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.
I don't care much what "some people" think, so yes we are asking you to explain your viewpoint. I realize that "some people" are crazy, stupid, or both. We're trying to figure out what you think here.
0
Options
AManFromEarthLet's get to twerk!The King in the SwampRegistered Userregular
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.
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.
Of course businesses are capable of self regulation, the thing is THEY DON'T.
The Invisible Hand of the Free Market only exists to make a buck, not to protect people.
Sorry, but reality and history (see the Great Recession) disagree with you on this one.
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.
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.
Well sure science would still exist, it would be ridiculously anemic, but it would exist.
There's no mechanism of enforcement though. I also don't see a ton of science dedicated to things that are long term or big picture, studies like that cost fortunes to run and there's no profit in it.
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.
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.
0
Options
VanguardBut now the dream is over. And the insect is awake.Registered User, __BANNED USERSregular
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.
Who decides he needs psychiatric help?
Who maintains the minimum standards of said psychiatric help.
Where do people acquire the sufficient skills to provide this in the first place?
How did those places come to exist?
If your answer to any of these questions involves organized groups of people, you are talking about government.
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.
We know they're capable. They just often choose not to.
Also, I love how you keep referring to "an organization" and such. It's special.
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.
Who gets to confine them?
Anybody?
Or is there some organization that has *ahem* a monopoly on that use of force?
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.
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.
They are also capable of not self regulating. Who inspects the goods and determines that they are safe? Who decides what safe is? Do you realize safe isn't some binary state that can be determined but that we have to look into the risks benefits and costs of something and come to a decision? Who decides what the maximum acceptable level of pesticide on an apple is? If left to their own devices the company that grows the apples is going to want it to be really high. Some consumer groups might demand that it be 0. Who decides what it is?
You also just dismiss the example of coal power. The problem isn't science. We fucking know that coal plants kill people, we know that global warming is happening, the problem at this point is entirely on changing peoples behaviors and your anarchist utopia has no mechanism for doing this other then politely asking.
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.
Ah, so power-plant-running warlords.
Coolio.
0
Options
VanguardBut now the dream is over. And the insect is awake.Registered User, __BANNED USERSregular
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.
So when the community gets tired of my behavior I can be confined and given psychiatric help? What if this is a very conservative community and my behavior is being homosexual, can they just confine me and give me "help" then?
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.
So when the community gets tired of my behavior I can be confined and given psychiatric help? What if this is a very conservative community and my behavior is being homosexual, can they just confine me and give me "help" then?
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?
So when the community gets tired of my behavior I can be confined and given psychiatric help? What if this is a very conservative community and my behavior is being homosexual, can they just confine me and give me "help" then?
Here's where we get into the "ignorant or sociopath" area.
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.
A shunned person coming back regularly after being banished from a community doesn't make them mentally unstable. Exactly who will be capturing and confining them? What if no-one wants to or has no time to do it? What if the banished person comes back with another community or organization to destroy said community for revenge?
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.
And then it starts getting more and more expensive, where the same cup of coffee ends up costing 10 minutes, then twenty, then an hour of work. Throw in collusion among the employers, and everybody is doing the same thing to their employees.
It's called the truck system, but you may know it as the company store system, and it took government to kick it in the ass.
"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).
And these prisons would be paid for by whom? You'd have to build the facility, provide guards, counselors, food, clothes, etc. If it's private, where do they make their money? Wouldn't that just be slave labor then?
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.
And then it starts getting more and more expensive, where the same cup of coffee ends up costing 10 minutes, then twenty, then an hour of work. Throw in collusion among the employers, and everybody is doing the same thing to their employees.
It's called the truck system, but you may know it as the company store system, and it took government to kick it in the ass.
It also took a bunch of privately funded militia to enforce and even kill their coal slaves, i.e. Matewan.
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.
What the.....? You just made a compelling argument for government.
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.
What the.....? You just made a compelling argument for government.
What is ridiculous is that for a long time products like food and medicine were not regulated by the government and companies could just self regulate etc. It sucked and a lot of people died. But this time if we do the exact same thing it will be different, trust me.
Edit: Or how would your anarchist society deal with domestic violence? If someone is beating their partner and both of them refuse therapy what do you do?
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.
What the.....? You just made a compelling argument for government.
A stronger argument for government than significant sections of the Republican party, I might add
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.
What the.....? You just made a compelling argument for government.
What is ridiculous is that for a long time products like food and medicine were not regulated by the government and companies could just self regulate etc. It sucked and a lot of people died. But this time if we do the exact same thing it will be different, trust me.
Edit: Or how would your anarchist society deal with domestic violence? If someone is beating their partner and both of them refuse therapy what do you do?
The thing is every single libertarian argument ignores the fact that what they are proposing has been done before, it sucked/people died, and we put something arguably better in its place.
They're like raw foodies!
Switch Friend Code: SW-6732-9515-9697
0
Options
AManFromEarthLet's get to twerk!The King in the SwampRegistered Userregular
Pollution violates the NAP as it destroys other peoples private property. Any business that pollutes will be made sure to minimize their pollution or clean it up.
If they refuse to cooperate they will be taken to court. If they refuse to go to court, they will be removed from the community to stop the pollution which the NAP holds as an aggressive action.
You clearly don't even know what government means, so you should probably figure that out before you decide we don't need it.
Pro tip: If there are a bunch of problems you think the "community" will fix through "police" and "courts" and "holding people responsible" and "remov[ing] from the community", you have not figured out a way to live without government.
I've learned things from this thread - apparently even if it walks like a duck and quaks like a duck, it's actually a lion as long as everyone voluntarily agrees they heard it roar without being coerced.
OK OP bashing aside I think intentionally built communities such as an anarchist commune can work. But they need to be voluntary and to have the fallback of a larger government. If you want to form a commune or something like that more power to you and I think that if run well they can actually work. Most of the time though they don't and if there wasn't a larger society to fall back on they would all starve to death or something.
The thing is every single libertarian argument ignores the fact that what they are proposing has been done before, it sucked/people died, and we put something arguably better in its place.
They're like raw foodies!
Except this time it will be different! You see, the last time, there was too much regulation. There's wasn't ZERO regulation as liberals would have you believe, there was just enough regulation to make everyone's lives miserable. If only there had been no regulation to start with; everyone would have seen what a great system pure Capitalism is!
The thing is every single libertarian argument ignores the fact that what they are proposing has been done before, it sucked/people died, and we put something arguably better in its place.
They are like people who see a patch on a dress and say "Wouldn't the dress look much nicer without the patch?" but who do not understand that underneath the patch is a rip, not good fabric.
Or, in less wordy terms, "Those who cannot remember history are doomed to repeat it."
The thing is every single libertarian argument ignores the fact that what they are proposing has been done before, it sucked/people died, and we put something arguably better in its place.
They're like raw foodies!
Except this time it will be different! You see, the last time, there was too much regulation. There's wasn't ZERO regulation as liberals would have you believe, there was just enough regulation to make everyone's lives miserable. If only there had been no regulation to start with; everyone would have seen what a great system pure Capitalism is!
Or how even in a perfect world free market system that was perfect efficient is still at best ammoral. The invisible hand doesn't care if you freeze to death in a snowbank.
OK OP bashing aside I think intentionally built communities such as an anarchist commune can work. But they need to be voluntary and to have the fallback of a larger government. If you want to form a commune or something like that more power to you and I think that if run well they can actually work. Most of the time though they don't and if there wasn't a larger society to fall back on they would all starve to death or something.
Basically this. Which is why the Hutterites, for instance, are an absolutely irrelevant example.
0
Options
VanguardBut now the dream is over. And the insect is awake.Registered User, __BANNED USERSregular
You could just not volunteer to freeze to death in a snowbank
Or if the snow bank kills anyone, we will banish it from the community until it gets therapy
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.
Just asking because I remember this discussion on another forum.
Don't you get a lot of government handouts to live off of, though?
Doesn't it seem kind of hypocritical to take money with one hand and flip them off with the other? I mean, biting the hand that feeds you and everything.
"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?
Being a lousy neighbor isn't a crime.
We still have all the technology and science of criminal investigation, this would still be a skill.
What prevents the monopoly? Is there a paid regulatory agency to prevent the monopoly and who pays that agency?
In a capitalist society the consumers prevent the monopoly by buying the best product at the best price with the best customer service. If a monopoly forms it's because the consumers enjoy the product. Otherwise competition can form to compete with them.
In a socialist society there could still be competing agencies. If one agency does a lousy job another one can form to fill the gap.
"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?
>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?
Ignore you.
>How do you overthrow the existing society?
Currently? There are several ideas. The Free State Project plans secession, others plan on just waiting for the current government to collapse, others want to buy their own private island.
>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?
Self defense would be necessary to defend them. This is not a free society. Isn't the fact that one group of people are oppressing another anti-thetical to a free society?
"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.
There are other solutions besides prison and kicking somebody out. In the case of a business owner refusing to clean up pollution, he can be removed from his position (assuming a capitalist society). Otherwise if somebody is being violent, how would you deal with them? How is detaining a violent person or removing him from the community coercive, when he's violating the rights of others? People are entitled to defend themselves.
Government is any group given the monopolistic rights of violence and force.
It's been an entertaining read and everything, but you guys realize you're winning an argument against someone who is, in all likelihood based on evidence, 13.
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.
Just asking because I remember this discussion on another forum.
Don't you get a lot of government handouts to live off of, though?
Doesn't it seem kind of hypocritical to take money with one hand and flip them off with the other? I mean, biting the hand that feeds you and everything.
Man I have gotten so much from the government it is awesome. They gave me 13 years of school for free, and then they subsidized my post high school education. They gave me roads to drive on and have protected me from getting murdered/invaded by shifty Canadian beavers. They make sure that my food isn't going to kill me and that companies at least have to vaguely pretend to treat me fairly. I mean, in terms of cost benefit/how much I have paid in taxes the government has been such an incredible value.
In a capitalist society the consumers prevent the monopoly by buying the best product at the best price with the best customer service. If a monopoly forms it's because the consumers enjoy the product. Otherwise competition can form to compete with them.
Asymmetric information. It's, like, a thing.
There are other solutions besides prison and kicking somebody out. In the case of a business owner refusing to clean up pollution, he can be removed from his position (assuming a capitalist society).
By....whom?
If you're talking about people with guns, then you're talking about using force to rob somebody else of their property because you can get people to back you in doing so (which will certainly not be abused oh wait no it absolutely will).
If you're talking about "an organization," including the courts, we're back to a government.
OK OP bashing aside I think intentionally built communities such as an anarchist commune can work. But they need to be voluntary and to have the fallback of a larger government. If you want to form a commune or something like that more power to you and I think that if run well they can actually work. Most of the time though they don't and if there wasn't a larger society to fall back on they would all starve to death or something.
Most communes that have tried this weren't large enough to be successful, except the Hutterites.
>Basically this. Which is why the Hutterites, for instance, are an absolutely irrelevant example.
Posts
I don't care much what "some people" think, so yes we are asking you to explain your viewpoint. I realize that "some people" are crazy, stupid, or both. We're trying to figure out what you think here.
Of course businesses are capable of self regulation, the thing is THEY DON'T.
The Invisible Hand of the Free Market only exists to make a buck, not to protect people.
Sorry, but reality and history (see the Great Recession) disagree with you on this one.
Well sure science would still exist, it would be ridiculously anemic, but it would exist.
There's no mechanism of enforcement though. I also don't see a ton of science dedicated to things that are long term or big picture, studies like that cost fortunes to run and there's no profit in it.
Also this
Only if they have the guns to back up their power, and only if society is not willing to fight them should that happen.
Who decides he needs psychiatric help?
Who maintains the minimum standards of said psychiatric help.
Where do people acquire the sufficient skills to provide this in the first place?
How did those places come to exist?
If your answer to any of these questions involves organized groups of people, you are talking about government.
We know they're capable. They just often choose not to.
Also, I love how you keep referring to "an organization" and such. It's special.
Who gets to confine them?
Anybody?
Or is there some organization that has *ahem* a monopoly on that use of force?
You also just dismiss the example of coal power. The problem isn't science. We fucking know that coal plants kill people, we know that global warming is happening, the problem at this point is entirely on changing peoples behaviors and your anarchist utopia has no mechanism for doing this other then politely asking.
Ah, so power-plant-running warlords.
Coolio.
No, because the people being banished are being banished voluntarily. Just like everyone in prison is there because they want to be.
"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. Governments are involuntary and coercive."
"Ok, so how do your psuedo-government entities solve the above problems?"
"With societal banishment and regulations."
"So...basically coercion and force; the same things government's use?"
/THREAD
Oh that's easy you can just move
Because moving away from your home is so easy
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?
Here's where we get into the "ignorant or sociopath" area.
*popspopcorn*
A shunned person coming back regularly after being banished from a community doesn't make them mentally unstable. Exactly who will be capturing and confining them? What if no-one wants to or has no time to do it? What if the banished person comes back with another community or organization to destroy said community for revenge?
And then it starts getting more and more expensive, where the same cup of coffee ends up costing 10 minutes, then twenty, then an hour of work. Throw in collusion among the employers, and everybody is doing the same thing to their employees.
It's called the truck system, but you may know it as the company store system, and it took government to kick it in the ass.
And these prisons would be paid for by whom? You'd have to build the facility, provide guards, counselors, food, clothes, etc. If it's private, where do they make their money? Wouldn't that just be slave labor then?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Matewan
Go to WV and see what unbridled capitalism does to a people and their home.
What the.....? You just made a compelling argument for government.
Edit: Or how would your anarchist society deal with domestic violence? If someone is beating their partner and both of them refuse therapy what do you do?
A stronger argument for government than significant sections of the Republican party, I might add
They're like raw foodies!
You clearly don't even know what government means, so you should probably figure that out before you decide we don't need it.
Pro tip: If there are a bunch of problems you think the "community" will fix through "police" and "courts" and "holding people responsible" and "remov[ing] from the community", you have not figured out a way to live without government.
THAT'S WHAT A GOVERNMENT FUCKING IS
QEDMF xbl: PantsB G+
Except this time it will be different! You see, the last time, there was too much regulation. There's wasn't ZERO regulation as liberals would have you believe, there was just enough regulation to make everyone's lives miserable. If only there had been no regulation to start with; everyone would have seen what a great system pure Capitalism is!
They are like people who see a patch on a dress and say "Wouldn't the dress look much nicer without the patch?" but who do not understand that underneath the patch is a rip, not good fabric.
Or, in less wordy terms, "Those who cannot remember history are doomed to repeat it."
Basically this. Which is why the Hutterites, for instance, are an absolutely irrelevant example.
Or if the snow bank kills anyone, we will banish it from the community until it gets therapy
Don't you get a lot of government handouts to live off of, though?
Doesn't it seem kind of hypocritical to take money with one hand and flip them off with the other? I mean, biting the hand that feeds you and everything.
We still have all the technology and science of criminal investigation, this would still be a skill.
A court and jury handles the case.
In a capitalist society the consumers prevent the monopoly by buying the best product at the best price with the best customer service. If a monopoly forms it's because the consumers enjoy the product. Otherwise competition can form to compete with them.
In a socialist society there could still be competing agencies. If one agency does a lousy job another one can form to fill the gap.
>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?
Ignore you.
>How do you overthrow the existing society?
Currently? There are several ideas. The Free State Project plans secession, others plan on just waiting for the current government to collapse, others want to buy their own private island.
>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?
Self defense would be necessary to defend them. This is not a free society. Isn't the fact that one group of people are oppressing another anti-thetical to a free society?
There are other solutions besides prison and kicking somebody out. In the case of a business owner refusing to clean up pollution, he can be removed from his position (assuming a capitalist society). Otherwise if somebody is being violent, how would you deal with them? How is detaining a violent person or removing him from the community coercive, when he's violating the rights of others? People are entitled to defend themselves.
Government is any group given the monopolistic rights of violence and force.
By who? The fairies?
Asymmetric information. It's, like, a thing.
By....whom?
If you're talking about people with guns, then you're talking about using force to rob somebody else of their property because you can get people to back you in doing so (which will certainly not be abused oh wait no it absolutely will).
If you're talking about "an organization," including the courts, we're back to a government.
Most communes that have tried this weren't large enough to be successful, except the Hutterites.
>Basically this. Which is why the Hutterites, for instance, are an absolutely irrelevant example.
Can you give an example?