His response in my view continues to place him in the limited government camp rather than the anarcho-capitalist camp. I do not see how Dr. Block can be in the anarcho-capitalist camp, which I define as a respect for private property but no over-ruling body that can force rules on a person's private property. if he continues to insist that a property owner must put up certain signs on his property:
I don’t think that my views about warning signs are incompatible with AnCap. Surely, private defense agencies, courts, can make these rulings.What is Dr. Block saying here? That private defense agencies can set requirements for a property owner that has no interest in listening to the defense agency and is not violating NAP? How is that not interference with a private property owner who has not violated NAP?
The same goes for Dr. Block calling on a court to resolve such issues. If he believes a court can interfere on the private property of an individual who has not violated NAP, he is not an anarcho-capitalist, since he for sure sees some kind of body over-ruling a person who is minding his own business on his own property.
Dr. Block then goes on to move the discussion over to the world of the doctrine of ad coelum. But my example has nothing to do with a question of property ownership. I am discussing a situation where the ownership is clear. My question remains, if the ownership of a property is clear, in an anarcho-capitalist world how can one have over-ruling bodies that decide what rules must apply on properties? To have any such rules requires a central planning body, call it whatever you choose, but if there is a private property and you are attempting to make rules of any kind that apply to the property, this is not anarchism in any form, It is government---yes that beast that tends to expand into an organism that in the past has killed hundreds of millions on this planet, Do we really want to advocate, for the sake of demanding signs on a property owner's land, the seeds of such a beast?
Dr. Block continues:
When a friend of mine who really should know better heard this, he accused me of being a G man (a government man); a non anarchist. A minarchist. He was making the same error as you are Bob, in thinking that law is a total monopoly of the state. No, it is not. Law precedes government. The state continually violates libertarian law. But, how could this be if, as you and this friend of mine think, the government is the source of law, and whenever anyone such as myself proposes a law (signage for attack dogs; requirements that slant drillers not interfere with neighbor’s property rights) he is accused of violating AnCap?I fear Dr. Block has created a strawman here and set it on fire.
I have never denied that laws can emerge without government, Religions, for example, have created laws, see: Catholic Canon Law and Islamic Sharia law. Private communities have set rules/laws for their communities.
But does Dr. Block believe that any of these laws must overrule activities of an individual on his own property if he is not violating NAP? Does he believe that Islamic Sharia law must overrule private property owner desires in parts of the world?
How does Dr. Block determine that his non-government law is the "true" law?
A private property society advocate would simply say. "Fine, if you want to recognize and enforce Catholic Canon Law, Islamic Sharia law or the Jewish Halakha, or any other laws on your property go for it, but the PPS advocate would recoil in horror at the idea that a set of laws, irrespective of how they developed, must apply to all properties."
Such a society with outside laws applying everywhere would not be an anarcho-capitalist system, It would be pretty much what we have now, people budding into the actions of those who are minding their own business on their own property, Some will demand warning signs from barking dogs, some will demand signs and safe rooms from speaking individuals. Where does it stop?