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

2456740

Posts

  • override367override367 Registered User regular
    edited April 2012
    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, 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.

    I'm curious, what is an example of a large scale libertarian ideology in the real world, at any point in history? The closest I can think of is several failed African states.

    override367 on
    XBLIVE: Biggestoverride
    League of Legends: override367
  • mcdermottmcdermott 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, and the goods were priced to keep them starving and indentured.

    And what, precisely, keeps this from happening again?

  • rayofashrayofash Registered User regular
    edited April 2012
    >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?

    The community can handle the first one just fine. The second one is a problem and can be taken care of by asking them to stop. If they don't they can be taken to court.

    >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?

    The first 2 I've already addressed. As for the last one, in a capitalist society, the business would have to be shut down and the people would have to rely on charity until they can find another source of income. In a socialist society, the business would be shut down but the people would be provided with food, water, housing, and everything else they need until new jobs could be found. Assuming the pollution couldn't be controlled that is.

    rayofash on
  • SheepSheep Registered User, __BANNED USERS regular
    edited April 2012
    Aside from the last one (which people can do any way) don't we do this already?

    No. We are a waste society. Excess is destroyed and we are pushed to recycle and "upgrade" constantly.

    Anarchism and libertarianism are lost causes.

    Sheep on
    QlBGc.jpg
  • rayofashrayofash Registered User regular
    edited April 2012
    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, 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.

    I'm curious, what is an example of a large scale libertarian ideology in the real world, at any point in history? The closest I can think of is several failed African states.

    Iceland used to have a libertarian capitalist society. The Hutterites currently live a libertarian socialist lifestyle here in the US, Spain had an anarchist society for a little while and Sweden did as well (though that was more of a large hippy commune). Madagascar's government stays out of its country side and the people live with no government oversight.

    rayofash on
  • Harry DresdenHarry Dresden Registered User regular
    rayofash wrote: »
    >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?

    The community can handle the first one just fine. The second one is a problem and can be taken care of by asking them to stop. If they don't they can be taken to court.

    >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?

    The first 2 I've already addressed. As for the last one, in a capitalist society, the business would have to be shut down and the people would have to rely on charity until they can find another source of income. In a socialist society, the business would be shut down but the people would be provided with food, water, housing, and everything else they need until new jobs could be found.

    How would the community shut it down? What if it's a state or nation wide corporation? Would you only shut down its local branch or the whole company?

  • ArbitraryDescriptorArbitraryDescriptor Registered User regular
    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).
    2) Could you be descriptive? Do you mean a lack of labor or organization problems?
    3) Nothing. It's voluntary.
    3. If Monsanto aquires control of all the arable land in your community, as well as all roads leading to it, and decides to personally cut you off, and anyone who supports you, until you give them what they want: what recourse would your non violent, ungoverned community have?

    How long could your non-violent, ungoverned society hold against despot who don't play by your rules?

    Automata-Sg.png
  • RozRoz Let the Storm follow Nap TimeRegistered User regular
    I find this discussion somewhat laughable.

    "We don't need governments, here's why."

    "Ok, but what about this scenario, or this one, or this one."

    "Well, non-government entities behaving like Governments could solve those problems."

    "Oh, so basically Governments?"

    "No, not the same."

    Burnage wrote: »
    If the Fiora rework actually makes her play like a fencer I will never select another champion ever again.
  • mcdermottmcdermott Registered User regular
    edited April 2012
    rayofash wrote: »
    >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?

    The community can handle the first one just fine.

    History, on line one, for you.

    The second one is a problem and can be taken care of by asking them to stop. If they don't they can be taken to court.

    Whose court? Your court? Their court? Or the court of the government that has established a higher court, and levies taxes on both communities to pay for it oh shit here we are back where we started.

    >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?

    The first 2 I've already addressed. As for the last one, in a capitalist society, the business would have to be shut down

    By?

    and the people would have to rely on charity

    From?

    until they can find another source of income. In a socialist society, the business would be shut down

    By?

    but the people would be provided with food, water, housing, and everything else they need

    From?

    until new jobs could be found.

    So...magic.

    mcdermott on
  • SchrodingerSchrodinger Registered User regular
    "Libertarianism" only works on scales where you're only dealing with friends, families, and neighbors. Because you're stuck with those people and you have an incentive to find a way to work things out, even if you aren't 100% happy about it.

    It fails on any scale where you're dealing with strangers, or people who you don't expect to see again in the future. Because that's when you need a third person mediator to help resolve things. This is basically explained in Graeber's book, linked to in the OP. One of the primary functions of governments is to resolve disputes that people are unable to resolve on their own.

    That means that functioning libertarianism and a free market economy are incompatible, because a free market economy takes place that makes functioning libertarianism impossible.

  • rayofashrayofash Registered User regular
    Roz wrote: »
    I find this discussion somewhat laughable.

    "We don't need governments, here's why."

    "Ok, but what about this scenario, or this one, or this one."

    "Well, non-government entities behaving like Governments could solve those problems."

    "Oh, so basically Governments?"

    "No, not the same."

    It's not the same because it's voluntary and without coercion.

  • NeadenNeaden Registered User regular
    rayofash wrote: »
    >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?

    The community can handle the first one just fine. The second one is a problem and can be taken care of by asking them to stop. If they don't they can be taken to court.

    >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?

    The first 2 I've already addressed. As for the last one, in a capitalist society, the business would have to be shut down and the people would have to rely on charity until they can find another source of income. In a socialist society, the business would be shut down but the people would be provided with food, water, housing, and everything else they need until new jobs could be found. Assuming the pollution couldn't be controlled that is.
    Can you use the quote function please?
    for the first one, no, the community can't because who decides how much minor pollution you are allowed to make? Someone will have to decide what chemicals are allowable and how much, and you are going to have a lot of arguments about what that proper level is and how important a good lawn is. And for the second one ok, so we take the other community to court, who decides who wins? And when someone does win, who makes sure that they follow the ruling?

    You say that the business will be shut down, but what if not everyone wants it to be shut down. Lets say we have a big factory in a town and it is putting out a bunch of pollution. Half the town thinks the factory needs to close because of the pollution. The other half either works there or has employees as their customers or whatever so they want it to stay up and say the pollution isn't such a big deal. How do you make a ruling and enforce it without a government?

  • VanguardVanguard The system was breaking down. Registered User, __BANNED USERS regular
    rayofash wrote: »
    Roz wrote: »
    I find this discussion somewhat laughable.

    "We don't need governments, here's why."

    "Ok, but what about this scenario, or this one, or this one."

    "Well, non-government entities behaving like Governments could solve those problems."

    "Oh, so basically Governments?"

    "No, not the same."

    It's not the same because it's voluntary and without coercion.

    Let's assume you're capable of rational, coherent thought. Explain, in no uncertain terms, how we would transition from the current situation to the one you propose.

    Theory is one thing, application another.

  • VanguardVanguard The system was breaking down. Registered User, __BANNED USERS regular
    Not to mention, any transition to the state is likely to have its dissenters. How do you bring them into this grand vision without coercion or by ignoring their demands?

  • rayofashrayofash Registered User regular
    Vanguard wrote: »
    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.
    Not everybody would be working for the mutual benefit of everyone else. People want electricity, running water, food, housing, and they will work to get it.

  • NeadenNeaden Registered User regular
    rayofash wrote: »
    Roz wrote: »
    I find this discussion somewhat laughable.

    "We don't need governments, here's why."

    "Ok, but what about this scenario, or this one, or this one."

    "Well, non-government entities behaving like Governments could solve those problems."

    "Oh, so basically Governments?"

    "No, not the same."

    It's not the same because it's voluntary and without coercion.
    But it explicitly has coercion because it can kick people out of the community or throw them in jail. Would this entity have a monopoly on the legitimate use of force for non self defensive purposes for instance? Because if so, then it is a government.

  • CelestialBadgerCelestialBadger Registered User regular
    rayofash wrote: »
    It's not the same because it's voluntary and without coercion.

    If there's no coercion, you are free to ignore their recommendations, right?

  • rayofashrayofash 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?

    Dunno. Some people think it would work on minutes and hours and that would be used as a form of currency. 5 minutes of work would buy you a cup of coffee or something like that.

  • mcdermottmcdermott Registered User regular
    Roz wrote: »
    I find this discussion somewhat laughable.

    "We don't need governments, here's why."

    "Ok, but what about this scenario, or this one, or this one."

    "Well, non-government entities behaving like Governments could solve those problems."

    "Oh, so basically Governments?"

    "No, not the same."

    I'm thinking we're going to see pages and pages of this.

    rayofash wrote: »
    Iceland used to have a libertarian capitalist society. The Hutterites currently live a libertarian socialist lifestyle here in the US, Spain had an anarchist society for a little while and Sweden did as well (though that was more of a large hippy commune). Madagascar's government stays out of its country side and the people live with no government oversight.

    So, aside from Madagascar, nothing that lasted?

    Also, should I note that some of those benefit from non-libertarian societies directly or indirectly? Like, the Hutterites don't enforce their own property rights. They also aren't completely self-sufficient; they sell goods out on the (non-libertarian) markets, then use that (non-libertarian) money to buy things.

  • rayofashrayofash Registered User regular
    edited April 2012
    rayofash wrote: »
    It's not the same because it's voluntary and without coercion.

    If there's no coercion, you are free to ignore their recommendations, right?

    Yes, unless your actions directly harms somebody or cause significant environmental damage without cleaning it up.

    rayofash on
  • override367override367 Registered User regular
    edited April 2012
    You actually didn't cover air pollution rayofash, if their factory is on their land how exactly are you going to prove their air pollution damages you specifically? There are thousands (tens of thousands?) of coal plants in the United States.

    Each year thousands of people suffer respiratory problems and die from their output. This has been significantly reduced by safety standards enforced by the federal government. How do you, without a strong national government, arrive at those safety standards?

    How do you assign individual blame to coal plants? How do you arrive at the conclusion that your cough is from the coal plant 400 miles from you and not from something else without a government to fund studies into the long term effects of coal? These are complicated issues with thousands of moving parts, issues whos ramifications are completely invisible to an individual or group of individuals unless they spend absurd amounts of money trying to get to the bottom of them.

    This is completely sidestepping global warming, an issue so transparent to an individual that despite the global consensus on the subject significant chunks of the public refuse to believe in it, and virtually no Libertarians do. The reason is because global warming cannot be solved by Libertarian ideology, it's existence can't even be acknowledged.

    override367 on
    XBLIVE: Biggestoverride
    League of Legends: override367
  • AManFromEarthAManFromEarth Let's get to twerk! The King in the SwampRegistered User regular
    edited April 2012
    rayofash wrote: »
    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?

    Dunno. Some people think it would work on minutes and hours and that would be used as a form of currency. 5 minutes of work would buy you a cup of coffee or something like that.

    You see the problem with this?

    There's no regulatory oversight.

    If all men were angels we wouldn't need government. Unfortunately there will always be someone looking to dick over other people. The idea is that government protects people from that.

    I recommend you read some Adam Smith, all of it, not just the parts that the far right cherry picks to support corporate greed.

    AManFromEarth on
    Lh96QHG.png
  • CelestialBadgerCelestialBadger Registered User regular
    rayofash wrote: »
    Yes, unless your actions directly harms somebody.

    So it's coercive if your actions harm somebody?

    GOVERNMENT!

    Light government, but nonetheless GOVERNMENT.

  • NeadenNeaden Registered User regular
    How about speed limits, if I am just driving down some road and zoom by a school at 100 miles per hour is someone going to stop me? Or is that just peachy keen. Or drunk drivers, how are you going to deal with them? You talk about kicking people out of the community, is this like in the old days when you could outlaw someone and they become a non-person and turn to banditry in the woods or get murdered?

  • SeptusSeptus Registered User regular
    The morals that the non-aggression pact seem to rely on, are based on small-scale interactions as mentioned above. You respond with empathy to the face of the person that you were about to rob, or that you've polluted upon. You give a decidedly smaller shit about the group of people 50 miles away, without thinking really good and hard about the longterm effects of your actions, but that's not something that will happen on a large scale without the emotional connection direct interpersonal communication.

    rodq.jpg
  • VanguardVanguard The system was breaking down. Registered User, __BANNED USERS regular
    edited April 2012
    rayofash wrote: »
    rayofash wrote: »
    It's not the same because it's voluntary and without coercion.

    If there's no coercion, you are free to ignore their recommendations, right?

    Yes, unless your actions directly harms somebody or cause significant environmental damage without cleaning it up.

    You are being a goose. You are making an argument for government here while claiming you are not.

    But, keep chasing your tail

    it does look delicious

    Vanguard on
  • SheepSheep Registered User, __BANNED USERS regular
    A wide gulf separates socialism from anarchism, and it is in vain that the agents-provocateurs of the secret police and the news paper lackeys of reactionary governments pretend that this gulf does not exist. The philosophy of the anarchists is bourgeois philosophy turned inside out. Their individualistic theories and their individualistic ideal are the very opposite of socialism. Their views express, not the future of bourgeois society, which is striding with irresistible force towards the socialisation of labour, but the present and even the past of that society, the domination of blind chance over the scattered and isolated small, producer. Their tactics, which amount to a repudiation of the political struggle, disunite the proletarians and convert them in fact into passive participators in one bourgeois policy or another, since it is impossible and unrealisable for the workers really to dissociate themselves from politics.


    That is to say, it's the same principle of libertarianism. What the anarchists want and what the result will be are different and are often espoused without regard to any social theory or knowledge of cause/effect.

    QlBGc.jpg
  • rayofashrayofash Registered User regular
    edited April 2012
    Neaden wrote: »
    rayofash wrote: »
    Roz wrote: »
    I find this discussion somewhat laughable.

    "We don't need governments, here's why."

    "Ok, but what about this scenario, or this one, or this one."

    "Well, non-government entities behaving like Governments could solve those problems."

    "Oh, so basically Governments?"

    "No, not the same."

    It's not the same because it's voluntary and without coercion.
    But it explicitly has coercion because it can kick people out of the community or throw them in jail. Would this entity have a monopoly on the legitimate use of force for non self defensive purposes for instance? Because if so, then it is a government.

    This is a topic of debate among anarchists. First of all no entity would have a monopoly on legitimate force, because that is a government. Second, it cannot kick people out of a community or throw them in jail without a really good reason. A really good reason is usually the person is violent and cannot be reformed. If there is a prison, it would be very nice, and the people would either be worked to pay off their debt (likely in a capitalist society) or receive therapy (in a socialist society).

    If some crazy old cook is guarding his land with a rifle but otherwise stays to himself, he'll be left alone (there's an example of this in Texas).

    rayofash on
  • RozRoz Let the Storm follow Nap TimeRegistered User regular
    edited April 2012
    rayofash wrote: »
    Roz wrote: »
    I find this discussion somewhat laughable.

    "We don't need governments, here's why."

    "Ok, but what about this scenario, or this one, or this one."

    "Well, non-government entities behaving like Governments could solve those problems."

    "Oh, so basically Governments?"

    "No, not the same."

    It's not the same because it's voluntary and without coercion.

    None of your solutions rectify either the voluntary or coercive problems. As I stated previously, you really need to define what you mean by "Government." Forcing people from your society if they don't play by the rules is the definition of involuntary and coercive - which are the only solutions you've proposed.

    Roz on
    Burnage wrote: »
    If the Fiora rework actually makes her play like a fencer I will never select another champion ever again.
  • NeadenNeaden Registered User regular
    rayofash wrote: »
    rayofash wrote: »
    It's not the same because it's voluntary and without coercion.

    If there's no coercion, you are free to ignore their recommendations, right?

    Yes, unless your actions directly harms somebody or cause significant environmental damage without cleaning it up.
    What is significant? Can I put pesticides on my plants that will then get into the water and have an incredibly minor effect on the community downstream? If I an does that mean everyone can and that with our collective pesticide use we wipe out the trout population and raise the cancer rate of the other community by a substantial amount? Or here is a crazy idea, what if I just use the pesticide and don't tell anyone and just say it is some legal pesticide, who is going to investigate it and stop me? Or what if a factory has pollution that is harmful to its workers and just doesn't tell anyone?

  • Fuzzy Cumulonimbus CloudFuzzy Cumulonimbus Cloud Registered User regular
    Also who is turning a profit from making all these regulatory decisions? Would there be any financial incentive to make these decisions and since there is no regulatory financial agency to dole out these incentives, would companies willingly pay to finance someone to tell them to not do certain things?

    39kEWYh.jpg
  • override367override367 Registered User regular
    edited April 2012
    rayofash wrote: »
    Neaden wrote: »
    rayofash wrote: »
    Roz wrote: »
    I find this discussion somewhat laughable.

    "We don't need governments, here's why."

    "Ok, but what about this scenario, or this one, or this one."

    "Well, non-government entities behaving like Governments could solve those problems."

    "Oh, so basically Governments?"

    "No, not the same."

    It's not the same because it's voluntary and without coercion.
    But it explicitly has coercion because it can kick people out of the community or throw them in jail. Would this entity have a monopoly on the legitimate use of force for non self defensive purposes for instance? Because if so, then it is a government.

    This is a topic of debate among anarchists. First of all no entity would have a monopoly on legitimate force, because that is a government. Second, it cannot kick people out of a community or throw them in jail without a really good reason. A really good reason is usually the person is violent and cannot be reformed. If there is a prison, it would be very nice, and the people would either be worked to pay off their debt (likely in a capitalist society) or receive therapy (in a socialist society).

    If some crazy old cook is guarding his land with a rifle but otherwise stays to himself, he'll be left alone (there's an example of this in Texas).

    Who makes the decision about what person is harmless and what person isn't? I for one wouldn't go along with your vision, and would violently oppose your worldview. So would the vast majority of the population. What do you do about us? How do you overthrow the existing society?

    The terminology you are using covers a small community with known actors, it is hopelessly insufficient to cover nations of hundreds of millions, cities with blocks that have populations greater than a small town, or international relations.

    What does your society do when a neighborhood of thousands of people decide they want to stone adulterers to death? What do they do when a city decides it wants to kick all the black people out and seize their property?

    override367 on
    XBLIVE: Biggestoverride
    League of Legends: override367
  • rayofashrayofash Registered User regular
    rayofash wrote: »
    Yes, unless your actions directly harms somebody.

    So it's coercive if your actions harm somebody?

    GOVERNMENT!

    Light government, but nonetheless GOVERNMENT.

    Ahaha. This is only my viewpoint. Some people think there shouldn't be prison or banishment at all. But if you have somebody harming somebody else it's in the best interest of the community that they are removed, this is a last case scenario for extreme situations (like that Norwegian murderer). Because there is no monopoly this can't grow to an extreme like a government can.

  • Fuzzy Cumulonimbus CloudFuzzy Cumulonimbus Cloud Registered User regular
    What prevents the monopoly? Is there a paid regulatory agency to prevent the monopoly and who pays that agency?

    39kEWYh.jpg
  • NeadenNeaden Registered User regular
    rayofash wrote: »
    Neaden wrote: »
    rayofash wrote: »
    Roz wrote: »
    I find this discussion somewhat laughable.

    "We don't need governments, here's why."

    "Ok, but what about this scenario, or this one, or this one."

    "Well, non-government entities behaving like Governments could solve those problems."

    "Oh, so basically Governments?"

    "No, not the same."

    It's not the same because it's voluntary and without coercion.
    But it explicitly has coercion because it can kick people out of the community or throw them in jail. Would this entity have a monopoly on the legitimate use of force for non self defensive purposes for instance? Because if so, then it is a government.

    This is a topic of debate among anarchists. First of all no entity would have a monopoly on legitimate force, because that is a government. Second, it cannot kick people out of a community or throw them in jail without a really good reason. A really good reason is usually the person is violent and cannot be reformed. If there is a prison, it would be very nice, and the people would either be worked to pay off their debt (likely in a capitalist society) or receive therapy (in a socialist society).

    If some crazy old cook is guarding his land with a rifle but otherwise stays to himself, he'll be left alone (there's an example of this in Texas).
    So what if I am just a crappy neighbor? My lawn is a mess, I have loud parties until late at night, my house is crappy and an eye sore then what do you do? Or what if there is a crime without a clear perpetrator. There is just a dead body. Is it just whoever wants to can investigate it? If that investigator come to my house to ask me some questions can I just tell him to get lost? If there is evidence that I killed him who decides if that evidence is sufficient for punishment and if so what punishment. And who makes sure that evidence was fairly collected, and that the person deciding on punishment isn't biased?

  • rayofashrayofash Registered User regular
    rayofash wrote: »
    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?

    Dunno. Some people think it would work on minutes and hours and that would be used as a form of currency. 5 minutes of work would buy you a cup of coffee or something like that.

    You see the problem with this?

    There's no regulatory oversight.

    If all men were angels we wouldn't need government. Unfortunately there will always be someone looking to dick over other people. The idea is that government protects people from that.

    I recommend you read some Adam Smith, all of it, not just the parts that the far right cherry picks to support corporate greed.

    There would be regulatory oversight. For consumer goods they'd have a stamp of approval on them showing they were examined and are safe. For businesses there would be an organization that would oversee them and make sure they are following regulations.

    Businesses are also capable of self regulating.
    You actually didn't cover air pollution rayofash, if their factory is on their land how exactly are you going to prove their air pollution damages you specifically? There are thousands (tens of thousands?) of coal plants in the United States.

    Each year thousands of people suffer respiratory problems and die from their output. This has been significantly reduced by safety standards enforced by the federal government. How do you, without a strong national government, arrive at those safety standards?

    How do you assign individual blame to coal plants? How do you arrive at the conclusion that your cough is from the coal plant 400 miles from you and not from something else without a government to fund studies into the long term effects of coal? These are complicated issues with thousands of moving parts, issues whos ramifications are completely invisible to an individual or group of individuals unless they spend absurd amounts of money trying to get to the bottom of them.

    This is completely sidestepping global warming, an issue so transparent to an individual that despite the global consensus on the subject significant chunks of the public refuse to believe in it, and virtually no Libertarians do. The reason is because global warming cannot be solved by Libertarian ideology, it's existence can't even be acknowledged.

    You're assuming studies and science couldn't be done without government.

  • NeadenNeaden Registered User regular
    rayofash wrote: »
    rayofash wrote: »
    Yes, unless your actions directly harms somebody.

    So it's coercive if your actions harm somebody?

    GOVERNMENT!

    Light government, but nonetheless GOVERNMENT.

    Ahaha. This is only my viewpoint. Some people think there shouldn't be prison or banishment at all. But if you have somebody harming somebody else it's in the best interest of the community that they are removed, this is a last case scenario for extreme situations (like that Norwegian murderer). Because there is no monopoly this can't grow to an extreme like a government can.
    So if I just break into peoples houses and take their stuff and keep doing it after everyone asks me to stop then what, I just get shunned? What if I don't care and just continue to break into peoples houses, then what?

  • VanguardVanguard The system was breaking down. Registered User, __BANNED USERS regular
    Your viewpoint does not make sense and is not realistic.

    Your ideas are bad and you should feel bad.

  • rayofashrayofash Registered User regular
    Neaden wrote: »
    rayofash wrote: »
    rayofash wrote: »
    Yes, unless your actions directly harms somebody.

    So it's coercive if your actions harm somebody?

    GOVERNMENT!

    Light government, but nonetheless GOVERNMENT.

    Ahaha. This is only my viewpoint. Some people think there shouldn't be prison or banishment at all. But if you have somebody harming somebody else it's in the best interest of the community that they are removed, this is a last case scenario for extreme situations (like that Norwegian murderer). Because there is no monopoly this can't grow to an extreme like a government can.
    So if I just break into peoples houses and take their stuff and keep doing it after everyone asks me to stop then what, I just get shunned? What if I don't care and just continue to break into peoples houses, then what?

    Stuff like this actually happens you know. If you're shunned and you come back, you'll get kicked out again. This will happen until the community gets tired of it, and the person would be confined and given psychiatric help.

  • November FifthNovember Fifth Registered User regular
    The problem isn't who will build the roads or supply water or electricity without government. The problem is that once those services are in place, whoever runs them is the government for all practical purposes, because you are giving them an immense amount power over your society.

    steam_sig.png
Sign In or Register to comment.