is the highest possible authority. Without these state courts, under anarchy or voluntarism, there would be no "way of addressing criminals and criminal activites efficiently or correctly."
And then the minarchists go on to pose questions like "What makes the NAP valid at all?" "Why should the NAP be binding on others?" and "Why should property rights be binding on others?" In a non-statist world?
So minarchists are basically saying "The NAP (property rights) is not necessarily valid or binding. That is why we need a valid and binding court system."
But here is where I see a major problem for statists and minarchists. We do have states right now. We do have courts right now. We do have a "limited govermnent" that is supposedly "bound in its limits" outlined in "the constitution."
So here is my question to you minarchists. You want a constitution; you have one. You want a "limited government," you have one, the constitution supposedly guarantees this.
But WHAT IS BINDING about laws passed by the state and limits found in the constitution????
Because it seems that we have these laws and these courts. But WHEN THE GOVERNMENT breaks the limits, breaks the law, doesn't follow the constitution... WHAT IS THE RESULT? Are corrupt politicians and judges tried? Don't we see the government and its employees, agents, departments and agencies BREAKING THE SACRED LAWS left and right without recourse?
So to turn this line of questioning "What makes it valid?" (In reference to the NAP or property rights.) Let me turn this line of questioning around and ask you the same about the "sacred court system" that you statists insist is necessary to HAVE JUSTICE.
In other words, "Is your sacred court REALLY SO SACRED?"