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
Posts
I think in that universe we'd have killed each other off before we got out of Africa.
I don't have so much free time that I can waste it in this manner.
My Band "The Wicked Girls" http://soundcloud.com/the-wicked-girls/sets
I don't want to be an emperor either. I just want to be a writer, so that other people can read my works and feel the same joy I do in creating them.
I think Chaplin's speech deserves better then a TF2 AMV. Here's the original.
I have a tumblr.
Check it out.
You did know that for quite a while, Tube's title was "Idi Admin", right?
Like, he'll ban you for looking at him wrong on some days, but....
wait, that's how it is all the time.
Nevermind.
Also on PSN: twobadcats
1) What do anarchists/socialist libertarians/{RoA and that other dude in this thread} actually want? Are they just debating purely abstract concepts? Or do they want to see their ideals of societies implemented? Is this something meant for 4 centuries ahead, or next month?
2) If they do want to see a socialist libertarian (or whatever name) society, how big they expect/want it to be? An isolated survivalist community far up a montain/isle/desert, something like those last few uncontacted native tribes in Brasil? Maybe they want to see the entire USA become their dream? North America? Or the entire world?
3) Considering the magnitude of this desired new society as questioned above, how would they see it being implemented? The isolated few people is easy to see. But what about an entire country, or continent, or the world?
I make those questions because the purely theoretical debate is like a puppy chasing its tail, as another poster has shown.
I would imagine everybody wants to see their ideals implemented, as soon as can be safely accomplished. But there are also people who simply want us to "question assumptions"; assuming good faith, I see nothing wrong with using libertarian principles to guide us through careful decisions regarding state actions (ie, "I know we've done it this way for a while, but do we really need the government to provide x?").
They would appear to desire small, independent communities, at least for now.
The only good way to implement libertarianism is piecemeal--slowly replacing individual government services and functions with voluntary, community-based systems (or with widespread agreement that those systems are no longer necessary/desired). Rather than going the Ron Paul route of "become the President, gut the government, let people figure out where to go from there", it's probably better to start by creating the new systems first. You can't successfully and safely cut out Social Security until you've invented a charity that can consistently and efficiently give a similar quality of support to senior citizens, and that can scale up to take over for the government.
Transitioning from one system of government to another takes either patience and time or a cataclysm (or an entirely new living space).
There is no 'good way' to transition to libertarianism, because the ideology is a bad joke and will not function. At best you'll create a state where only the poor pay taxes and a lack of oversight results in catastrophic pollution & labor abuses, at worst you'll completely disintegrate modern society.
You always remind me why I like you in charge
I accept this social contract
Something something Leviathan
my unofficial autobio will be accompanied with tips on how to smile
cause I've found that when they don't see you frown, they never know that you're a threat
and they don't sweat you when you came around
Because your imaginary small community will be made up people exactly like you who agree with you on everything. They will exactly share your views on morality, your work ethic, probably your religion and race as well.
small, independent communities, are not diverse communities. Like someone said up thread it's really not about having no-government, it's about having more control of the government, via tyranny of the majority(who will be just like you).
Small communities are actually way more controlling then large ones, with a corresponding reduction in freedom. You are way more dependent on your neighbours and they have way more say in how you live your life. Sure they might help you out if you have trouble, but that help comes with some big strings attached. Like: Stop being gay, stop dating that N-word and Cletus needs help fixing his car, guess who is going to help him. You can't quit on such a community and you can't do what you want, because if your community doesn't like it, they can take everything you have away from you. Including your life.
That "shunning" policy the libertards talk about? In a small community that is a long drawn out death sentence or at best a drop into life destroying poverty. And shunning can happen over trivial acts that annoy the community. Like not attending church every sunday. Conformity becomes the key to survival.
The smaller the community the more people need each other. The more they need each other, the less freedom people have. Its Sociology 101
In the beginning, sure. Only they'd want to grow large enough to be a nation unto itself, like Ray wanted.
Well, there were always people with weapons fucking shit up. Since the dawn of time. The only times it didn't happen that way were in places so small that everyone is part of the same community. The only reason we don't have so many people with guns fucking shit up nowadays are governments.
People have raided other people since the dawn of mankind. They still do.
Oh, another issue. How would a place like, say New York City function without government. It's very to make some vague excuse about the community shunning someone, but what about NYC?
Exactly.
I'd like to see the whole world a libertarian socialist society eventually, but for now I'd like to see a state or two adopt the principles starting with cities and going on up. Look up Llan City, California. It was a libertarian socialist society that did very well until the state wouldn't let them build a dam, City of Quartz by Mike Davis goes into more detail.
As for a time span it can happen within a few months to a few years if people really wanted to work towards it, the Free State Project already has 15 free staters in New Hampshire's congress.
>And what's to stop people with guns from fucking up that plan?
What's to stop people from doing it now? The entire country could be overthrown in a month with the right people working the right plan.
So the community at large told them no.
Sounds like it worked exactly the way you wanted it to.
And barring terribly unlikely scenarios such as the bulk of the military joining in the revolt this is just blatantly untrue. What people want to know is what keeps the people with guns from outside the community deciding to takeover.
What I still want to know since you never answered is what prevents it from turning in to another Gilded Age.
How the fuck can people be libertarians? How the fuck can they not go "Hey, wait a minute, maybe helping each other is the right thing?" How the fuck can you put profits before people? How? Fucking how?
I have a tumblr.
Check it out.
See my first post.
Most, much like the two so far in this thread, have no idea what it is they're suggesting.
Because... coercion is bad*, man.
*Except when employed by non-state entities.
You paint this picture of Libertarians wanting a democratically controlled society, free of the involvement of a coercive government, correct? Now let's ignore fictional communities or states or nations that don't exist, let's focus on the modern day; If the majority of the population of a state, eg, the United States, wanted to be ruled by a government, how do Libertarians respect their democratic opinion? Now, you might argue that in our two party split system, there is often very little room for agreement these days, but even if the two sides disagree with each other, they still fundamentally want a government, just not necessarily one run on the other's principles. So as Libertarians, do you respect the wishes of the gross population, or decide that you know better than the rest?
City of Quartz is a book about Los Angeles and its residents. A search for Llan City, California yields no results. Neither does "Allan City"
I am really skeptical about your account of this when the book you claim its in is about a different city, and the city you're claiming exists doesn't.
*We have even had people that tried
The military being incredibly diverse makes this an impossibility. If the entire military was drawn from one aspect of society it might be possible, but it's drawn from every background and income level (although officers are predominately upper middle income and enlisted predominately lower middle income)
For the military to institute a coup in the US the situation would have to be incredibly fucked up, like president refusing to hand over power after an election and using federal forces to exert control/order the bombing of a US city/something like that. Basically it's impossible though, if there was ever enough populist rage where overthrowing the government was even a possibility (see: great depression), the necessity to do so would remove itself.
The checks and balances aren't perfect, but they can handle that much. The only thing they can't stop is when half the country is willing to die to suppress the rights of their fellow citizens.
150 Years of Libertarian.
It's Llano, California.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Llano_Del_Rio
It had it's problems as you can tell, racism being the biggest one.
Libertarians would respect their rights. The whole point is voluntary participation.
Do you even read the links you post?
Or answer the questions you're asked?
Then you get the society you have now. Congrats in supporting society!
The problem is it's a state based on violence. We do not see it as legitimate because of this, so we do not want to participate in it or follow its laws.
Did you? A lot of you seem to have a problem understanding what 'libertarian' means.
Anarchists and libertarian socialists consider themselves to be one in the same. We do not advocate free market capitalism and some find it offensive when they refer to themselves as libertarian or anarchistic.
They had a government anyway! How is this an example of what you're proposing at all?
Old PA forum lookalike style for the new forums.
They were self governed through direct democracy. Most modern anarchists would be against their decision to have a bureaucracy though, and would generally have an attitude of 'do what you want just don't be a dick.'
But you propose nothing better. This is the flaw here. You are saying we should abandon the current system for one that for millenia has resulted in horrific conditions. Maybe you find coercion to be the worst sin, but most other people consider choosing the system that leads to millions dying needlessly so ray can stop being so horribly oppressed as he sucks off the teat of the government.
You want people to work together without an overarching organization ensuring they do. Which is pure, unworkable fantasy.
Because there's no such thing as an agreed upon definition. Congrats again, your "societies" can't even get past an agreed upon framework.
Also, a direct democracy does not work with 300 million people. They have shit to do and the government needs to solve problems. It doesn't have time for everyone to put in and then consider their opinions.
Read up on the Peloponnesian War for why direct democracy doesn't work for crafting good policy. Or shit, just look at California's state budget. Representative democracy is useful because people who actually know shit can make better policies in their specialty area than Average Joe.
Old PA forum lookalike style for the new forums.
The same way people are against windmill generators, solar power, and vaccinations; and the same reason people still dabble with "alternative" sciences like chakras and ufology. Ignorance, perspective, and a lack of a decent sense of proportion. A libertarian feels restricted, by government or society or religion; oppressed and held back by a force from without that keeps them from succeeding at "being all that they can be," and denies them excellence. Whether or not they WOULD succeed, they believe they would, and moreover they believe that the forces holding them back also hold the entire WORLD back.
History is full of people like Galileo Galilei, Louis Pasteur, and Charles Darwin being slowed down or held back in unlocking the mysteries of the universe by dogmatic outside forces. This fact of history is fuels the delusion of the Galileo Gambit which says, "if people hold me back, I must be right." Ergo the sociopath kept from murder, the chemist kept from polluting, and the banker forced to pay taxes are all held back from making the world a better place merely by virtue of the fact that someone is stopping them.
The thing is, life stagnates and dies without people who occasionally "shake up the system" and buck at social restraints. It also disintegrates if everyone single person does that. Fundamentally the men and women who do that "system bucking" are doing it out of a sense of self (self-righteousness, selfishness, self-obession, self-something) that tells them they are important and right and above (insert social restriction) but as Christopher Hitchens said, “I don’t think there’s any need to have essays advocating selfishness among human beings. I don’t know what your impression has been. But some things require no further re-inforcement.”
on youtube:
One might say that the crazed system-bucking troublemaker is the "inspiration" to the plodding "perspiration" of the sheeple, but if you remember what the required ratio of those two things is for invention you realize...something. I don't know where I was going with that sentence, but now I am going to bed.
To clarify for those who don't feel like Googling, direct democracy in California works by way of ballot initiatives. It arguably failed in the case of Proposition 8, which not only featured tyranny of the majority (as it took the right to marriage, guaranteed by the California State Constitution, away from a minority), but saw a powerful organization from a different community (Mormons) funding efforts to influence the vote.
Also, Californians directly voted to make it really hard for their legislators to pass tax increases, then directly voted to mandate costly services. Last year California dealt with this by making budget cuts to such unessentials as "schools" and "police". Direct democracy only works with a population small enough to ensure almost everybody is informed and engaged. Anything above a real small town is going to run into shit like this where the math doesn't work and the community goes to shit. And if it is a real small town, marauding Mormons will just take over.