Each private court is likely to recognize a different set of private property rights. Which set are the “natural” rights?
Anyway what is a private court? Are there examples in the present or past that you have in mind?
You’ve said this already. I am trying to point out to you that according to your view, any society becomes immoral as soon as it engages in some activity that one member of the society doesn’t want it to engage in. And any society that lets anyone leave the second they don’t approve of a majority decision isn’t going to last very long. Which part of this do you disagree with?
Moreover if everyone kept a lot more of the chunk, then prices would fluctuate (remember the invisible hand?) til the larger chunk seemed to be just about the same size as the smaller one.
This would appear to apply to be a small minority of taxpayers.
And civilization gives me things like porn, video games, and anime. Worth every cent I pay in taxes! 
There are people who are so self-centered that they cannot give up a fraction of their own desires to help others. It makes me sick too
Its necessary for you to pay your taxes, therefore, force is necessary. Debate solved!
You don’t miss what you don’t have
Good luck getting the invading army to accept your arguments! 
Oh, and since we’re talking about the state of nature, there are no private courts, unless they spring ready from the bowels of a rose bush. You don’t get to reap the benefits of a government while still pretending there isn’t one. In the state of nature, its you, probably naked, holding on to your rock and your cave while a mob of other people with sharpened sticks and tell you to leave or die
One could bite the bullet and say that society is inherently evil, even if it is practically necessary.* I am not sure if that’s what the OP would say though.
*Full disclosure: I am tempted by this view. I’d call it “hopeless anarchism.”
No seriously, what the heck is a “private court?” I take a truck you bought, you take me to the “private court,” and I say “I don’t pay my dues to this court, I pay them to this other court that lets me take anything I want.” How to adjudicate this without resort to force? And if you have to resort to force, what was the point of the “private court?” It sounds to me like it’s just a public court striving for legitimacy through careful use of words, plus guns. In other words, a government.
I disagree since the government is bestowing upon itself the legality of taking money. I’m sure if the mafia had the ability to annoint itself the monopoly money-taker, it would.
So you are saying the government is a *more organized *form of organized crime.
Does the form of organization determine whether or not taking money is moral? If so…
Are taxes levied by dictators extortion?
So a government can decide by fiat how much to take, but an individual cannot. What exact characteristics of a government make its taking legitimate and moral? THat is the heart of the matter.
Why do you have to obey what any court says, or recognize its authority?
Legality doesn’t come from some kind of annointing. Legality comes from the existence of laws which make an actual difference in how people do things. A tyrant may create “laws” which justify whatever he does post facto, but this is not what I mean by “legal.” What I mean is, rules are created, and people generally stick by them, and when someone doesn’t, people see it as a problem, and solutions are available for that problem.
Legality is not automatically justificatory of any action, but it is a minimum standard, at least, for marking a distinction between a true system of government and a mere tyranny.
If the taxes are levied lawfully (i.e. there are rules about it, which people know and expect to be followed, and instances in which the rules aren’t followed are seen as problems to be solved) then no, I wouldn’t call it extortion. (Note that this is not a justification of dictatorships. No one here claims all taxes are justified, only that lawfulness marks a distinction between taxation and extortion.)
This is not the discussion you started with, though. (Perhaps you intended it that way, but this did not come across.) Your original question is a challenge to answer the following argument: “Extortion is wrong, taxes are extortion, therefore taxes are wrong.” I answer that by showing that taxes aren’t extortion. This does not mean I think that taxes’ not being extortion in itself makes them legitimate, and you did not ask about that. You simply asked how taxes are different from extortion. I’ve answered that question.
As to the separate question of what marks the distinction between moral or legitimate taxation and immoral or illegitimate taxation, that’s not one I’m prepared to answer right now. But what’s settled is this: Taxation is not the same thing as extortion. Taxation procedes by the application of laws. Extortion does not. This is a real distinction, that makes an actual difference and marks them as being two different kinds of things.
I don’t think the OP would endorse it, but I’m trying to figure out how that’s possible. Any society where everybody agrees on activity undertaken by the society is either going to last 15 minutes or include no more than two people.
If you’re curious, I think there’s no such thing as a legitimate government, but among all the illegitimate governments there are (and I do not expect there ever to be a time when governments do not exist) the best ones are those which consistently act in a lawful manner, and which act in ways best explained by the interests of their people as a whole.
You could have, in theory, a complete tyranny which fits this bill. But much more likely, in practical terms, is that any government fitting this bill will be democratic in nature. The form isn’t what makes it a good government though. (“Good” in the sense of “best possible in light of its illegitimacy.”) What makes it good is what it actually does.
Right; there’s no such thing as a moral society.
Courts around the world already differ in there treatment of property rights. No need for one universal court.
I disagree with neither as far as i can tell.
It becomes immoral to that person, yes. People should be free to leave whenever they want. The thing is that people’s concept of morality is so close, especially among established societies, that few would leave.
Are you saying the division of labor would not exist in a state of nature?
Like I said: governments are a practical necessity. For the very reason you point out, you’re never going to be able to do without them.
They’re still illegitimate, because it is never legitimate to give up (or force someone to give up) freedom.
But it’s basically useless to worry about this. All governments are bad. Okay but we’re going to have to have one. So which of these bad things should we choose? I say the one that procedes by law and works for the interest of the people as a whole. This still won’t be a legitimate government–because many of its members will have some degree of freedom taken away from them–but it will probably be the best we can do.
When I’m in the mood to defend “hopeless anarchism” that is. It’s “anarchism” because it thinks there should be no laws. It’s “hopeless” because it thinks that’s never going to happen and if it did it would probably lead to a lot of suffering.
And when there’s a dispute between people who live under the two different court systems, how is this resolved?
I am asking about private criminal courts. The examples discussed in that link wouldn’t seem to be very illuminative, since they are extremely limited in scope, have powers explicitly limited by contracts signed with all participants, and are dealt with voluntarily. Presumably a criminal court would have none of these three aspects.
I just want to make sure this is clear, WillFarnaby–in these latest posts its become clear to me that you and I agree conceptually. We’re both, basically, anarchists, in that neither of us thinks there is such a thing as a legitimate law. (There may be imaginary situations where such a thing could exist, but in the real world it’s impossible.) Where we disagree is on pragmatics. You think anarchism could actually be lived out. I think any attempt to live out anarchism will collapse. So you are looking for ways to live without government. And I’m looking for ways to figure out how to prevent as much governmental damage as possible. I do not think a libertarian system prevents as much governmental damage as possible–because it leaves things too open to the seizing of real power by just a few people. The best way to prevent governmental damage is to spread the power out (by spreading the wealth, there I said it!) but this does not mean I think a leftist government is “legitimate,” only that it is required for the best practically possible outcome.
Right. Thus I can’t see the society lasting very long.
For example in the U.S. there are practically no disagreements over moral issues like religion, criminal punishment, abortion…
A government “by the people and for the people” has received consent from the people to “take money”- that is, to tax. Not that it’s a perfect system.
Legitimate is one thing- that’s determined by whether the government is “by the people and for the people”. Moral? Who decides if anything is moral? Individuals do… so it’s up to individuals to judge if a specific government’s actions are moral or not- if they even care.