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
What unifies Somalia won't be a new government, it will be the armada they build to wreck face.
If faith is just a silent tribute, mine is just a desperate act.
We only inherently own two things: Our own bodies and our labor.
As all men are equal, everyone has an equal claim to everything else. A tree, an apple, a fish, a rock each belong to each individual equally in a state of nature. If there are two people on this "island" and you eat an apple, you have stolen from me the half of the apple that is mine. If you eat half an apple, you have taken from me half of the half of an apple that is mine.
As its not possible to use these resources in every way that its possible (a parcel of land can't be used to hunt, build a house and plant a field in, a Cow used for meat no longer produces milk), societies formed and agreed to rules to establish a just system of property rights and to protect the natural rights of individuals that form these societies.
So while it gets more complicated than that (the establishment of just government also involves the protection of those rights that are inherent, including the ownership of self and labor for instance), without government all exclusive ownership is theft from the people in general. Exclusive property rights require either a system by which exclusive ownership of resources beyond self and one's own labor is awarded, or a unanimous agreement of all people. As the latter is neither tenable (one asshole ruins it for everyone) or at all efficient, governments exist.
The computer you're working on now requires thousands of natural resources (from its materials to the materials needed to construct the machinery that built it, to the materials needed to create the electrity that runs it or built it to the resources to ship it to the resources needed to enable its design...).
No one owned them inherently. They became more valuable through the application of labor, yes. But their exclusive use requires a government to establish a system by which they were apportioned. If taxation is theft, you are currently guilty of the same because you can only justly own that computer through government sanction.
QEDMF xbl: PantsB G+
If so, I would be curious to know what sort of sacrifices you see this society requiring of you / what you would willingly give up.
Where do you think governments come from?
The second and third are criminal disputes. The video are also from a capitalist perspective.
>how we would prevent things like bribery or a company just having one of these judges on retainer who knows which side his bread is buttered on
The arbiter is agreed on before hand.
>what would happen if two people don't agree on an arbitrator
Assuming they have insurance agencies, one possible solution is the insurance agencies will pick one. Otherwise they'll have to settle it without one or find some way to agree on an arbitrator.
>or what happens if the person simply rejects the decision
They can agree on a different court, or a voluntary police force will enforce the courts decision.
>the one guy agrees to pay the dude 2 apples just because otherwise they would be back where they started. But back where they started was a better situation for him.
Yea I didn't like the decision either but I can see how they came up with it. They wasted a lot of time with that dispute and the one guy could have gotten a lot more apples with that time.
I didn't make my leg but I claim ownership over it.
"non-coercively"
Wouldn't your leg fall under "our own bodies?"
Edit: Also it has the huge problem of not having precedence as a factor which court cases do, so there would be no real way of preparing before hand or having a basis for expecting a decision. It would also make any sort of advocate system incredibly difficult.
Lets think of an example. Lets say I eat at a restaurant, but I get sick from the food! So I go up to them and say that I am mad and want them to pay me for my medical bills and compensation. The restaurant says they'll pay for half and we can't resolve the situation. I say that I want Frank to arbitrate for it since I've used him before and I like him. They want Billy to arbitrate for them because that is who they always use. Neither of us have an incentive to settle for the other persons arbitrator but meanwhile the hospital is coming after me for my bills while the restaurant is fine with the situation not being resolved because then they don't have to pay me anything. There is clearly an imbalance of power here and no real means of rectifying it.
Well, hopefully it stands under your own body.
:^:
That's from a capitalist perspective. From a socialist perspective there would be no such binding arbitration as the workers would own the business.
If a police force is needed it's only to defend against the aggression of the individual.
Only in the same way land and property is. The point is we didn't make our own bodies so how can we claim ownership over it? It's the same principle used against land ownership.
Using coercion.
And why would they do this?
Like, you know, what currently happens too often already
In a socialist society the workers would own the business, in a capitalist society workers would have unions.
No! You coerced your leg into being a part of you. You could set your leg free at any time, but will you? Most certainly not! And why? Because you want the slave labor your leg provides for free! You filthy scumbag!
How did I not make my leg?
Is my DNA/genes not, in essence, me?
I'm pretty sure I made my legs. I sure as shit didn't buy them anywhere.
Then agree on an arbitrator before hand.
Self defense is not coercion.
So, elected judges.
Edit: Whoops. Forgot the word voluntary.
We've discussed this earlier. There would still be regulation.
If you wipe the slate clean, naked refugees on new planet with no supplies, there is no property anyone can claim to inherently own. You would still own your body.
And by the sounds of it, I'm also about to own a whole lot of land.
Yes, it is. It's simply a socially-acceptable form of coercion.
No, it isn't.
But that's not relevant, since enforcement of a judgment is not self-defense.
EDIT: Well, I guess you could "coerce" somebody into not killing you using force. But that's a pretty twisted use of the word, IMO.
>That will create bias towards the company.
Choose a different arbitrator. Or choose a public arbitrator who doesn't accept payment.
There's also an idea of a public database of peoples behavior so you can see who is trustworthy. If somebody doesn't agree to arbitration, it will go into a database that everybody could see. If you are innocent and prove so, the record is wiped. I think this is an invasion of privacy, there's also the the problem of false claims.
If you think so.
More likely Drogo's gonna come along, take it from you, and if you're lucky leave you alive.
This already exists today. Why do you need examples?