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

1235740

Posts

  • rayofashrayofash Registered User regular
    rayofash wrote: »
    rayofash wrote: »
    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.

    Only if they have the guns to back up their power, and only if society is not willing to fight them should that happen.

    So if US Water, a successful water agency buys up market share and controls the fresh water to 40 million people or something, and they double everyone's price just because they can, you're going to get a bunch of guys with guns to go stop them?

    Won't they be able to buy a lot of private security with all that profit? What do you do once you overthrow them and restore services (with a bunch of volunteers), none of you know how to manage a water company, who gets to be the new CEO? Do you hold a vote on it?

    That's the slippery slope fallacy.

    No, this is called the Gilded Age.

    Is this a socialist or capitalist society? In a socialist society the water would be free. In a capitalist society they would be brought to court. If the court sides the water company, they could find other courts (this is done in some societies, multiple judges, usually 3, get to rule and the majority rule wins).

  • CelestialBadgerCelestialBadger Registered User regular
    rayofash wrote: »
    They don't seek help for any of those, especially the police. In fact that would be scandalous in an Amish society.

    They don't seek help, but they receive it by living where they do.

    They benefit from the peace and rule of law applied by the courts and police and army of the USA. If these did not exist, the pacifistic Amish would be easy prey for slavers and unscrupulous types. How do you think the Amish would fare if they upped sticks and moved to Somalia?

  • rayofashrayofash Registered User regular
    edited April 2012
    >Rayofash, just because you keep saying it's not government that you suggest to govern, doesn't make it true. You are suggesting a government. Any kind of neutral authority is, by definition, a government.

    What I'm suggesting is government. It's self government (see the title(. It's community government rather than one large state or federal government.

    >A large group governed by a central authority has always wielded more power than hundreds of loosely affiliated, but independent communes.

    I'm advocating independent communes.

    rayofash on
  • Gabriel_PittGabriel_Pitt Damn you, eidetic memory! 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?
    The Ticktockman?
    Repent, Harlequin!

    Origin ID: Null_Cypher
    Thomas-Vail.png
  • PantsBPantsB Registered User regular
    @rayofash
    What do you think a government even is?

    11793-1.png
    Spoiler:
  • NeadenNeaden Registered User regular
    If you have a court system, and that court system can say that certain usages of force are illegitimate, such as beating your spouse, then that court system has a monopoly on the legitimate use of force and is a government.

  • mcdermottmcdermott Registered User regular
    rayofash wrote: »
    >Rayofash, just because you keep saying it's not government that you suggest to govern, doesn't make it true. You are suggesting a government. Any kind of neutral authority is, by definition, a government.

    What I'm suggesting is government. It's self government (see the title(. It's community government rather than one large state or federal government.

    So you still haven't explained what happens when two communities have opposing interests. Like the upstream pollution issue.

    That, and what the fuck you realize a state is just a larger community right?

    They benefit from the peace and rule of law applied by the courts and police and army of the USA. If these did not exist, the pacifistic Amish would be easy prey for slavers and unscrupulous types. How do you think the Amish would fare if they upped sticks and moved to Somalia?

    I'm unsure he has the ability to think about this, even if he had the desire.

  • rayofashrayofash Registered User regular
    edited April 2012
    rayofash wrote: »
    rayofash wrote: »
    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.

    Only if they have the guns to back up their power, and only if society is not willing to fight them should that happen.

    So if US Water, a successful water agency buys up market share and controls the fresh water to 40 million people or something, and they double everyone's price just because they can, you're going to get a bunch of guys with guns to go stop them?

    Won't they be able to buy a lot of private security with all that profit? What do you do once you overthrow them and restore services (with a bunch of volunteers), none of you know how to manage a water company, who gets to be the new CEO? Do you hold a vote on it?

    That's the slippery slope fallacy.

    No, but the closest public service I can think of fucking people over is private fire departments. They end up starting fires and screwing people out of property to increase their profit margin. It's how Marcus Crassus became the richest man in history

    He was also able to afford lots of burly men with swords so what could anyone do about it? As I recall it went on like that until the government started offering a competing service.

    That's one of the reasons I don't like capitalism.

    rayofash on
  • VanguardVanguard The system was breaking down. Registered User, __BANNED USERS regular
    You are not suggesting self government. You are suggesting what we currently have in place.

  • programjunkieprogramjunkie Registered User regular
    rayofash wrote: »
    So we should stick with a government because that's all we know? Nothing else should be tried?

    We've tried a lot of things, and found that many of them don't work. Laissez faire capitalism being one of them.

    That said, we sure could use a lot less government in specific areas, like eminent domain (as expanded today), the war on drugs, and a few other areas where it harms more than helps.

  • NeadenNeaden Registered User regular
    I don't understand why people hate a king but love a CEO.

    Like, what is that?
    Potentially you can become a CEO but not a king I would imagine.

  • The Muffin ManThe Muffin Man Registered User regular
    I don't understand why people hate a king but love a CEO.

    Like, what is that?

    The King makes no illusions that he doesn't need you. The CEO, at least, pretends he cares about your interests.

    shamanhealingwave.jpgabilitypaladinshieldofv.png
  • mcdermottmcdermott Registered User regular
    rayofash wrote: »
    >Rayofash, just because you keep saying it's not government that you suggest to govern, doesn't make it true. You are suggesting a government. Any kind of neutral authority is, by definition, a government.

    What I'm suggesting is government. It's self government (see the title(. It's community government rather than one large state or federal government.

    >A large group governed by a central authority has always wielded more power than hundreds of loosely affiliated, but independent communes.

    I'm advocating independent communes.

    Right. And ignoring the issue of both inter-commune issues as well as intra-commune oppression of individuals.

    Because those won't happen. Or "an organization" will step in if they do.

    This is hilarious, actually.

  • AManFromEarthAManFromEarth Their ideas are old and their ideas are bad. The King in the SwampRegistered User regular
    Neaden wrote: »
    I don't understand why people hate a king but love a CEO.

    Like, what is that?
    Potentially you can become a CEO but not a king I would imagine.

    Ha. Both are equally unlikely, but the question goes to the fact that people hate government but want private enterprise to have government's powers.

    Lh96QHG.png
  • rayofashrayofash Registered User regular
    >BY?

    EDIT: I will make it flash if I have to.

    I've answered this many times already. By people, by their neighbors. I'd do it myself if I had the opportunity.

  • DanHibikiDanHibiki Registered User regular
    Neaden wrote: »
    I don't understand why people hate a king but love a CEO.

    Like, what is that?
    Potentially you can become a CEO but not a king I would imagine.
    plus lot of people do love kings/queens... just as long as they don't hold any real power.

    sig_zpsf0994cbd.jpg
  • mcdermottmcdermott Registered User regular
    rayofash wrote: »
    >BY?

    EDIT: I will make it flash if I have to.

    I've answered this many times already. By people, by their neighbors. I'd do it myself if I had the opportunity.

    Okay.

    How?

  • NeadenNeaden Registered User regular
    rayofash wrote: »
    >Rayofash, just because you keep saying it's not government that you suggest to govern, doesn't make it true. You are suggesting a government. Any kind of neutral authority is, by definition, a government.

    What I'm suggesting is government. It's self government (see the title(. It's community government rather than one large state or federal government.

    >A large group governed by a central authority has always wielded more power than hundreds of loosely affiliated, but independent communes.

    I'm advocating independent communes.
    So what if communes have disputes? What about issues that cut across communes like air and water pollution, or infrastructure like transportation and power and trade? What about all the communities that exist to day that aren't even water self sufficient? Or cities that are dependent on rural areas to provide them food?

  • BurtletoyBurtletoy Registered User regular
    rayofash wrote: »
    >BY?

    EDIT: I will make it flash if I have to.

    I've answered this many times already. By people, by their neighbors. I'd do it myself if I had the opportunity.

    So, basically, you want a government but also vigilante justice?

    Is that really the entire point of this thread?

  • CelestialBadgerCelestialBadger Registered User regular
    I don't understand why people hate a king but love a CEO.

    Like, what is that?

    Because the CEOs have invested much time and money in bombarding the USA with propaganda to that effect.

    Nowhere else in the world thinks like this.

  • rayofashrayofash Registered User regular
    Neaden wrote: »
    If you have a court system, and that court system can say that certain usages of force are illegitimate, such as beating your spouse, then that court system has a monopoly on the legitimate use of force and is a government.

    Not if the people can remove it and following it is voluntary. There are already explanations for most of these questions in the OP.

  • mcdermottmcdermott Registered User regular
    PantsB wrote: »
    Neaden wrote: »
    If you have a court system, and that court system can say that certain usages of force are illegitimate, such as beating your spouse, then that court system has a monopoly on the legitimate use of force and is a government.

    Furthermore, for a court system to be more that some guys shooting the shit in robes it needs some way for their decisions to actually matter. This requires what is known as "police power." If a Judge tells someone he's guilty and he can just say "fuck off" then you don't have a court system.

    And for it to be a court system, there have to be a series of laws upon which they base their rulings. If its just the Judges doing what they think is best, they are simply an oligarchy (a style of government).

    If there's a series of laws(legislative), a court to interpret them (judicial) and a force to enforce them (executive) guess what you fucking have?

    A very large independent capitalistic commune?

  • PantsBPantsB Registered User regular
    Neaden wrote: »
    If you have a court system, and that court system can say that certain usages of force are illegitimate, such as beating your spouse, then that court system has a monopoly on the legitimate use of force and is a government.

    Furthermore, for a court system to be more that some guys shooting the shit in robes it needs some way for their decisions to actually matter. This requires what is known as "police power." If a Judge tells someone he's guilty and he can just say "fuck off" then you don't have a court system.

    And for it to be a court system, there have to be a series of laws upon which they base their rulings. If its just the Judges doing what they think is best, they are simply an oligarchy (a style of government).

    If there's a series of laws(legislative), a court to interpret them (judicial) and a force to enforce them (executive) guess what you fucking have?

    11793-1.png
    Spoiler:
  • NeadenNeaden Registered User regular
    Neaden wrote: »
    I don't understand why people hate a king but love a CEO.

    Like, what is that?
    Potentially you can become a CEO but not a king I would imagine.

    Ha. Both are equally unlikely, but the question goes to the fact that people hate government but want private enterprise to have government's powers.
    Oh in that case in this country it was by one political party repeatedly telling people that the government was bad at its job. When half the people you see in the government tell you how bad it is you might start believing them.

  • rayofashrayofash Registered User regular
    Burtletoy wrote: »

    There are also examples where members have been kicked out for going to the police. It depends on the commune.

  • AngelHedgieAngelHedgie Registered User regular
    I don't understand why people hate a king but love a CEO.

    Like, what is that?

    Because libertarians believe that the unelected head of a corporation is more accountable than a popularly elected official.

    XBL: Nox Aeternum / PSN: NoxAeternum / NN:NoxAeternum
    Spoiler:
  • NeadenNeaden Registered User regular
    rayofash wrote: »
    Neaden wrote: »
    If you have a court system, and that court system can say that certain usages of force are illegitimate, such as beating your spouse, then that court system has a monopoly on the legitimate use of force and is a government.

    Not if the people can remove it and following it is voluntary. There are already explanations for most of these questions in the OP.
    OK so I commit some crime. There is a trial and I am found guilty. What happens if I refuse and just go back to my house?

  • programjunkieprogramjunkie Registered User regular
    I don't understand why people hate a king but love a CEO.

    Like, what is that?

    I pretty much, at least in any case where CEOs are doing anything I would otherwise disapprove of, like unethical business practices or immoral retention of wealth.

  • NeadenNeaden Registered User regular
    rayofash wrote: »
    Burtletoy wrote: »

    There are also examples where members have been kicked out for going to the police. It depends on the commune.
    And you don't see how this could become an incredibly toxic environment in terms of crimes such as domestic abuse or sexual assault?

  • BurtletoyBurtletoy Registered User regular
    PantsB wrote: »
    Neaden wrote: »
    rayofash wrote: »
    Neaden wrote: »
    If you have a court system, and that court system can say that certain usages of force are illegitimate, such as beating your spouse, then that court system has a monopoly on the legitimate use of force and is a government.

    Not if the people can remove it and following it is voluntary. There are already explanations for most of these questions in the OP.
    OK so I commit some crime. There is a trial and I am found guilty. What happens if I refuse and just go back to my house?

    Wait first who decides what actions constitute a crime?

    The Governm......oh you almost got me there!

  • PantsBPantsB Registered User regular
    Neaden wrote: »
    rayofash wrote: »
    Neaden wrote: »
    If you have a court system, and that court system can say that certain usages of force are illegitimate, such as beating your spouse, then that court system has a monopoly on the legitimate use of force and is a government.

    Not if the people can remove it and following it is voluntary. There are already explanations for most of these questions in the OP.
    OK so I commit some crime. There is a trial and I am found guilty. What happens if I refuse and just go back to my house?

    Wait first who decides what actions constitute a crime?

    11793-1.png
    Spoiler:
  • The Muffin ManThe Muffin Man Registered User regular
    rayofash wrote: »
    >BY?

    EDIT: I will make it flash if I have to.

    I've answered this many times already. By people, by their neighbors. I'd do it myself if I had the opportunity.

    Except if their neighbors agree.
    Then who enforces it?

    Or do the gay people just give up and leave?

    shamanhealingwave.jpgabilitypaladinshieldofv.png
  • rayofashrayofash Registered User regular
    mcdermott wrote: »
    rayofash wrote: »
    >Rayofash, just because you keep saying it's not government that you suggest to govern, doesn't make it true. You are suggesting a government. Any kind of neutral authority is, by definition, a government.

    What I'm suggesting is government. It's self government (see the title(. It's community government rather than one large state or federal government.

    >A large group governed by a central authority has always wielded more power than hundreds of loosely affiliated, but independent communes.

    I'm advocating independent communes.

    Right. And ignoring the issue of both inter-commune issues as well as intra-commune oppression of individuals.

    Because those won't happen. Or "an organization" will step in if they do.

    This is hilarious, actually.

    In extreme situations.
    Neaden wrote: »
    rayofash wrote: »
    Neaden wrote: »
    If you have a court system, and that court system can say that certain usages of force are illegitimate, such as beating your spouse, then that court system has a monopoly on the legitimate use of force and is a government.

    Not if the people can remove it and following it is voluntary. There are already explanations for most of these questions in the OP.
    OK so I commit some crime. There is a trial and I am found guilty. What happens if I refuse and just go back to my house?

    There's an interesting 3 part video in the OP that describes this exact situation.

  • Nova_CNova_C Sniff Sniff Snorf Beyond The WallRegistered User regular
    Wait, if following the government that isn't centralized is totally voluntary and there are no consequences to defying it, then why would anyone submit to it's decisions? If a powerful community is committing genocide against another, less powerful community and they simply ignore this voluntary government's condemnation, what is the point of the government?

    There has to be enforcement for any kind of authority to have legitimacy. And what's to stop the most powerful community from just enslaving the less powerful ones? There is no threat to them by this voluntary government since there is no enforcement.

  • rayofashrayofash Registered User regular
    Neaden wrote: »
    rayofash wrote: »
    Burtletoy wrote: »

    There are also examples where members have been kicked out for going to the police. It depends on the commune.
    And you don't see how this could become an incredibly toxic environment in terms of crimes such as domestic abuse or sexual assault?

    The problem was sexual assault, her brothers wouldn't stop raping her and they were all pacifists so instead of stopping it they drove her out of the community after she took matters into her own hands and contacted the police. The community should have called the police instead of telling her to pray harder the first time she asked for help.

    This is a rare kind of occurrence, but it was taken care of.

  • mcdermottmcdermott Registered User regular
    Neaden wrote: »
    rayofash wrote: »
    Burtletoy wrote: »

    There are also examples where members have been kicked out for going to the police. It depends on the commune.

    And you don't see how this could become an incredibly toxic environment in terms of crimes such as domestic abuse or sexual assault?

    Does. Does become. Or, more correctly, has become.

  • The Muffin ManThe Muffin Man Registered User regular
    rayofash wrote: »
    mcdermott wrote: »
    rayofash wrote: »
    >Rayofash, just because you keep saying it's not government that you suggest to govern, doesn't make it true. You are suggesting a government. Any kind of neutral authority is, by definition, a government.

    What I'm suggesting is government. It's self government (see the title(. It's community government rather than one large state or federal government.

    >A large group governed by a central authority has always wielded more power than hundreds of loosely affiliated, but independent communes.

    I'm advocating independent communes.

    Right. And ignoring the issue of both inter-commune issues as well as intra-commune oppression of individuals.

    Because those won't happen. Or "an organization" will step in if they do.

    This is hilarious, actually.

    In extreme situations.
    Neaden wrote: »
    rayofash wrote: »
    Neaden wrote: »
    If you have a court system, and that court system can say that certain usages of force are illegitimate, such as beating your spouse, then that court system has a monopoly on the legitimate use of force and is a government.

    Not if the people can remove it and following it is voluntary. There are already explanations for most of these questions in the OP.
    OK so I commit some crime. There is a trial and I am found guilty. What happens if I refuse and just go back to my house?

    There's an interesting 3 part video in the OP that describes this exact situation.

    Yes, but this is also a thread for discussing this.

    So why don't you sum it up, or at least give us a time to look for it, rather than just say "Oh, the video explains it"?

    shamanhealingwave.jpgabilitypaladinshieldofv.png
  • mcdermottmcdermott Registered User regular
    Yes, I can read much faster than those douchebags can talk.

  • CelestialBadgerCelestialBadger Registered User regular
    rayofash wrote: »
    There's an interesting 3 part video in the OP that describes this exact situation.

    Summarize it for those of us who don't want to spend half an hour watching what is undoubtedly tedious right-wing propaganda.

Sign In or Register to comment.