« Questions that are rarely asked, a continuing series | Main | Assorted links »
Seasteading
A small but passionate minority is deeply dissatisfied with current political systems. These people seek the autonomy to live under and experiment with different political, social, and economic systems than currently exist. It is this search for sovereignty, for the freedom of self-government, which is the fundamental motivation for seasteading.
That's Patri Friedman (son of David, son of Milton) and Wayne Gramlich in their seasteading manifesto. In interesting news, The Seasteading Institute has secured funding of $500,000 from PayPal founder Peter Thiel to help make the idea a reality.
Long-term trends are somewhat favorable for seasteading because with a cell phone and internet access more and more people could live on a seastead and make a living. Cruise ships are already floating cities with few regulations or taxes. Harold Berman argues that the rise of the West was due to competitive law. Homeowner's organizations, hotels and condos are private governments (for more see my edited book The Voluntary City.).
Competitive law appears to increase efficiency but it's less clear that competition among governments gives rise to a libertarian world. Homeowner associations, for example, often impose stricter zoning regulations than cities. You could say that the system as a whole is more libertarian, but no one lives in the system as a whole.
Maybe liberty comes not from choice of government but from forcing people who are unlike to live together. Isn't the real reason the First Amendment has any force not that people agree on the value of freedom of speech but rather that they disagree on who they want to shut up? Is religious freedom a product of agreement on the value of religious freedom or is it a product of disagreement on who is going to hell?
Still I hope for the best and congratulate Patri. Seasteading has come a long way.
Posted by Alex Tabarrok on April 25, 2008 at 07:36 AM in Political Science | Permalink
Comments
but they will still have to pay
some kind of taxes to the man.
just sayin'...
Posted by: sa at Apr 25, 2008 8:17:51 AM
Dangit Alex, just when I thought this was about the coolest MR blog post ever, you had to go ruin it:
Competitive law appears to increase efficiency but it's less clear that competition among governments gives rise to a libertarian world. Homeowner associations, for example, often impose stricter zoning regulations than cities. You could say that the system as a whole is more libertarian, but no one lives in the system as a whole.
I think you're going to get tied up in knots if you start reasoning like this. If I don't allow smoking in my house, and you want to say therefore my house is less libertarian (would you go so far to say it is more fascist?) than my neighbor's house where smoking is allowed, then I think you've just turned libertarian into an empty concept.
In terms of rhetoric, you agree with the premise of authoritarians who say, "Well you obviously can't have total freedom, because if I'm free to kill you then you're not free to live."
But more serious, you really don't have a coherent concept anymore. It seems natural, I grant, that there is a sensible way in which allowing smoking is "freer" than prohibiting it. But then it's equally true that my house is "freer" or more "libertarian" for those who want to breathe fresh air, or who want to live longer. (Suppose the warnings about 2nd hand smoke are accurate.)
So anyway, I would urge you to reconsider using "libertarian" in the way you're using it here. It makes it hard rhetorically to argue for the ideal, and if you really think about it it's a useless definition.
Posted by: Bob Murphy at Apr 25, 2008 9:11:19 AM
"Competitive law appears to increase efficiency but it's less clear that competition among governments gives rise to a libertarian world. Homeowner associations, for example, often impose stricter zoning regulations than cities."
Libertarianism isn't about mandating unrestricted freedom at all times. It allows for consenting adults to enter into contracts that mutually restrict their freedoms. Libertarianism thus allows for Home Owner Associations that impose tight restrictions on those who wish to live in the association. When I moved into my townhouse, I agreed to abide by the neighborhood HOA agreement. I voluntarily restricted my freedom so that I could live in an area where others had the same restrictions.
Of course, I hope all who partake in seasteading are happy with their choice.
Posted by: Craig at Apr 25, 2008 9:21:16 AM
Who wants to make a bet that the same die-hard peaceniks (not that there is any problem with being a peacenik in and of itself) who condemn say military action in Afghanistan despite the U.S. being attacked, will suddenly call for military action the second someone sets up some sort of tax-haven free-market seasteading community?
Don't get me wrong, I think seasteading is great. But the second it becomes viable, expect to be militarily annihilated with almost universal popular support. All you need to get the right wing in line is some fear mongering about drugs and terrorists, and all you need to get the left wing in line is fear mongering about tax revenue for the welfare state.
If the left and right wing agree to attack you, you are so so dead. Seasteading is a nice idea, but unless you have some sort of super weapon, or you can go under the sea where conventional military can't attack you, you will be lucky to survive.
Posted by: Rex Rhino at Apr 25, 2008 9:24:24 AM
homeowners organizations are not libertarian because they use coercion to restrict entry into the group in order to protect rents.
Posted by: josh at Apr 25, 2008 10:00:18 AM
"Libertarianism isn't about mandating unrestricted freedom at all times. It allows for consenting adults to enter into contracts that mutually restrict their freedoms."
This is an interesting point. We need to define "libertarianism" here, and also distinguish it if necessary from anarchy or private government. If the goal is to have a private government, where people sign up consensually to restrict freedoms, then it could certainly be a very restrictive one and fulfill its goal.
If, on the other hand, the libertarian ideal is that government - be it private and consensual or constitutional but non-consensual - is restricted to only the protection of rights, then the story is a little different. Perhaps that ideal requires that all more restricted or regulated spheres of society are decentralized as well as voluntary - that they are not imposed (even consensually) on society as a whole, but only between individuals in direct contact.
So, a voluntary society where each person signs the constitution by choice but in which the constitution contains heavy regulation on business and private activity, could fit the private government condition (and appeal to anarchists) but could still not be "libertarian."
Posted by: liberty at Apr 25, 2008 10:06:03 AM
Two comments:
1. Bob Murphy said it well, as usual. If I tell people they are not allowed to smoke in my home (which I do, by the way), I am not being less libertarian or pro-freedom than someone who allows smoking. In fact, I'm exercising my freedom to use my property peacefully. That principle "scales." If 500 people get together and set those rules, there is no loss of freedom.
2. As a "die-hard peacenik" I would not oppose anyone doing this. Indeed, my guess is that some of my leftist friends in the antiwar movement would applaud this. Having said that, I agree with Rex Rhino that to make this arrangement durable, you would have to have some pretty powerful weapons for self-defense.
Posted by: David R. Henderson at Apr 25, 2008 11:21:22 AM
Bob and David, I understand what you are saying but I think you are avoiding the real question which is under what conditions do we get liberty? Suppose that there are 2 groups neither of which is libertarian but who fear one another - each may agree to limits on the power of the state to prevent the other group from taking over. As a fortunate result, libertarians enjoy liberty. Now let each group establish their own country. Liberty declines.
Posted by: Alex Tabarrok at Apr 25, 2008 11:37:28 AM
Craig writes:
"It allows for consenting adults to enter into contracts that mutually restrict their freedoms."
Sounds like government to me, as long as you're free to leave whatever country you reside in.
Posted by: Dan Tarrant at Apr 25, 2008 11:55:08 AM
Regarding Seasteading, this seems like a really problematic concept.
One can imagine Seastead Alpha hiring Blackwater to invade upstart Seastead Beta and enslave all their residents. Or a few of the richer members of Seastead Alpha deciding that the "contract" is null and void and all residents are now their personal surfs.
File this one under "L" for yet another loony libertarian idea. Or perhaps the Friedmans are secret Feudalists?
Posted by: Dan Tarrant at Apr 25, 2008 12:05:47 PM
Rex:
Perhaps there will be some sort of equilibrium between tax havens, governments, and terrorists, whereby at least some of the seasteaders persuade terrorists to do something awful to any country engaging in military action against the 'steaders.
Posted by: Byrne at Apr 25, 2008 12:08:46 PM
Its worth noting that our founding fathers had the wisdom and foresight to consider these issues and correctly construct a loosely organized confederation of sovereign states. Its testament to the overwhelming urge among people to boss around others that our Federal government has overturned their vision.
Posted by: guy in the veal calf office at Apr 25, 2008 12:10:32 PM
Libertarianism isn't about mandating unrestricted freedom at all times. It allows for consenting adults to enter into contracts that mutually restrict their freedoms.
But clearly, there's a similarity between government & a homeowner's association: the majority gets to make rules that affect everyone. In both cases you can move to get away from them, but both will have The Man knocking on your door if you misbehave.
Posted by: Mike at Apr 25, 2008 12:16:10 PM
Suppose that there are 2 groups neither of which is libertarian but who fear one another - each may agree to limits on the power of the state to prevent the other group from taking over. As a fortunate result, libertarians enjoy liberty. Now let each group establish their own country. Liberty declines.
E.g., among the thirteen colonies a solid majority (I believe nine or ten) had established churches, but the United States had none such precisely because the different states had different established churches. Several colonies had been founded by those who were famously Dissenters in England but less tolerant of dissent in the colonies that they founded.
However, the Bob and David response would be, I expect, that the solution in such a case is not a unified country, but more smaller political units and more federalism where possible. (And, more generally, to what degree it really reduces liberty to allow voluntary contracts where all parties agree to restriction their actions/give up some liberty, particularly where dissenters can escape the voluntary association.) In general, homeowners associations worry me less because it's easier to escape them, even while living in the same city. (In this, I'm very confused by my co-worker who hates restrictions on, e.g., house color by HOAs but thinks that it's perfectly OK for the entire city to have such a restriction.)
Posted by: John Thacker at Apr 25, 2008 12:18:56 PM
Dear Alex,
You ask a good question and I certainly didn't mean to avoid it. I actually agree with your point that liberty is often a Schelling point for those who want to impose their rules on each other but give up because of the danger to their own freedom. But the reason I (and, I think, Bob) criticized your point in the above blog is that you went straight from private voluntary associations to government without passing "Go." Our points were about voluntary associations. Remember that what led to this discussion is not Rhode Island seceding from USA but a group of people joining voluntarily to form a floating homeowners' association. That's not a government.
See John Thacker's note above.
Best,
David
Posted by: David R. Henderson at Apr 25, 2008 12:26:19 PM
Dan:
"One can imagine Seastead Alpha hiring Blackwater to invade upstart Seastead Beta and enslave all their residents. Or a few of the richer members of Seastead Alpha deciding that the "contract" is null and void and all residents are now their personal surfs."
Doesn't this apply to government in general?
Posted by: Byrne at Apr 25, 2008 12:42:14 PM
Libertarians setting up their own water-based city-state? I think we saw how that ended in the game Bioshock.
Posted by: Ali Choudhury at Apr 25, 2008 1:04:02 PM
"But clearly, there's a similarity between government & a homeowner's association: the majority gets to make rules that affect everyone. In both cases you can move to get away from them, but both will have The Man knocking on your door if you misbehave."
To me the amount of the majority gets to tell the minority what to do is directly related to the ease of exit.
Nations have have very strong "Market Power" when it comes to switching countries. It can be very costly to leave a homeland both from outright cost and from cost of leaving family, adapting to a new culture and potentially learning a new language etc. Also the other country may not let you in or in some drastic cases your country may make it hard for you to leave. Because of all this there can be huge switching cost to leaving a country. IMO because of this nations (particularly large nations) should err on the side of limited government and federalism. The smaller the unit of government the more comfortable I am with voluntary restrictions on liberty.
Besides the home, the community association is one of the smallest forms of government and there is very easy exit so there is a market check on abuse.
Posted by: eccdogg at Apr 25, 2008 1:09:26 PM
Response to Alex's substantive point here. I'm glad he cited cruise ships, they are my favorite counterexample to "but that's impossible!".
Some of the commenter's points are addressed in our FAQ, others I will endeavor to add when I have the time. Thanks for all the discussion.
Posted by: Patri Friedman at Apr 25, 2008 1:38:52 PM
Bryne:
"Doesn't this apply to government in general?"
Absolutely. So what I'm saying is that Seasteading doesn't really solve anything. In fact, if you love liberty it might make it much worse as you no longer have the powerful US government to protect you.
Posted by: Dan Tarrant at Apr 25, 2008 2:13:03 PM
This isn't exactly what you're talking about, but it does show what's already happening.
http://www.rivercitiescondos.com/
Posted by: mikesdak at Apr 25, 2008 2:22:08 PM
I also agree with the comment about not having government protection. I would think that piracy would be a large concern.
Posted by: mikesdak at Apr 25, 2008 2:28:28 PM
Another thought: since it appears that at least at first only fairly affluent people are going to be able to Seastead, where are the community' service class and manual laborers going to come from? Who is going to clean toilets, wait tables, etc? Would you ship in a supply of workers every morning and ship them out every afternoon?
Because if you're going to create the ultimate gated neighborhood, you can't just have a bunch of working-class people rummaging around.
Also, after reading Freidman's comment above I took a quick look at the FAQs and didn't see much of anything about security, protection from terrorists/pirates, etc. A big helpless island full of rich Americans has "target" written all over it, doesn't it?
Seriously - it seems that people have put a lot of thought and effort into an idea that is pretty obviously a bad one.
Posted by: Dan Tarrant at Apr 25, 2008 2:39:53 PM
Why presume that a boat full of rich Americans will be helpless?
Posted by: Scott Scheule at Apr 25, 2008 3:00:37 PM
Dan - "where will the manual laborers come from" is thoroughly empirically answered by the two words "cruise ship". I mean, there are 10 million people a year taking cruises where they are served by people who can't afford the cruises. They use the obvious solution of having smaller, cheaper quarters for the service staff, "staff" sections of the ship and "paying customer" sections of the ship, etc.
Piracy is addressed here. It is not a problem. The destructive forces we have to worry about are navies and the ocean itself, not pirates.
Posted by: Patri Friedman at Apr 25, 2008 3:03:24 PM
This has been a very interesting comment thread, with thoughtful contributions from all sides. Initially, Alex does appear to be confused when he associates (libertarian) exercise of property rights with authoritarianism, but several posters have picked up on that.
I found the subsequent distinction offered between "voluntary non-free" societies and "libertarian" societies interesting; the extent to which a constitution restricted rights (in addition to) defending negative rights and enforcing contracts. I'd like to link it to the point made by eccdogg about ease of exit and national market power. States can properly be regarded as a sellers in a market where they are "selling" their consitutions and public goods. Their "price", if you will, is the concomitmant restrictions on liberties and subsequent taxation.
As Eccdogg noted, this market has several (to my mind) gross imperfections; all of which favour the states. The lack of unclaimed territory on the planet (and resilience of most states to physical take-over) means that barriers to entry are large. The cost to an individual of moving is often huge, even with modern communications. Cultural factors tend to split the system into local markets. Furthermore States can as a practical (and moral?) matter restrict whom they admit into citizenship (is this just like protecting stock value of existing shareholders or Housing Association?).
Looked at from this perspective, it is clear that the US (and most western countries) have a large market share of the long-term emmigration market (as opposed to short-term or refugee markets).
In this, Seasteading offers a prima facie attempt to overcome some of the market barriers. Would it (on a larger scale?) incidentally reduce US emmigration headaches too? I suppose that until/unless cheap inter-system space travel comes of age it is the only way to create new "land". Ultimately, I'm hopeful that very-long term reductions in costs of physical living and transport will open up the latter in the same way the 19th Century American west sucked in European emigres. So long as disastified people have an ungoverned volume to move into, we should get something very similar to what Nozick envisioned in "Anarchy, State and Utopia".
Posted by: Alistair Morley at Apr 25, 2008 3:17:15 PM
Dan, see the piracy discussion here:
http://seasteading.org/seastead.org/commented/paper/ocean.html#Piracy
If defense was actually a big problem, one option would be to lease the navy of a neighboring country. You'd just need to find one country who was amenable to a deal like "we'll give you X dollars per year if you promise to defend us against large scale attacks."
Posted by: internety at Apr 25, 2008 3:22:13 PM
Perhaps there will be some sort of equilibrium between tax havens, governments, and terrorists, whereby at least some of the seasteaders persuade terrorists to do something awful to any country engaging in military action against the 'steaders.
Terrorists are more often the instigator of military action - The thing that makes it acceptable to attack another country. I don't think a terrorist threat would deter a military strike, I think it would probably guarantee it.
Sounds like government to me, as long as you're free to leave whatever country you reside in.
Only in the abstract.
No one is truly free to leave the country they are a citizen of... effectively, the necessity of having a state issued revocable license to travel abroad (i.e. a passport), means that the government can restrict your exit at any time it feels like. Your privilege to emigrate is at the government's pleasure and whim, even if they don't openly admit that is the case. And in the case of certain countries (say, the U.S.), they openly claim jurisdiction over all people who have ever had U.S. citizenship at any time in their life, everywhere on the globe... don't think that by moving to Iceland, renouncing U.S. citizenship, and becoming a citizen of Iceland, that the U.S. government won't still throw you in prison for not paying U.S. taxes, for example.
One can imagine Seastead Alpha hiring Blackwater to invade upstart Seastead Beta and enslave all their residents. Or a few of the richer members of Seastead Alpha deciding that the "contract" is null and void and all residents are now their personal surfs.
Governments can do this as well. No wait, government have done this! No wait, governments usually do this! :)
Absolutely. So what I'm saying is that Seasteading doesn't really solve anything. In fact, if you love liberty it might make it much worse as you no longer have the powerful US government to protect you.
A Seastead is far less likely to do this than your traditional nation state - as Blackwater Mercenaries are far more expensive than a national army soldier who serves out of loyalty and patriotism. People are far more able to justify to themselves doing horrible things for the motherland, than for flat out money. Also, a company like Blackwater has a reputation outside its operations in any one country (if they helped enslave one Seastead community, they have to worry about not getting contracts with other Seastead communities), where as a national army doesn't have those issues.
Posted by: Rex Rhino at Apr 25, 2008 5:05:44 PM
Dan Tarrant,
Craig writes:The difference is that contracts expand via voluntary agreements, while governments almost always expand without voluntary agreements (i.e., by conquest). This makes governments far larger, more difficult to leave, and more static than voluntary organizations. The largest groups of people who voluntarily associate via explicit contract are much, much smaller than nations."It allows for consenting adults to enter into contracts that mutually restrict their freedoms."
Sounds like government to me, as long as you're free to leave whatever country you reside in.
The libertarian distinction between a voluntary organization and a government is generally that the later is coercive. Of course, the former can always become coercive, just as the later can become voluntary.
Posted by: Grant at Apr 25, 2008 5:38:15 PM
Seasteading is a fantasy of the not-quite-rich enough, who lack the funds and wherewithal to complete such a project. The hilarious thing is, people with the power to build their own countries usually take over existing ones and build the rules to suit themselves, rather than making one out of nothing. Massively simpler, and you get a ready-made servant supply on-site.
Posted by: perianwyr at Apr 25, 2008 5:43:33 PM
Alex,
Yeah, sorry about that--after I hit "Post" I realized I forgot to say that I agreed with your thoughts about the First Amendment etc. But as David Henderson followed up, again our point was that your segway into those interesting remarks was problematic (and a point that trips up libertarian critics).
Also, since I can't seem to comment on an MR thread lately without plugging something I've written, I would encourage those who think small anarchist communities would get wiped out, to read the second essay in this booklet (pdf). It's pretty short but lays out why I think a bunch of rich anarchists would be fine. Their defense would be even simpler if they could move (because located on a floating colony), rather than being on a tiny island, say.
Posted by: Bob Murphy at Apr 25, 2008 5:51:23 PM
Homeowner associations, for example, often impose stricter zoning regulations than cities.
The exit costs of a homeowner association and a city are about the same. Since one can usually be more selective and informed of HOA rules than of city rules before one moves in, and one has more voice over HOA rules than city rules once one lives there, one would expect people to put up with stricter HOA rules than city rules.
Maybe liberty comes not from choice of government but from forcing people who are unlike to live together.
Quite the opposite -- liberty consists in one's ability to choose to live near people who are miminally disruptive to the way one wants to live. Forcing you to live next to noisy or smelly neighbors, or in neighborhoods prone to violence, or in neighborhoods where people avoid you or insult you because of your race or sexual orientation, or near neighbors who would love to seduce your daughters, does not enhance your liberty. The ability to commit to and enforce rules among neighbors is crucial to this freedom. Treating a very large area of people with antithetical beliefs and lifestyles as if they were or could be such a cozy community is antithetical to freedom.
Posted by: nick at Apr 25, 2008 5:54:07 PM
The libertarian distinction between a voluntary organization and a government is generally that the later is coercive.
No coercion? In these Seasteads, who does the law enforcement, and who or what gives them the right to commit law enforcement acts that are physically equivalent to torts and crimes? What distinguishes arrest from assault and battery, imprisonment from kidnapping, legal distraint of goods from theft, or a legal search from trespass? I think you will find that these societies will have to deal with the very same problems of coercion and procedure as our own governments. Calling a legal document that defines and allocates rights to commit these coercive acts a "contract" instead of a "constitution" may be the Rothbard-correct way to do things, but it doesn't actually go very far towards solving the hard problems of living together in a world where people are often coercive.
Posted by: nick at Apr 25, 2008 7:01:34 PM
I'll be adding some more specific items to the FAQ, but for now, here are the two generic objection responses.
I totally agree with Rex when he says "I don't think a terrorist threat would deter a military strike, I think it would probably guarantee it.", as well as his points about the relative unlikelihood of the "Blackwater" scenario.
Posted by: Patri Friedman at Apr 25, 2008 8:21:14 PM
In the West, clamoring for freedom of religion on moral/theoretical grounds (usually by those on the receiving end of oppression) had been ignored pretty much since the Roman Republic. On consequentialist grounds, however, it only took a couple centuries of demonstration that attempting to impose a given form of worship on people with guns was (a) expensive; and (b) of uncertain outcome; before it made the list of Demonstrably Bad Ideas.
Posted by: Cyrus at Apr 25, 2008 9:07:15 PM
"A libertarian seastead nation should easily be able to have no zoning laws or building codes,...... no eminent domain"
Given the importance of sea worthiness I would expect they would have very strict codes on building since survival would be at stake not just taste. Also the technical requirement for expansion would probably make the power of eminent domain necessary. I don't see such communities a Libertarian but as havens for groups like the polygamist community in Texas.
Posted by: joan at Apr 25, 2008 10:53:12 PM
I'm inclined to agree with Nick.
If this ever gets off the ground, I predict the 'society' will revert to pretty much a microcosm of what the US already is but without the poor to worry about. In other words, just a floating rich country club.
Posted by: meter at Apr 26, 2008 1:31:57 AM
Meter writes:
If this ever gets off the ground, I predict the 'society' will revert to pretty much a microcosm of what the US already is but without the poor to worry about. In other words, just a floating rich country club.
A rich country club with poor people describes the United States? Is Meter aware that 1% of the adult population in the United States is in prison and a large fraction of those people are there simply for following their peaceful pursuits. Is he/she aware that high-income people in this country (which, admittedly, does not mean they are rich) pay a huge percent of the federal tax bill? I just don't see the connection between a floating rich country club and a country in which the poor are often in danger of being in prison and high-income people lose a large percent of their income to government.
Posted by: David R. Henderson at Apr 26, 2008 10:47:19 AM
I think you didn't read my comment correctly.
This experiment = a rich country club = the US without the poor.
Posted by: meter at Apr 26, 2008 12:35:24 PM
nick,
No coercion? In these Seasteads, who does the law enforcement, and who or what gives them the right to commit law enforcement acts that are physically equivalent to torts and crimes? What distinguishes arrest from assault and battery, imprisonment from kidnapping, legal distraint of goods from theft, or a legal search from trespass? I think you will find that these societies will have to deal with the very same problems of coercion and procedure as our own governments. Calling a legal document that defines and allocates rights to commit these coercive acts a "contract" instead of a "constitution" may be the Rothbard-correct way to do things, but it doesn't actually go very far towards solving the hard problems of living together in a world where people are often coercive.
Presumably, any individual moving into a Seastead would have explicitly agreed to the terms which allow for things like searches, seizers and arrests. In contrast, nearly all government constitutions are put in place without explicit consent; i.e. via conquest. The rules of institutions which form via voluntary consent are going to be very different from ones formed via conquest, and they way they evolve is going to be very different.
Contracts involve individual consent of all affected by them, constitutions do not. Thats the difference I see. I'm not saying a contractual society won't necessarily regress into a state, of course. In that scenario, I think contracts have two advantages: One, its nigh-impossible to legitimize the state breaking or altering its contract illegally; and two, compromises in the contract which are needed to attract signers are likely to produce much more equitable institutions.
Posted by: Grant at Apr 26, 2008 1:12:05 PM
Dear Meter,
I think I did read your comment correctly. You said:
This experiment = a rich country club = the US without the poor.
Therefore, a rich country club plus the poor equals the US (according to you.) I just added the poor to both sides.
Posted by: David R. Henderson at Apr 26, 2008 2:25:43 PM
Libertarians setting up their own water-based city-state? I think we saw how that ended in the game Bioshock.See the logical fallacy of generalization from fictional evidence.
Posted by: TGGP at Apr 26, 2008 7:58:35 PM
Presumably, any individual moving into a Seastead would have explicitly agreed to the terms which allow for things like searches, seizers and arrests.
But this is far from adequate. We have, in the US, a set of rules governing searches and arrests. Yet there is a constant stream of legal disputes about how these rules apply in specific cases. Someone has to decide these disputes, and someone has to select the decision-makers, and someone has to enforce the decisions.
The notion that "everyone will agree to the rules beforehand" and that solves the problem is sheer fantasy. Let me note that there are probably not many people in the US who disagree that
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.
But this hardly avoids problems with searches and seizures.
Posted by: Bernard Yomtov at Apr 27, 2008 10:49:14 AM
