Our new Indie Games subforum is now open for business in G&T. Go and check it out, you might land a code for a free game. If you're developing an indie game and want to post about it, follow these directions. If you don't, he'll break your legs! Hahaha! Seriously though.
Our rules have been updated and given their own forum. Go and look at them! They are nice, and there may be new ones that you didn't know about! Hooray for rules! Hooray for The System! Hooray for Conforming!

Libertarianism, Anarchism, and Society with Voluntary Self Governance

rayofashrayofash Registered User regular
edited April 2012 in Debate and/or Discourse
tuSZD.gif

T8e2X.png


From Wikipedia:
Libertarianism is generally considered to be the group of political philosophies which emphasize freedom, individual liberty, and voluntary association. Libertarianism is variously defined by sources. There is no general consensus among scholars on the precise definition nor on how one should use the term as a historical category. Libertarians generally advocate a society with little or no government power.


Libertarian socialism (sometimes called social anarchism, and sometimes left libertarianism) is a group of political philosophies that promote a non-hierarchical, non-bureaucratic, stateless society without private property in the means of production. Libertarian socialism is opposed to coercive forms of social organization, and promotes free association in place of government and opposes the social relations of capitalism, such as wage labor. The term libertarian socialism is used by some socialists to differentiate their philosophy from state socialism or by some as a synonym for left anarchism.

Adherents of libertarian socialism assert that a society based on freedom and equality can be achieved through abolishing authoritarian institutions that control certain means of production and subordinate the majority to an owning class or political and economic elite. Libertarian socialism also constitutes a tendency of thought that promotes the identification, criticism, and practical dismantling of illegitimate authority in all aspects of life.

Accordingly, libertarian socialists believe that "the exercise of power in any institutionalized form—whether economic, political, religious, or sexual—brutalizes both the wielder of power and the one over whom it is exercised". Libertarian socialists generally place their hopes in decentralized means of direct democracy such as libertarian municipalism, citizens' assemblies, trade unions, and workers' councils.


Anarcho-capitalism (also referred to as "libertarian anarchy" by anarcho-capitalists,[1] "market anarchism,"[2] "free market anarchism"[3] or "private-property anarchism"[4]) is a libertarian[5][6] and individualist anarchist[7] political philosophy that advocates the elimination of the state in favour of individual sovereignty in a free market. In an anarcho-capitalist society, law enforcement, courts, and all other security services would be provided by voluntarily funded competitors rather than through taxation, and money would be privately and competitively provided in an open market. According to anarcho-capitalists, personal and economic activities would be regulated by privately run law rather than through politics.

Let's get some of the basics out of the way. Anarchism does not mean chaos, there would still be security forces, the difference is there is no government with a monopoly on force and violence who can enforce it's view on how you should live. Libertarianism comes in both capitalist and socialist flavors.

For the uninitiated (note that these videos are from a capitalist perspective):



Government Explained

George Ought to Help

The Machinery Of Freedom: Illustrated Summary

New Hampshire Liberty Forum - Keynote Speaker: Stefan Molyneux from Freedomain Radio (Part 1)

Law without Government: Principles

Is there a modern example of libertarianism at its best?

A little bit of socialism now, anthropologist David Graeber explains that gift economies came first, not barter like most people are taught:

5,000 Years of Debt

The Hutterites are a good modern example of a truly communist society.

Liberty from an economic perspective:

Funding Government by the Minute

Will Higher Taxes Balance the Budget?
But wouldn't warlords take over?


rayofash on
«13456740

Posts

  • FeralFeral Who needs a medical license when you've got style? Registered User regular
    Sooooooooooo...

    What is your position?

    every person who doesn't like an acquired taste always seems to think everyone who likes it is faking it. it should be an official fallacy.
    the "no true scotch, man" fallacy.
  • QuidQuid The Fifth Horseman Registered User regular
    Show me a Libertarian and I'll show you either a Democrat or Republican who's ignorant on the issues they talk about. Or a sociopath.

    PSN: allenquid
  • rayofashrayofash Registered User regular
    I personally believe there should be no government, communities should democratic, and their rules should not be enforced. I believe the non-aggression principle is something all people should live by. I'm also interested in the idea of socialism. Private property is recognized, and people keep what they produce, but what they don't need of what they produce goes to the community.

  • dbrock270dbrock270 Registered User regular
    rayofash wrote: »
    I personally believe there should be no government, communities should democratic, and their rules should not be enforced. I believe the non-aggression principle is something all people should live by. I'm also interested in the idea of socialism. Private property is recognized, and people keep what they produce, but what they don't need of what they produce goes to the community.

    What's stops someone from killing someone, or stealing?

  • QuidQuid The Fifth Horseman Registered User regular
    It'd be awesome if government wasn't necessary. But it is. There's no way to work without it in the real world.

    PSN: allenquid
  • emnmnmeemnmnme Heard about this on conservative radio:Registered User regular
    Hippie communes are libertarian? That doesn't sound right ...

    easybossfight_zps4752c132.gif
  • Harry DresdenHarry Dresden Registered User regular
    edited April 2012
    rayofash wrote: »
    I personally believe there should be no government, communities should democratic, and their rules should not be enforced.

    What's wrong with having a government? Corporations and crime syndicates will fill the void without them. Communities are already democratic. That's why America has local, state and national elections. Whose rules don't you like being enforced? The communities, governments or both?
    I believe the non-aggression principle is something all people should live by.

    Without laws and a government to enforce them nothing will protect you or anyone else from being taken advantage of by criminals. Nice idea, but it won't work in reality.
    I'm also interested in the idea of socialism.

    So do I.
    Private property is recognized, and people keep what they produce, but what they don't need of what they produce goes to the community.

    Aside from the last one (which people can do any way) don't we do this already?

    Harry Dresden on
  • SchrodingerSchrodinger Registered User regular
    Libertarianism is great until people start disagreeing with each other.

    Which is constant.

  • GoumindongGoumindong Registered User regular
    edited April 2012
    Quid wrote: »
    Show me a Libertarian and I'll show you either a Democrat or Republican who's ignorant on the issues they talk about. Or a sociopath.

    Basically this.

    Also, listening to the last article and well, its pretty dumb. Mainly because he assumes that the current "market price" is the opportunity cost of using violence and that since our government does not go to war for direct financial gain that private police forces would not. Which it is not so.

    LOL: His argument is basically "Well, if society is good enough that it doesn't fail under a state then it won't fail under a market anarchy" for which he posits no support [and for which there is ample theoretical and empirical support for the other side]

    Ah ha ha ha ha ha.

    Edit

    Quote from that video
    Its true that an inefficient number of serial killers may be apprehended, but insurance solves that because I don't understand the problem of asymmetric information

    Edit2: The real issue is that the situation that we see right now is the result of market anarchism operating over the years as people take over

    Edit 3: "If a rogue agency exists then banks will just freeze their assets and shut down their power..."

    Goumindong on
    wbBv3fj.png
  • Mad King GeorgeMad King George Registered User regular
    Quid wrote: »
    Show me a Libertarian and I'll show you either a Democrat or Republican who's ignorant on the issues they talk about. Or a sociopath.

    Well, the problem is, the idea of being able to pull yourself up by your bootstraps is a noble one. The "American Dream" isn't a terrible idea. But in the real world where we have wealthy corporate interests who actively stomp everyone who tries to pull themselves up, it doesn't work.

  • Fuzzy Cumulonimbus CloudFuzzy Cumulonimbus Cloud Registered User regular
    Libertarians also need to take some basic Econ and sociology classes before they spout their a priori whimsical yet destructive ideals.

    39kEWYh.jpg
  • Fuzzy Cumulonimbus CloudFuzzy Cumulonimbus Cloud Registered User regular
    rayofash wrote: »
    I personally believe there should be no government, communities should democratic, and their rules should not be enforced. I believe the non-aggression principle is something all people should live by. I'm also interested in the idea of socialism. Private property is recognized, and people keep what they produce, but what they don't need of what they produce goes to the community.
    I think the allure of Libertarianism is really in the kind of a priori or first principle distillations of working ideals about our world but they NEVER and I mean NEVER match up with reality which is the worst part.

    39kEWYh.jpg
  • mcdermottmcdermott Registered User regular
    emnmnme wrote: »
    Hippie communes are libertarian? That doesn't sound right ...

    But yeah, they can theoretically be fairly libertarian. Libertarianism doesn't mean you need to keep all your shit to yourself, it just mean nobody forces you to give it up to them. You may do so freely, and you may live in a society that encourages this through something other than force.

    Thing is, hippie communes get to fall back on the protection of the non-libertarian society that surrounds them.

    I personally believe there should be no government, communities should democratic, and their rules should not be enforced. I believe the non-aggression principle is something all people should live by. I'm also interested in the idea of socialism. Private property is recognized, and people keep what they produce, but what they don't need of what they produce goes to the community.

    So...yeah. You believe that it would be awesome if people were just genuinely good to each other. Me too.

    But I'll be over here in the real world where the only thing keeping somebody from forcibly taking your things from you is the rule of law, backed up by force. And even then it only makes it less likely.

  • rayofashrayofash Registered User regular
    edited April 2012
    Quid wrote: »
    It'd be awesome if government wasn't necessary. But it is. There's no way to work without it in the real world.

    But it isn't, there is nothing government doesn't do that people can't do without it.

    >So...yeah. You believe that it would be awesome if people were just genuinely good to each other. Me too.

    For every person committing a crime there a billions who aren't. And there would still be a police force and courts.

    >But I'll be over here in the real world where the only thing keeping somebody from forcibly taking your things from you is the rule of law, backed up by force.

    You honestly believe that's the only thing keeping society together? That without it your neighbor will come in and ransack your house? Most crime is committed out of desperation, and violent crime is almost always between people who knew each other.
    emnmnme wrote: »
    Hippie communes are libertarian? That doesn't sound right ...

    Where'd this come from? The Hutterites are Amish who are okay with technology.

    rayofash on
  • RozRoz Let the Storm follow Nap TimeRegistered User regular
    rayofash wrote: »
    I personally believe there should be no government, communities should democratic, and their rules should not be enforced. I believe the non-aggression principle is something all people should live by. I'm also interested in the idea of socialism. Private property is recognized, and people keep what they produce, but what they don't need of what they produce goes to the community.
    I think the allure of Libertarianism is really in the kind of a priori or first principle distillations of working ideals about our world but they NEVER and I mean NEVER match up with reality which is the worst part.

    Well, I mean yeah sure that works great in practice, but it will never hold up in theory.

  • FeralFeral Who needs a medical license when you've got style? Registered User regular
    rayofash wrote: »
    I personally believe there should be no government, communities should democratic, and their rules should not be enforced. I believe the non-aggression principle is something all people should live by. I'm also interested in the idea of socialism. Private property is recognized, and people keep what they produce, but what they don't need of what they produce goes to the community.

    1) What happens if somebody doesn't live by the non-aggression principle?
    2) How would your ideal society deal with collective action problems?
    3) What if somebody doesn't want to contribute to the community?

    every person who doesn't like an acquired taste always seems to think everyone who likes it is faking it. it should be an official fallacy.
    the "no true scotch, man" fallacy.
  • mcdermottmcdermott Registered User regular
    Libertarians also need to take some basic Econ and sociology classes before they spout their a priori whimsical yet destructive ideals.

    The beautiful part is that, more often than not, they'll just tell you the same. Though usually the issue is that they've taken econ classes, but only the 100-level ones (that deal with "perfect world" principles) and if they took any sociology they largely ignored it as hogwash, probably because it suggested that their position in life may not have been entirely due to the sweat of their own brow.

    So yeah, basically libertarians are nearly always either ignorant or sociopaths. I've met quite a few of both. You can tell the difference when you start picking apart their theories. This invariably results in some wishy washy explanation of why the issues you raise will not be a problem, or alternately a flat assertion that they just don't give a fuck about whoever gets screwed by their ideas. Boom, there's your answer.

  • mcdermottmcdermott Registered User regular
    edited April 2012
    rayofash wrote: »
    Quid wrote: »
    It'd be awesome if government wasn't necessary. But it is. There's no way to work without it in the real world.

    But it isn't, there is nothing government doesn't do that people can't do without it.

    >So...yeah. You believe that it would be awesome if people were just genuinely good to each other. Me too.

    For every person committing a crime there a billions who aren't. And there would still be a police force and courts.

    >But I'll be over here in the real world where the only thing keeping somebody from forcibly taking your things from you is the rule of law, backed up by force.

    You honestly believe that's the only thing keeping society together? That without it your neighbor will come in and ransack your house?

    Even with the rule of law (backed up by force) my house got ransacked and robbed last weekend.

    Yes, I'm confident that without it this would happen even more often.

    mcdermott on
  • Mad King GeorgeMad King George Registered User regular
    edited April 2012
    mcdermott wrote: »

    So yeah, basically libertarians are nearly always either ignorant or sociopaths. I've met quite a few of both. You can tell the difference when you start picking apart their theories. This invariably results in some wishy washy explanation of why the issues you raise will not be a problem, or alternately a flat assertion that they just don't give a fuck about whoever gets screwed by their ideas. Boom, there's your answer.

    Pretty much.

    Mad King George on
  • Kipling217Kipling217 Registered User regular
    Libertarians also need to take some basic Econ and sociology classes before they spout their a priori whimsical yet destructive ideals.

    True

    Listening to Ron Paul speeches does not count. When a person says "I have learned so much about the economy by listening to Doctor Paul", then they haven't learned much. Ditto Youtube vids and wikipedia articles.

    Real studies with accredited professors using real textbooks are needed. The real world is a complex place and human society is more complex still.



    Communicating from the last of the Babylon Stations.
  • GoumindongGoumindong Registered User regular
    The thing is, even if people are "genuinely good to each other" there still exists market failures due to the unbelievability of honesty.

    Using the same framework we can explain how it really does only take one bad apple to spoil the bunch. Because once there exists the possibility that the person you're dealing with is dishonest the presence of differing levels of quality [or risk] can lead to market failure simply because it becomes unbelievable that a person is honest as certain market prices [which are dictated by quality/risk ratio]

    This is why there is no market for people with pre-existing conditions in health care. Because given the proportion of sick/not sick people in those segments if you're willing to pay the price(which is necessary to insure the population), it must be the case that you're sick.

    And these things cannot be fixed without authority to coerce people into taking [or not taking] actions.

    wbBv3fj.png
  • VanguardVanguard The system was breaking down. Registered User, __BANNED USERS regular
    edited April 2012


    Vanguard on
  • rayofashrayofash Registered User regular
    edited April 2012
    Feral wrote: »
    rayofash wrote: »
    I personally believe there should be no government, communities should democratic, and their rules should not be enforced. I believe the non-aggression principle is something all people should live by. I'm also interested in the idea of socialism. Private property is recognized, and people keep what they produce, but what they don't need of what they produce goes to the community.

    1) What happens if somebody doesn't live by the non-aggression principle?
    2) How would your ideal society deal with collective action problems?
    3) What if somebody doesn't want to contribute to the community?

    1) Most people follow the NAP without even realizing it. But if they openly reject it (and who would?) they may not be allowed in the community, or will be dealt with if they do something wrong (taken to court, banished from the community, or thrown in prison if they are a danger to society, but this is disagreed upon and is a topic of discussion).
    2) Could you be descriptive? Do you mean a lack of labor or organization problems?
    3) Nothing. It's voluntary.

    Keep in mind that just because all the kinks haven't been worked out doesn't mean it wont work. Democracy was new and didn't work in the beginning (cities kept getting conquered) but that's not a reason for not trying it. When slavery was around people may have said "but who will tend the fields!" but that doesn't mean slavery was okay. You end slavery first and figure everything else out afterwards.
    Vanguard wrote: »
    www.youtube.com/watch?v=GkG4VK0wrcc

    This is a logical fallacy. It assumes because we had one thing the other options would have been impossible. Religion is also based on philosophy, and human beings are naturally social creatures who don't like hurting and killing unless they have to.

    rayofash on
  • override367override367 Registered User regular
    edited April 2012
    The reason Libertarianism won't work is simple: It violates its own principles.

    The market (as in, the people) had a demand for government, which was supplied by other people. If you knock over the government, the next day a new government will take its place (or rather, lots of little governments that over time will turn into fewer, bigger governments).

    People demand government because people disagree with each other about stuff. And yes it's shocking the number of teenage libertarian psychopaths out there who admit they're advocating for Mad Max but somehow believe their gun will protect them from whoever has the most trucks and guns just taking over and declaring themselves king (and the people following that person will do so because there is a demand for stability and order)

    Basically an anarchistic society falls apart the very first time there is a schism on an issue (which would be pretty much immediately) and someone persuasive says "I can solve problem X", whether that person has the most guns, the most money, is a religious leader, or simply the most eloquent.

    override367 on
    XBLIVE: Biggestoverride
    League of Legends: override367
  • ThanatosThanatos Registered User regular
    rayofash wrote: »
    But it isn't, there is nothing government doesn't do that people can't do without it.
    Really? What is your non-governmental solution for the FDA? Roads? Electricity? Running water? Sewage? Toxic waste? Tax collection (in order to pay for your police and courts)?

  • RozRoz Let the Storm follow Nap TimeRegistered User regular
    edited April 2012
    rayofash wrote: »

    But it isn't, there is nothing government doesn't do that people can't do without it.

    Absolutely untrue. You really need to define what you mean by "Government" here, because your posts are all over the place, and you contradict yourself in a number of areas.
    rayofash wrote:

    For every person committing a crime there a billions who aren't. And there would still be a police force and courts.

    Probably because a Rule of Law exists for a large portion of those billions anyway, and by asserting the use of "crime" you are conceding what Governments define as inappropriate behavior. Crime only exists in societies with laws. Police Forces and Courts are government entities and would need to be funded and be held accountable. Otherwise they would be defacto government entities with full power.
    rayofash wrote:
    You honestly believe that's the only thing keeping society together? That without it your neighbor will come in and ransack your house? Most crime is committed out of desperation, and violent crime is almost always between people who knew each other.

    Is it fully keeping communities together? No, probably not. Is it keeping the larger body of the nation-state together? Yes, absolutely. Also, you really need to cite some sources here. Most crime is committed out of desperation? I need to see some sources on that. Again, crime is unlawful behavior. You must have laws to have crimes. Laws are the byproducts of Governments.

    Roz on
  • Mad King GeorgeMad King George Registered User regular
    This is just like pro-Communist arguments.

    "Communism is the ideal society!"

    "Yeah but what about people who can't participate due to mental or physical infirmities or simply laziness or the fact that every governing body that had unlimited unchecked power turned out to be dickbags?"

    "Yeah, but in an ideal world..."

  • Fuzzy Cumulonimbus CloudFuzzy Cumulonimbus Cloud Registered User regular
    Thanatos wrote: »
    rayofash wrote: »
    But it isn't, there is nothing government doesn't do that people can't do without it.
    Really? What is your non-governmental solution for the FDA? Roads? Electricity? Running water? Sewage? Toxic waste? Tax collection (in order to pay for your police and courts)?
    How would a libertarian non-government deal with something like what happened in Contagion?
    Big Government is necessary for things like world management of disease.

    39kEWYh.jpg
  • Harry DresdenHarry Dresden Registered User regular
    edited April 2012
    rayofash wrote: »
    Feral wrote: »
    rayofash wrote: »
    I personally believe there should be no government, communities should democratic, and their rules should not be enforced. I believe the non-aggression principle is something all people should live by. I'm also interested in the idea of socialism. Private property is recognized, and people keep what they produce, but what they don't need of what they produce goes to the community.

    1) What happens if somebody doesn't live by the non-aggression principle?
    2) How would your ideal society deal with collective action problems?
    3) What if somebody doesn't want to contribute to the community?

    1) Most people follow the NAP without even realizing it. But if they openly reject it (and who would?) they may not be allowed in the community, or will be dealt with if they do something wrong (taken to court, banished from the community, or thrown in prison if they are a danger to society, but this is disagreed upon and is a topic of discussion).

    Because we have a government to enforce it. Anyone who only holds back doing bad things against society has no reason for restraint anymore. Many people will openly reject this, especially the criminal element in society. How do you get someone to court, banished or thrown in prison without the government? If they're a member in a gang what's to stop them from coming back in large numbers and burning down the community for reprisals? Civilians don't have the training or resources, mercenaries can be bought off.
    Keep in mind that just because all the kinks haven't been worked out doesn't mean it wont work. Democracy was new and didn't work in the beginning (cities kept getting conquered) but that's not a reason for not trying it. When slavery was around people may have said "but who will tend the fields!" but that doesn't mean slavery was okay. You end slavery first and figure everything else out afterwards.

    Then the theory is far to early to bring up as credible open opposed to democracy for the public.

    Harry Dresden on
  • mcdermottmcdermott Registered User regular
    Thanatos wrote: »
    rayofash wrote: »
    But it isn't, there is nothing government doesn't do that people can't do without it.

    Really? What is your non-governmental solution for the FDA? Roads? Electricity? Running water? Sewage? Toxic waste? Tax collection (in order to pay for your police and courts)?

    Courts are the big one. I mean sure, maybe roads and toxic waste can just...take care of themselves. And somebody might want to provide electricity, so that others might pay them in whatever goods they produce since there'd be no money since you know...government.

    But, like, who runs the courts? Private interests? What happens if the guy who was nice enough to run the courts for you decides he doesn't like your ugly face? Or are they run by the community? If so, how are they paid for? You can't say taxes, since we have no force to collect them and no government to tally and spend them. So we'll have community-run courts run by charity, then?

    Honestly, I don't much care about the specific fantasies of any given libertarian. I'm with override. The marketplace of ideas has rejected yours, and you should think long and hard on why that might be.

  • rayofashrayofash Registered User regular
    edited April 2012
    >The market (as in, the people) had a demand for more government, which was supplied by other people.

    Not so. Government was enforced on people who were only interested in feeding their families and couldn't defend themselves. Or so is thought. It's hard to find the origin of governance but it's generally accepted that it started out with wealthy slave owners. People got tired of them and direct democracy was the result.

    >Really? What is your non-governmental solution for the FDA? Roads? Electricity? Running water? Sewage? Toxic waste? Tax collection (in order to pay for your police and courts)?

    The who will build the roads argument? Really? First of all there would be no taxes unless people wanted to voluntary pay them. Secondly, people will fill what ever need there is. If people want running water, electricity, sewage, and FDA they work for it. In a capitalist society these would all be private businesses. In a socialist society these would be voluntary jobs that people would train for and do because they like having running water and electricity. They may also be payed in time cards or something which they can use to buy luxury goods, there are different ideas for that.

    >Toxic waste?

    Pollution violates the NAP as it destroys other peoples private property. Any business that pollutes will be made sure to minimize their pollution or clean it up. As there is no government that they can manipulate to pass laws to protect them from liability, they will be held responsible for their actions. If they refuse to cooperate they will be taken to court. If they refuse to go to court, they will be removed from the community to stop the pollution which the NAP holds as an aggressive action.

    rayofash on
  • Fuzzy Cumulonimbus CloudFuzzy Cumulonimbus Cloud Registered User regular
    Pollution violates the NAP as it destroys other peoples private property. Any business that pollutes will be made sure to minimize their pollution or clean it up. As there is no government that they can manipulate to pass laws to protect them from liability, if they refuse to cooperate they will be taken to court.
    Who makes sure that they minimize pollution?

    39kEWYh.jpg
  • Mad King GeorgeMad King George Registered User regular
    rayofash wrote: »
    They may also be payed in time cards or something which they can use to buy luxury goods, there are different ideas for that.

    Like coal miners getting paid in scrip. That idea worked out beautifully.

  • mcdermottmcdermott Registered User regular
    Is it fully keeping communities together? No, probably not. Is it keeping the larger body of the nation-state together? Yes, absolutely. Also, you really need to cite some sources here. Most crime is committed out of desperation? I need to see some sources on that. Again, crime is unlawful behavior. You must have laws to have crimes. Laws are the byproducts of Governments.

    When Winona Ryder gets busted for shoplifting, color me skeptical that crimes are about desperation. Sometimes taking things that don't belong to you is just plain fun. Or so it would seem, based on the large number of middle class kids that steal.

    I'm also curious how a society that depends entirely on the largesse of others to help people through rough patches would necessarily reduce that desperation.

  • rayofashrayofash Registered User regular
    edited April 2012
    rayofash wrote: »
    They may also be payed in time cards or something which they can use to buy luxury goods, there are different ideas for that.

    Like coal miners getting paid in scrip. That idea worked out beautifully.

    That was very different. That was a means of slavery. The coal miners didn't own the mine, and the goods were priced to keep them starving and indentured.

    >Who makes sure that they minimize pollution?

    There are different ideas. There could be an organization that monitors businesses, the community can do it themselves, all kinds of things.

    rayofash on
  • CelestialBadgerCelestialBadger Registered User regular
    rayofash wrote: »
    I personally believe there should be no government, communities should democratic, and their rules should not be enforced.

    Um, where do you think the government comes from? It comes from people democratically elected to represent us. Or do you mean the whole people should vote on every issue that comes up? In that case, the government is the interested class that proposes the issues to vote on.

    "Government" is not some evil force that comes into being from nowhere. It is simply the section of society that has the most power. If you were to shoot everyone in government today, tomorrow the government would be the next most powerful body in society. The corporations or the Church, I'd guess.

  • VanguardVanguard The system was breaking down. Registered User, __BANNED USERS regular
    rayofash, I think you are being overly idealistic and, frankly, naive. Arguing that people will work for the mutual benefit of everyone is...well, let's just say we have a lot of history to prove otherwise.

  • NeadenNeaden Registered User regular
    rayofash wrote: »
    >Toxic waste?

    Pollution violates the NAP as it destroys other peoples private property. Any business that pollutes will be made sure to minimize their pollution or clean it up. As there is no government that they can manipulate to pass laws to protect them from liability, they will be held responsible for their actions. If they refuse to cooperate they will be taken to court. If they refuse to go to court, they will be removed from the community to stop the pollution which the NAP holds as an aggressive action.
    But what about really minor pollution? What if I am just putting some fertilizer on my lawn and that isn't doing any harm, but all my neighbors start doing it and all the sudden we have algal blooms who regulates that? Or what if the community upstream is fine with the level of pollution they are putting into the river but we object to it? What about air pollution? Or noise pollution? What if the business that pollutes provides jobs and money to enough people that there is a disagreement about if they should get removed from the community, what do you do then?

  • mcdermottmcdermott Registered User regular
    >The market (as in, the people) had a demand for more government, which was supplied by other people.

    Not so. Government was enforced on people who were only interested in feeding their families and couldn't defend themselves. Or so is thought. It's hard to find the origin of governance but it's generally accepted that it started out with wealthy slave owners. People got tired of them and direct democracy was the result.

    So why didn't they directly democra...tate their government away?

    Pollution violates the NAP as it destroys other peoples private property. Any business that pollutes will be made sure to minimize their pollution or clean it up.

    By?
    As there is no government that they can manipulate to pass laws to protect them from liability, they will be held responsible for their actions.

    By?
    If they refuse to cooperate they will be taken to court. If they refuse to go to court, they will be removed from the community to stop the pollution which the NAP holds as an aggressive action.

    BY?


    Like, are you just envisioning a world where we can mean-mug people away?

  • Mad King GeorgeMad King George Registered User regular
    rayofash wrote: »
    rayofash wrote: »
    They may also be payed in time cards or something which they can use to buy luxury goods, there are different ideas for that.

    Like coal miners getting paid in scrip. That idea worked out beautifully.

    That was very different. That was a means of slavery. The coal miners didn't own the mine.

    Who runs the time cards?

«13456740
Sign In or Register to comment.