A Response to Epistemological Anarchy

First, I apologize for not staying current. Life is too busy. This will likely turn into just a mere collection of my thoughts as I need to write them down.

Second, this is a response to Epistemological Anarchy. I must commend Don for writing this almost three years ago. It offered quite an intellectual challenge despite the fact I found it at 3am. Regardless, my response follows.

Government agencies, while wanting to increase their power, also have incentive to increase their collective power. They rely upon each other to enlarge each other. For example, a government court seeks to create unnecessary retaliation, through arbitrary laws, which enlarges government police. Enlarged government police find and bring more cases to government courts, which enlarges government courts.

Of course, they can't be reckless in this task. They must punish minority offenders so that the majority doesn't feel attacked by their government and object. However, everyone is a minority in some issue. And people only look at this based on one issue at a time. A nonsmoker majority may support arbitrary laws against a smoker minority with claims they have been transgressed against, but one of those smoker minority members may be part of the anti-gun majority while one of the nonsmoker majority members may be part of the pro-gun minority. So their roles are reversed. With several issues like this, everyone has their turn being attacked unjustly through arbitrary rules while government grows.

There is no one to watch the government but those it controls or itself. Obviously, it wouldn't have incentive to truly watch itself since agencies work together to increase their power. And a watcher of the watchmen(government) cannot be under the authority of the watchmen.

Instead of government as a solution, the market would be the better solution. A business could be created to increase the flow of information about when retaliation must be used. And it would likely arise(for we cannot accurately predict market forces) that individuals may defend themselves, but not seek retaliation themselves. They would take their cases to a mutually agreed-upon court to decide the issue. That court would then exact financial retaliation from the criminal and toward the victim.

The watchers of these watchmen(business courts) are not under the watchmen's authority, but are their customers. These watchmen must please the customer or lose business. The business courts must conduct themselves reasonably if they wish to be chosen as a court system by both parties. If they are known to favor one side over the other unfairly they will be an unchosen business.

Why wouldn't people bypass the courts and seek retaliation themselves? People realize that violence is expensive and would not be worth it. They also would rather gain what they can from ther criminal. Examples of this has occurred in the past with bloodfeuds losing payment to financial payments for crimes committed in anglo-saxon cultures.


Did you enjoy this post? Then subscribe here to read future posts.

Have advice on how to improve the blog? Have a topic you would like to read about? Email me at EthanLeeVita@gmail.com.