Vanilla Forums has been nominated for a second time in the CMS Critic "Critic's Choice" awards, and we need your vote! Read more here, and then do the thing (please).
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

1222325272840

Posts

  • CelestialBadgerCelestialBadger Registered User regular
    Lawndart wrote: »
    You know what's one of the most prevalent example of "neighbors working together to restore the peace" in American history?

    Lynchings.

    Quite right. This is why people were steaming mad over the Trayvon Martin case. Which, if you think about it was caused by a libertarian principle making it into law - the right to "stand your ground" - which essentially gives police powers to ordinary citizens.

  • VanguardVanguard The system was breaking down. Registered User, __BANNED USERS regular
    Malkor wrote: »
    Vanguard wrote: »
    Vanguard wrote: »
    Finally, a conversation worth having. The notion that we can't support more people is ludicrous. I don't have the numbers on hand, but if you look at the Green Revolution, which was billed as the way we would feed the world's poor, you'll notice something interesting. While we were able to feed more people, percentage-wise, more people are going hungry.

    We could, without any doubt, feed the entire world's population right now without blinking an eye. The reality is, a lot of that food is sitting in warehouses right now, waiting to be shipped and sold in the supermarkets of the first world.

    Or being thrown away by said supermarkets because it didn't sell in time. If, instead of having tribalist microgovernments, we had a single, monolithic world government that gave a shit about its citizens we could be putting that spare food in the mouths of starving kids all over the world. But the first world can't even feed its own starving populations due to administrative costs and a lack of enough people giving a shit, which is both a shame and direct (I'd think) proof that all of the "people are basically good! they'll be caring and compassionate if Government gets out of the way and lets them!" hand-waving at the start of this thread was BS.

    True. I was listening to NPR some time ago and there was some professor who was talking about use of space. If everyone on earth lived like New Yorkers, the entire world population could fit in the state of Texas. How many Texas-sized land chunks are in the world? A lot.

    That sounds so ridiculous that I would imagine that there might be some truth to it. People generally think of Manhattan first, and it's the most densely populated ~69k people per square mile. Texas is ~268k square miles, which means you could fit 18 billion people if they lived in a similar fashion to New York.

    mah gawhd
    Spoiler:

    It is a pretty crazy thought. Having driven across Texas from west to east, it's mindblowing that we can fit the world into it.

  • notdroidnotdroid Registered User regular
    Vanguard wrote: »
    True. I was listening to NPR some time ago and there was some professor who was talking about use of space. If everyone on earth lived like New Yorkers, the entire world population could fit in the state of Texas. How many Texas-sized land chunks are in the world? A lot.

    Well to be fair, overpopulation has never been an issue of not having enough room for people, but rather of not having enough resources to feed those people. Still, if the will* was really there, we could easily feed the world's population a few times over.

    *Meat would probably be out of question at some point.

  • ThanatosThanatos Registered User regular
    edited April 2012
    notdroid wrote: »
    Vanguard wrote: »
    True. I was listening to NPR some time ago and there was some professor who was talking about use of space. If everyone on earth lived like New Yorkers, the entire world population could fit in the state of Texas. How many Texas-sized land chunks are in the world? A lot.
    Well to be fair, overpopulation has never been an issue of not having enough room for people, but rather of not having enough resources to feed those people. Still, if the will* was really there, we could easily feed the world's population a few times over.

    *Meat would probably be out of question at some point.
    There is arable land out there that is much more efficient to be used for raising meat than growing crops. If we're talking about a global diet, the most efficient one is a lot of vegetables with a small amount of meat, not a purely vegetarian diet.

    Thanatos on
  • Edith_Bagot-DixEdith_Bagot-Dix Registered User regular
    notdroid wrote: »
    Vanguard wrote: »
    True. I was listening to NPR some time ago and there was some professor who was talking about use of space. If everyone on earth lived like New Yorkers, the entire world population could fit in the state of Texas. How many Texas-sized land chunks are in the world? A lot.

    Well to be fair, overpopulation has never been an issue of not having enough room for people, but rather of not having enough resources to feed those people. Still, if the will* was really there, we could easily feed the world's population a few times over.

    *Meat would probably be out of question at some point.

    At then back in the equation at a certain point after that.

    steam_sig.png

    Also on PSN: twobadcats
  • CelestialBadgerCelestialBadger Registered User regular
    At then back in the equation at a certain point after that.


    Mmm, soylent.

  • Boring7Boring7 Registered User regular
    At then back in the equation at a certain point after that.


    Mmm, soylent.
    NSFW dialogue
    Spoiler:

    Thanatos wrote: »
    Goldman Sachs may as well be named COBRA.
  • Harry DresdenHarry Dresden Registered User regular
    notdroid wrote: »
    Vanguard wrote: »
    True. I was listening to NPR some time ago and there was some professor who was talking about use of space. If everyone on earth lived like New Yorkers, the entire world population could fit in the state of Texas. How many Texas-sized land chunks are in the world? A lot.

    Well to be fair, overpopulation has never been an issue of not having enough room for people, but rather of not having enough resources to feed those people. Still, if the will* was really there, we could easily feed the world's population a few times over.

    *Meat would probably be out of question at some point.

    At then back in the equation at a certain point after that.

    I'm picturing the scene in The Two Towers where the orcs are arguing over eating the hobbits. Only replacing the orcs with libertarians. Of course orcs know they need leaders and to protect their community with violence when need be.

  • _J__J_ Pedant Registered User regular
    edited April 2012
    Non-aggression principle? What principle? There is none what so ever in the history of humanity. Ever since the caveman days if there is something that the other has, then he gets it whether through violence or force you to do so. This was always the steppe principle. Its what made Chinggis Khan so strong because he realized it was the way to power. If this society exists, be sure that I'll form an empire in an instant whether through force or coercion.

    You're doing it wrong.

    You're supposed to overly romanticize the past.

    Because everyone knows that everything was fine, and everyone got along, and no one ever had any problems or starved to death or died of disease before those nasty Romans came and told us that we had to construct governments.

    If you don’t want to go for the pseudo-history of The Witch’s Child, you can always opt for the telepathic monkey.

    _J_ on
  • Boring7Boring7 Registered User regular
    I don't understand why people hate a king but love a CEO.

    Like, what is that?

    Probably because people have illusions of becoming a CEO or their child becoming one. With a King there is only his family in charge and your way lower than they are.

    It's even simpler than that.

    We have been TAUGHT to hate kings, it's in our history and our culture that America fought off the evil kings. But the peasants loved their royal families just as much (or more) as we love our blessed and divine "Job Creators." Because our daddiesCEOs can beat THEIR daddiesJob Creators.

    Thanatos wrote: »
    Goldman Sachs may as well be named COBRA.
  • mythagomythago Registered User regular
    Lawndart wrote: »
    You know what's one of the most prevalent example of "neighbors working together to restore the peace" in American history?

    Lynchings.

    Quite right. This is why people were steaming mad over the Trayvon Martin case. Which, if you think about it was caused by a libertarian principle making it into law - the right to "stand your ground" - which essentially gives police powers to ordinary citizens.

    Even worse than that, because "stand your ground" is the law in many states - just not in a form that gives police powers to citizens. Normal "stand your ground" laws simply remove the requirement that, to claim self-defense, you have to prove you tried to run away first. In Florida, "stand your ground" also comes with a whole host of immunities from legal inquiry and responsibility. So the police power it gives to ordinary citizens is, in effect, the qualified immunity that normally attaches to state actors.

  • The Fourth EstateThe Fourth Estate Registered User regular
    edited April 2012
    _J_ wrote: »
    Non-aggression principle? What principle? There is none what so ever in the history of humanity. Ever since the caveman days if there is something that the other has, then he gets it whether through violence or force you to do so. This was always the steppe principle. Its what made Chinggis Khan so strong because he realized it was the way to power. If this society exists, be sure that I'll form an empire in an instant whether through force or coercion.

    You're doing it wrong.

    You're supposed to overly romanticize the past.

    Because everyone knows that everything was fine, and everyone got along, and no one ever had any problems or starved to death or died of disease before those nasty Romans came and told us that we had to construct governments.

    If you don’t want to go for the pseudo-history of The Witch’s Child, you can always opt for the telepathic monkey.

    Eh. Hunter-Gatherer communities were surprisingly egalitarian and crime-free (easy to keep order when everyone knows everyone else). It's arguable that until only recently (in historical terms) that life in modern systems has become demonstrably better than a hunter-gatherer lifestyle for the median human (and for some in Africa, it is still worse). I don't think libertarians want us to return to a pre-agricultural way of living, however.

    The Fourth Estate on
  • AManFromEarthAManFromEarth Let's get to twerk! The King in the SwampRegistered User regular
    edited April 2012
    _J_ wrote: »
    Non-aggression principle? What principle? There is none what so ever in the history of humanity. Ever since the caveman days if there is something that the other has, then he gets it whether through violence or force you to do so. This was always the steppe principle. Its what made Chinggis Khan so strong because he realized it was the way to power. If this society exists, be sure that I'll form an empire in an instant whether through force or coercion.

    You're doing it wrong.

    You're supposed to overly romanticize the past.

    Because everyone knows that everything was fine, and everyone got along, and no one ever had any problems or starved to death or died of disease before those nasty Romans came and told us that we had to construct governments.

    If you don’t want to go for the pseudo-history of The Witch’s Child, you can always opt for the telepathic monkey.

    Eh. Hunter-Gatherer communities were surprisingly egalitarian and crime-free (easy to keep order when everyone knows everyone else). It's arguable that until only recently (in historical terms) that life in modern systems has become demonstrably better than a hunter-gatherer lifestyle for the median human (and for some in Africa, it is still worse). I don't think libertarians want us to return to a pre-agricultural way of living, however.

    How the shit do we know if HG communities were egalitarian and crime free? Observation of remote uncontacted tribes? This just seems like perpetuation of the Noble Savage myth.

    AManFromEarth on
  • The Fourth EstateThe Fourth Estate Registered User regular
    edited April 2012
    Anthropological work with extant HG bands in Africa/the Amazon/New Guinea etc. Lack of specialisation and no requirement for arbitration between two unrelated parties mitigate the need for central authority.

    The Fourth Estate on
  • Kipling217Kipling217 Registered User regular
    HG cultures did have a nasty tendency for infanticide though and heaven help anybody that got to old to walk.

  • _J__J_ Pedant Registered User regular
    How the shit do we know if HG communities were egalitarian and crime free?

    Why, by terrible inductive and abductive speculation, of course!

  • SynthesisSynthesis Honda Today! Registered User regular
    Thanatos wrote: »
    notdroid wrote: »
    Vanguard wrote: »
    True. I was listening to NPR some time ago and there was some professor who was talking about use of space. If everyone on earth lived like New Yorkers, the entire world population could fit in the state of Texas. How many Texas-sized land chunks are in the world? A lot.
    Well to be fair, overpopulation has never been an issue of not having enough room for people, but rather of not having enough resources to feed those people. Still, if the will* was really there, we could easily feed the world's population a few times over.

    *Meat would probably be out of question at some point.
    There is arable land out there that is much more efficient to be used for raising meat than growing crops. If we're talking about a global diet, the most efficient one is a lot of vegetables with a small amount of meat, not a purely vegetarian diet.

    That, and fish.

    The huge surface coverage of oceans, the comparative ease of extraction (which has led to the major problem of over-fishing) , etc.

  • ThanatosThanatos Registered User regular
    Kipling217 wrote: »
    HG cultures did have a nasty tendency for infanticide though and heaven help anybody that got to old to walk.
    Didn't they pretty much just exile anyone they didn't like? Like, vote-them-off-the-island-style?

    Hardly seems egalitarian to me.

  • Eat it You Nasty Pig.Eat it You Nasty Pig. tell homeland security 'we are the bomb'Registered User regular
    it shouldn't be surprising that, in societies where most if not all interpersonal relationships are familial and property is communal, there is not very much crime.

    oddly enough as soon as social groups start getting bigger than that, you start seeing a lot more 'crime.'

  • _J__J_ Pedant Registered User regular
    Thanatos wrote: »
    Kipling217 wrote: »
    HG cultures did have a nasty tendency for infanticide though and heaven help anybody that got to old to walk.
    Didn't they pretty much just exile anyone they didn't like? Like, vote-them-off-the-island-style?

    Hardly seems egalitarian to me.

    To be fair, it was egalitarian towards all of the people they kept.

  • EupfhoriaEupfhoria Registered User regular
    edited April 2012
    isn't this the kind of thing that should warrant its own thread? It is really silly to refer to 'hunter-gatherer' culture, as if it were some monolithic thing. It's about as nonsensical to try and talk about societies today by condensing them all into 'agriculturalist culture'

    it might actually be a good topic; you could argue that in a lot of ways, adopting agriculture and leaving behind the hunter-gatherer life is actually not for the better. I'd definitely be interested in reading some discussion on a thread about that. And might even stop being a pseudo-lurker long enough to participate a little

    (I'd make it myself, but I suck at making an OP)

    Eupfhoria on
  • AresProphetAresProphet you would look a little better don't you know if you just wore less makeupRegistered User regular
    Anthropological work with extant HG bands in Africa/the Amazon/New Guinea etc. Lack of specialisation and no requirement for arbitration between two unrelated parties mitigate the need for central authority.

    I have had this argument before with people. The huge, glaring, intensely problematic thing about modern hunter-gatherer societies is that they are contemporary. As in, they still exist after the vast majority of humanity has converted to agri-industrial-commercial-global-whatever. Not all of these tribes are pre-contact, many of them enjoy the benefits of trading with modern societies and as a result they can externalize some of the biggest issues with their lifestyle.

    Even if you want to limit your assumptions to those tribes who haven't had any (or have had very limited) outside contact, there are still several big problems with using them for any meaningful extrapolation. For one, the lands they exist on must necessarily be remote and in no way representative of the rest of the planet. For two, they are very small societies and you simply cannot support a large population with their methods. For three, the fact that they're still around and still hunter-gatherers means that they haven't had any competition for resources, no inter-tribe politics, no pressure to expand or advance, and basically lead a lifestyle that is not representative of that experienced by the majority of pre-agricultural tribes 10,000 years ago.

    That's before you get into the issues with infanticide, deaths from preventable diseases, idiosyncratic rulership systems that do not translate well to other cultures or larger populations, and so on. Your biggest problem is not anthropological, but statistical: your sample is way too small and in no way representative of the population you're trying to make conclusions about.

  • OctoparrotOctoparrot Registered User
    The tangent almost sounds like endorsement of the idea that we've never given the noble brew of anarchism and civilisation a true taste.

    Related: This, from the first page, is so laughably bad it has stayed with me for a week.
    rayofash wrote:
    >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.

  • Dis'Dis' Registered User regular
    Anthropological work with extant HG bands in Africa/the Amazon/New Guinea etc. Lack of specialisation and no requirement for arbitration between two unrelated parties mitigate the need for central authority.

    Those groups also have crazy high murder rates, and resource limitation necessitates infanticide. The average living hunter-gatherer may have had a higher standard of living than the average early agriculturalist, but since 3/4 of those agriculturalists wouldn't make it to adulthood in a hunter-gatherer society its hard to argue which is better. Most people will take a reduced standard of living over not being alive.

  • GoumindongGoumindong Registered User regular
    Eh. Hunter-Gatherer communities were surprisingly egalitarian and crime-free (easy to keep order when everyone knows everyone else). It's arguable that until only recently (in historical terms) that life in modern systems has become demonstrably better than a hunter-gatherer lifestyle for the median human (and for some in Africa, it is still worse). I don't think libertarians want us to return to a pre-agricultural way of living, however.

    That isn't true at all. They're fairly egalitarian towards themselves (sometimes) but generally warlike against others. Labor times decreased for agriculture and material good possession increased.

    People did not leave the hunter gatherer lifestyle because they thought they were worse off farming. They did so because farming was easier and safer. Because it decreased aggregate labor times necessary to feed a population which freed up others to produce in other areas.

  • CelestialBadgerCelestialBadger Registered User regular
    Anarchy and minarchy work pretty well in small societies where everyone knows each other. Unfortunately for the world we live in, there are about 7 billion of us. What we call "government" is a reaction to the complexities of larger and larger societies. It grew organically, rather than being imposed.

    Running a country the size of a USA in a way that works for a clan of 50 people is like trying to run the MacDonalds corporation with the organisational structure of a hotdog stand.

  • The Fourth EstateThe Fourth Estate Registered User regular
    Let it be noted that I'm not advocating anything other than that modern (western) society is incredibly awesome and that awesomeness exists solely as a product of the state.

  • The Fourth EstateThe Fourth Estate Registered User regular
    edited April 2012
    Goumindong wrote: »
    Eh. Hunter-Gatherer communities were surprisingly egalitarian and crime-free (easy to keep order when everyone knows everyone else). It's arguable that until only recently (in historical terms) that life in modern systems has become demonstrably better than a hunter-gatherer lifestyle for the median human (and for some in Africa, it is still worse). I don't think libertarians want us to return to a pre-agricultural way of living, however.

    That isn't true at all. They're fairly egalitarian towards themselves (sometimes) but generally warlike against others. Labor times decreased for agriculture and material good possession increased.

    People did not leave the hunter gatherer lifestyle because they thought they were worse off farming. They did so because farming was easier and safer. Because it decreased aggregate labor times necessary to feed a population which freed up others to produce in other areas.

    Labour times were unchanged for the actual workers. Free time and material goods only accrued significantly to the most well off.

    The Fourth Estate on
  • tbloxhamtbloxham Registered User regular
    Goumindong wrote: »
    Eh. Hunter-Gatherer communities were surprisingly egalitarian and crime-free (easy to keep order when everyone knows everyone else). It's arguable that until only recently (in historical terms) that life in modern systems has become demonstrably better than a hunter-gatherer lifestyle for the median human (and for some in Africa, it is still worse). I don't think libertarians want us to return to a pre-agricultural way of living, however.

    That isn't true at all. They're fairly egalitarian towards themselves (sometimes) but generally warlike against others. Labor times decreased for agriculture and material good possession increased.

    People did not leave the hunter gatherer lifestyle because they thought they were worse off farming. They did so because farming was easier and safer. Because it decreased aggregate labor times necessary to feed a population which freed up others to produce in other areas.

    Actually, because farming allowed better access to specialists such as brewers, bakers, doctors, priests, and soldiers. While early farming wasn't much more productive than hunting and gathering, it did decrease the 'cost' of having access to specialist skills simply because the specialists could all be in one place. It's a kind of chicken and egg thing.

  • GoumindongGoumindong Registered User regular
    Goumindong wrote: »
    Eh. Hunter-Gatherer communities were surprisingly egalitarian and crime-free (easy to keep order when everyone knows everyone else). It's arguable that until only recently (in historical terms) that life in modern systems has become demonstrably better than a hunter-gatherer lifestyle for the median human (and for some in Africa, it is still worse). I don't think libertarians want us to return to a pre-agricultural way of living, however.

    That isn't true at all. They're fairly egalitarian towards themselves (sometimes) but generally warlike against others. Labor times decreased for agriculture and material good possession increased.

    People did not leave the hunter gatherer lifestyle because they thought they were worse off farming. They did so because farming was easier and safer. Because it decreased aggregate labor times necessary to feed a population which freed up others to produce in other areas.

    Labour times were unchanged for the actual workers. Free time and material goods only accrued significantly to the most well off.

    Labor times were unchanged for the actual workers, there were just less of them which means that aggregate labor times were reduced. When you're HG the entire family works every day to get food. When you're farming, half the family works for that food.

    If the entire family works then you have surplus that you can trade. Free time and material goods indeed did accrue to the least well off [at least those that did not become subjugated]

  • Squidget0Squidget0 Registered User regular
    More to the point, hunter-gatherer societies stop being hunter-gatherer societies when the feudal lords walk in with an army of soldiers and demand their land. You don't get to freeze society at a certain point and assume that there will be no outside influence. As soon as one society forms a nation instead of a tribe, all the remaining hunter-gatherers have to fall in line or be crushed underfoot. Even if tribal societies raised the standard of living over agricultural societies (and they don't), they're still not a sustainable system because a single mutant nation-state is all it takes to wipe out all of the tribes. We've seen this happen most recently with the Native Americans, and it's not pretty.

    It's like arguing that a dictatorship is the ideal form of government so long as your dictator is a benevolent genius. Strong societal models are sustainable for many generations. Give Libertopia one tiny shove and the whole thing comes crashing down.

  • JurgJurg In a TeacupRegistered User regular
    rayofash wrote: »
    For every person committing a crime there a billions who aren't. And there would still be a police force and courts.

    This is the page one quote that has stuck with me. We're at like 7 billion people, right? So the number of criminals is in the single digits.

  • GarthorGarthor Registered User regular
    Jurg wrote: »
    rayofash wrote: »
    For every person committing a crime there a billions who aren't. And there would still be a police force and courts.

    This is the page one quote that has stuck with me. We're at like 7 billion people, right? So the number of criminals is in the single digits.

    No, actually, it's just the same a billions each time.

  • armageddonboundarmageddonbound Registered User regular
    I've read that a human can really only know about a hundred people. After that they stop really being people to you. That's why people on facebook with 500 friends are being, uh disingenuous. That's also why in small societies like hunter/gather, you don't see much crime, but even small civilizations of 500-1k begin to see problems with crime etc.

  • QuidQuid The Fifth Horseman Registered User regular
    I've read that a human can really only know about a hundred people. After that they stop really being people to you. That's why people on facebook with 500 friends are being, uh disingenuous. That's also why in small societies like hunter/gather, you don't see much crime, but even small civilizations of 500-1k begin to see problems with crime etc.

    That... actually kind of makes sense. When I go on a submarine with a crew a bit over a hundred theft is normally inconceivable. Valuable electronics and other property are left out all the time, even for hours, with no concern.

    When I tell my coworkers who go on ships with hundreds, sometimes thousands of people they just stare at me like I'm crazy.

  • LoserForHireXLoserForHireX Registered User regular
    edited April 2012
    I've read that a human can really only know about a hundred people. After that they stop really being people to you. That's why people on facebook with 500 friends are being, uh disingenuous. That's also why in small societies like hunter/gather, you don't see much crime, but even small civilizations of 500-1k begin to see problems with crime etc.

    That's Dunbar's Number. More popularly known as the "monkeysphere."

    LoserForHireX on
  • armageddonboundarmageddonbound Registered User regular
    I've read that a human can really only know about a hundred people. After that they stop really being people to you. That's why people on facebook with 500 friends are being, uh disingenuous. That's also why in small societies like hunter/gather, you don't see much crime, but even small civilizations of 500-1k begin to see problems with crime etc.

    That's Dunbar's Number. More popularly known as the "monkeysphere."
    There you go, couldn't for the life of me, remember the name.

  • _J__J_ Pedant Registered User regular
    edited April 2012
    I've read that a human can really only know about a hundred people. After that they stop really being people to you. That's why people on facebook with 500 friends are being, uh disingenuous. That's also why in small societies like hunter/gather, you don't see much crime, but even small civilizations of 500-1k begin to see problems with crime etc.

    That's Dunbar's Number. More popularly known as the "monkeysphere."

    Anyone know if any academic have explored the relation between Dunbar's number and Anarchism?

    My google-fu is weak right now.

    Edit: I am an idiot

    _J_ on
Sign In or Register to comment.