Private Law Society: Section 2 - A Positive Account of how a Private Law Society Functions

This is Section 2 of 3 of the broader construct of a Private Law Society (click on this link to view a full overview).  While it largely stands alone as an independent work, it may be helpful to read the preface and introduction to this work if you need some context.

Section 2 at a glance:

• 2.1: Security
• 2.2: Justice and the Legal System
• 2.3: Market Governance
• 2.x: The Environment
• 2.x: Education
• 2.x: Healthcare
• 2.x: Transportation
• 2.x: Immigration and Travel
• 2.x: Money, Banking, Credit and Finance
• 2.x: Social Welfare
• 2.x: Intellectual Property
• 2.x: Communication and Information

Private Law Society: Introduction -- I.1: General Overview of the work

This is the first part of the Introduction to the Private Law Society.

Outline of the work: The main body of this work consists of three sections, which I will describe here.

Section 1: In the first section, I will broadly introduce the concept of a Private Law Society and describe the general way in which it is expected to function.  I will also lay out the basic principles on which it is founded.  The purpose of this section is to provide a basic understanding of the concept from both a descriptive and theoretical perspective such that as the reader moves on through the work they have a proper orientation.  I will not in this first section argue on behalf of a Private Law Society per se, but rather offer this as a purely factual account of what a PLS is. The reader need no "buy into any arguments" in this section in order to read the rest of the work, but merely understand the concepts in preparation for dealing with the main arguments.

Private Law Society: Introduction

This is the Introduction to the broader construct of a Private Law Society.  It may be helpful to click on that link to grasp a broader view of the overall project, or read the Preface.

Introduction at a glance:

• I.1: General Overview of the work
• I.2: Examination of Historical Thought
• I.3: Examination of Existing Systems and Prognosis for their future course
• I.4: The Theoretical attraction of a Private Law Society
• I.5: Theoretical foundation for the work and generally assumed principles
• I.6: Why this will work

Most people have probably never heard or conceived of a "Private Law Society," and perhaps rightfully so.  While elements and aspects of the theory have existed throughout the entire history of political thought, only recently has the theory been crafted into a fully coherent system of principles and propositions that give it the promise of a proper standing as a Political Philosophy.  I credit Hans-Hermann Hoppe with making this jump --  from a  loose connection of related concepts and thoughts into a properly developed theory.  Within the circles of adherents to the Austrian School of Economics and more broadly in the more radical edge of libertarian circles, this newly-formulated concept of a Private Law Society has made a very rapid ascension to prominence and indeed has established itself as the primary political doctrine of these groups.  Despite this success, the body of work on the subject remains woefully incomplete, due in part to the fact that it is very difficult to systematically describe given it's very radically different nature from the vast history of traditional thought.

Private Law Society: Preface -- P.2: How to approach this material

In postulating such a radically different conception of social order -- one that in challenges some of the most fundamental arguments of all other political philosophy and those that are most fiercely ingrained in most people's basic conception of how we ought to organize ourselves as a society, I must request that readers of this material be willing to engage in a sort of thought experiment.  In fact, this entire work can be thought of largely as just that -- a thought experiment.

Within the realm of political philosophy, the common thought experiment involves a return to what Thomas Hobbes referred to as the "state of nature."  This is a hypothetical or mythical conception of a sort of pre-governmental world, and the exercise involves examining the nature of this world and then postulating the necessary theoretical constructs for rendering it orderly, moral, economical, etc.

Private Law Society: Preface -- P.1: The scope of this work

A general treatise on the tenets of a Private Law Society is outside the scope of this work.  A proper Critique of Political Philosophy would at a minimum need to lay a groundwork of the moral, logical, and economic underpinnings of political philosophy, and while I don't think any single work has adequately provided a systematic critique of this sort, there is a wealth of material on these topics already published and continuing to be published all of the time.


Such a critique would be necessary to make a complete case for the adoption of the tenets of a Private Law Society.  The basic tenets of the theory have been outlined by Professor Hoppe over the course of a number of works including The Idea of a Private Law Society, The Economics and Ethics of Private Property, and Democracy: The God That Failed.  Any of these works make excellent reading on the topic.

Private Law Society: Preface

This is the Preface to the broader construct of a Private Law Society.  It may be helpful to click on that link to grasp a broader view of the overall project.

Preface at a glance:

• P.1: The scope of this work
• P.2: How to approach this material
• P.3: Notes on the Style of this Work
• P.4: The objective of writing this work

The world as we know it stands in a precarious state at the time of this writing.  We stand on the brink of a possible economic, social, and political collapse.  While many have turned a blind eye to this possibility for a long time, it has now at least occurred to most people that the possibility of catastrophe exists.  In times like this, a hard look is warranted at the causes of this situation -- why are we here?  How did we get here?


One thing is clear -- the ideas that inform our system of social order are failing, or have at least to some extent failed.  Some people blame the Government, others blame the Markets, and others blame Human Nature itself.  A complete critique of the possible causes of our current situation, or further a universal critique of Political, Social, or Economic Philosophy lie outside the scope of this work.  I will leave those topics to another work or to another author, but before I just dive into my primary proposition, I must make some simple case for it from the outset so as not to utterly turn off readers that don't readily accept it, so here it is:

Why The East Is Succeeding Part 2 -- Competition between the states

I was watching a recent interview of Tom Woods by PressTV, and at around the 6:30 mark of the clip he made an interesting point that I think makes a nice addendum to my earlier post on why the Eastern States of this world seem to be doing much better than the States in the West.  Tom is talking about his new book, Nullification, and he makes a point about his opinion of the original design for the United States under the Constitution:

"Either you have a system in which there's just one giant jurisdiction, and you just hope that liberty is preserved there, or you have a system with a bunch of competing jurisdictions, in which people can leave if one becomes too oppressive.  I think the second one, in the long run, in which different states are competing to see which one can have the most liveable, most desirable society, I think liberty is much more likely to be preserved there."

While this vision has been largely compromised in the United States (I like those who insist, "United State" would be more appropriate), has likewise been compromised to a large extent in Europe via the EU, and even to some extent via NATO hegemony across the Atlantic, the States comprising the Far East and to some extent in the Middle East seem to have preserved something of true sovereignty and represent a closer approximation to this founding vision for America than exists anywhere else in the world.

The State Is Too Rigid

We live in a dynamic world.  From astrophysics to thermodynamics to biology to psychology -- the entirety of our physical, emotional, and psychological lives prove this point.  The world is dynamic.

Static structures cannot succeed in a dynamic world.  The very term, "The State" proves its own failure -- it is at odds with everything we know and experience.  The state is inherently too rigid a structure function in a dynamic world -- it can pretend for a time, and even a long time, to be orderly, but ultimately the reality of our dynamic world will shake free of any static structure and destroy it.

The only hope and possibility for social order lies in a dynamic model.  Static structures must be ruled out entirely -- they are all destined to fail no matter how perfectly designed.  Static structures offer the possibility of certainty and stability, but in fact are the precise opposite: in the face of dynamic changes in the world the state can only firm its stance, become more rigid, and ultimately succumb to its inferior fate.

Democracy, Monarchy, Socialism, Communism,and all sub-variants of static construction must be cast away -- none are capable of withstanding the gyrations of our dynamic world.

The United States of America has managed one of the most unprecedented runs of any static structure in world history precisely because of it's adherence to freedom, which is the social equivalent of the kind of dynamism that affects the rest of reality.  It is still doomed to fail, and was doomed to fail from the start.  The history of the USA is a history of increasing static construction in the face of what is clearly an increasingly dynamic world.  From the time of it's most dynamic statement, the Declaration of Independence, to it's most totalitarian realization in the modern day, the government has retracted from one after another dynamic shock into a fatally rigid construct.  The acceptance of a static construct, "The Great Experiment," was doomed from the beginning.

Disbelieve me, if you like.  You will be proven wrong very shortly.  So what to do, and what to believe?  First, realize that all static structures (I.e., government, political philosophies) will fail.  If you don't realize that yet, you will at least consider it when the current system fails, and spectacularly so.  Give it up -- it's time to think differently.  Your world doesn't work.  When you're ready to face the music, it's time to think about something different...there are alternatives.