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.
Absolutely
Anarchism works on a small scale in homogeneous communities. There's tons of tiny villages in eastern Europe that are effectively either communist or anarchist (the two are shockingly similar when you skip past the dictatorship stage of communism as laid out by Marx) and get by just fine.
You don't hurt your neighbor because he or she is in your "tribe"". There are no "others" in the village, it's basic human psychology.
When you have a city or whole country that has diverse ethnic and religious viewpoints? Anarchism just means Somalia. For example, in the town I live in right now absent government there would be an inevitable conflict between the religious fundamentalists who believe fetuses are people and gays are sinners and those that don't believe that, because those two viewpoints cannot exist on their own without the law already being firmly established. Hell we just had a fucking abortion clinic bombed, even with the law and society saying one thing we still have deviants. If the laws were gone, the most unified group would suddenly be various religions and church groups.
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?
It doesn't even get that fucking far. Because without government there's no way to protect property rights. That's one of the foundational reasons for government. If you have courts, they are meaningless without a means to enforce its rulings. If you have police powers, you're a fucking government.
Water Company: OK dude, install this pipe to these houses, then we'll sell it to these people.
Dude: No man, why would I do that?
WC: We'll give you this gold!
Dude: How do I know that?
WC: Trust us!
Dude: Hmmmm OK
*work*
WC: Sucker.
Dude: Damn.
WC: Now pay us for our water.
Dude: No I'm going to take it.
*grabs gun*
WC: But we hired these mercenaries, sucks to be you.
Mercs fight Dudes. Bunch of people die. Some Mercs live.
Mercs: OK so this is our water now.
WC: Wait, what?
Mercs shoot WC
Merc levels up to Robber Baron
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.
This reminds me of a conversation I had with a co-worker, who was convinced that public schools should be ended, and replaced with a small community based system where local communities pooled money, hired teachers/textbooks, etc., and taught kids communally.
It only took about 5 minutes to get him to admit it was basically the same thing. He just didn't like the way the public schools were run.
rayofash's dream society basically sounds like the US, but a lot less efficient, because he wants all the same services, he just wants to not be able to trust whoever's providing it.
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.
In a society free from government coercion its perfectly legal for bunch of grown men to beat up a 13-year old and give him a wedgie.... and hold him down and sodomize him with a broomhandle... because who is he going to call?... the police?.... Even if he called a private sector equivalent, we can just pay them off... after all renta-cops are in it for the money, not justice.
The sky was full of stars, every star an exploding ship. One of ours.
So... if an organization or community does things you agree with, then it's "Not Government." Otherwise, "Government."
Everything you've put forth requires a person or group of people to occasionally force another person or group to do something that entity does not wish to do. You have three choices for accomplishing this: 1) vigilantism - e.g. lynch mobs, 2) warring gangs (this is what 1 devolves into when people realize that they need force to be effective, and they need numbers and weapons to have sufficient force), or 3) government.
Also, since no one has brought this up yet, people do not act rationally. Like, this isn't even up for debate.
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.
"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.
A court and jury handles the case.
Being a lousy enough neighbor is a crime in the current world where there are laws about things like noise regulation and cutting your grass, and having lived next to some crappy neighbors I can assure you I am glad that they are there. As for the court and jury, so that means that there is an organization who has a monopoloy on the legitimate use of force right? Because they would be the ones who could determine if my use of force (killing someone) was legitimate or not. That is a government.
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.
If I live in a small town with only one water treatment plant that is a natural monopoly. How would you stop that natural monopoly from charging 5x the price as plants in areas where there is competition?
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.
How would you remove him? What if he doesn't want to go? Who decides that he has polluted enough to make it worth kicking out? And you didn't answer my question earlier, what about issues like a community deciding that gay people needed treatment even if they didn't want it? What about if there is a violent spouse abusing their partner? What about if two communities get in a dispute about something and neither side is willing to back down?
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.
What the.....? You just made a compelling argument for government.
You don't need government for that.
Government is the word we call the things that do that. This is why you need government.
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.
The community is educating it's young people in a non-coercive fashion.
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.
Can you give an example?
Nope.
Because there aren't any.
That's the point, bud.
I meant for the Hutterites falling back on the government. You said they fall back on the government.
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?
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.
You don't need government for that.
Well for awhile we didn't have a government agency doing it and there was no oversight and food safety was horrible and people could literally sell poison as medicine, and now we have a government agency to provide oversight and there is a lot less of it. So empirically speaking you are wrong. I mean, maybe you don't technically need government to provide it, but I have yet to see anyone propose a viable alternative model.
0
Options
AManFromEarthLet's get to twerk!The King in the SwampRegistered Userregular
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.
0
Options
AManFromEarthLet's get to twerk!The King in the SwampRegistered Userregular
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.
Can you give an example?
Nope.
Because there aren't any.
That's the point, bud.
I meant for the Hutterites falling back on the government. You said they fall back on the government.
Maybe they don't. I'm guessing, though, that if I went onto their land and stole their things, and they failed to stop me through force, they'd probably call the cops. Especially if I killed a few of them.
Also, they sell their goods outside their colonies. And use the money they get from that to buy other goods that they need. Who establishes that money, and backs its value? Yup.
Additionally, they've actually hired non-Hutterite workers to work in some of their enterprises.
Basically, they are not an island. They benefit, directly and indirectly, from the non-libertarian society that surrounds them.
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.
Can you give an example?
Nope.
Because there aren't any.
That's the point, bud.
I meant for the Hutterites falling back on the government. You said they fall back on the government.
Well the government provides military support for them so no one invades, and police to help them out if there any crimes. I'd imagine there have been examples of natural disasters where the government has stepped in to provide aid to their communities as well.
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.
You don't need government for that.
Government is the word we call the things that do that. This is why you need government.
Governments are the only ones allowed to, and can be corrupted as per are current corporatocracy.
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.
Can you give an example?
Nope.
Because there aren't any.
That's the point, bud.
I meant for the Hutterites falling back on the government. You said they fall back on the government.
Well the government provides military support for them so no one invades, and police to help them out if there any crimes. I'd imagine there have been examples of natural disasters where the government has stepped in to provide aid to their communities as well.
They don't seek help for any of those, especially the police. In fact that would be scandalous in an Amish society.
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.
You don't need government for that.
Well for awhile we didn't have a government agency doing it and there was no oversight and food safety was horrible and people could literally sell poison as medicine, and now we have a government agency to provide oversight and there is a lot less of it. So empirically speaking you are wrong. I mean, maybe you don't technically need government to provide it, but I have yet to see anyone propose a viable alternative model.
So we should stick with a government because that's all we know? Nothing else should be tried?
Until there is a real, working, and stable example of any 'ism except Capitalism people are going to be skeptical. Hell, even the Chinese realized pure Communism wasn't fun and bought Lambos and shit.
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.
You don't need government for that.
Of course, not. You just need a ruling body to decide what is and is not against the rules as well as deciding a punishment if said rules are broken.
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.
You don't need government for that.
Government is the word we call the things that do that. This is why you need government.
Governments are the only ones allowed to, and can be corrupted as per are current corporatocracy.
Yes, but see.
We have a way to at least exercise SOME control over their actions.
If I decide "Man, fuck making sure food is safe for human consumption" and I've worked hard to make my way to the top of the food chain (hehe), what can you do to stop me?
Short of actual murder, nothing. You can't hold me responsible (no government means no laws against what I'm doing).
I'm making it EASIER for companies to put out medicines and products because now they don't need my rubber stamp to sell it, so there goes corporations trying to overthrow me (I just gave them a huge break).
Hell, I might even be powerful enough to buy off some "volunteer" security forces to keep myself in power.
Rayofash, if you looked at a fucking Shadowrun book and said "This Ares corporation sure seems to know what's up", then you have made some horrible life decisions.
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.
But who does the time cards. What's to stop people from lying up their hours?
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.
You don't need government for that.
Well for awhile we didn't have a government agency doing it and there was no oversight and food safety was horrible and people could literally sell poison as medicine, and now we have a government agency to provide oversight and there is a lot less of it. So empirically speaking you are wrong. I mean, maybe you don't technically need government to provide it, but I have yet to see anyone propose a viable alternative model.
So we should stick with a government because that's all we know? Nothing else should be tried?
Thats actually the opposite of what I said. We tried just having companies self regulate and they literally sold people poison for medicine. There is a reason we have the FDA.
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.
You don't need government for that.
Government is the word we call the things that do that. This is why you need government.
Governments are the only ones allowed to, and can be corrupted as per are current corporatocracy.
...
A corporation only exists to make money. It will not ever look out for the betterment of people unless outside forces make it. This has been proven over and over again.
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.
"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.
A court and jury handles the case.
Being a lousy enough neighbor is a crime in the current world where there are laws about things like noise regulation and cutting your grass, and having lived next to some crappy neighbors I can assure you I am glad that they are there. As for the court and jury, so that means that there is an organization who has a monopoloy on the legitimate use of force right? Because they would be the ones who could determine if my use of force (killing someone) was legitimate or not. That is a government.
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.
If I live in a small town with only one water treatment plant that is a natural monopoly. How would you stop that natural monopoly from charging 5x the price as plants in areas where there is competition?
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.
How would you remove him? What if he doesn't want to go? Who decides that he has polluted enough to make it worth kicking out? And you didn't answer my question earlier, what about issues like a community deciding that gay people needed treatment even if they didn't want it? What about if there is a violent spouse abusing their partner? What about if two communities get in a dispute about something and neither side is willing to back down?
It's hard keeping up with an entire forum asking questions. I apologize. I'm going to take a break after this post and get a snack, drink some coffee. I'd like to thank everybody for debating civilly, another forum I was on resorted to insulting me. I was called a racist who wanted all black people to die. This has been much nicer.
To answer your questions, I don't know the exact details of how somebody would be removed. He'd probably been given time to pack his things and leave on his own. If he doesn't maybe arrangements would be made for him, I don't know. The specifics aren't important. If he doesn't want to go? This depends on what kind of person he was. Was he a violent murderer? I think he's going either way. Keep in mind there would be courts with case history and precedents and all that.
>what about issues like a community deciding that gay people needed treatment even if they didn't want it?
Discrimination is not allowed in a free society. That goes against the NAP. They would be stopped.
>What about if there is a violent spouse abusing their partner? What about if two communities get in a dispute about something and neither side is willing to back down?
That's violence, they would be taken to court. The two communities could also settle their disputes in a court, like two communities do today.
0
Options
Nova_CI have the needThe need for speedRegistered Userregular
Goverment is an organization which governs. As soon as you have an overseeing body of people that manages affairs and adjudicates disputes, that is a government.
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.
You also seem to like the idea of tribalism, which has been not so great throughout human history. A large group governed by a central authority has always wielded more power than hundreds of loosely affiliated, but independent communes.
Governments are the only ones allowed to, and can be corrupted as per are current corporatocracy.
Wait... you think the problem with government is that it's corrupted by corporations, and your solution to this is to remove the middleman entirely and just let the free market corporations run the show?!
Until there is a real, working, and stable example of any 'ism except Capitalism people are going to be skeptical. Hell, even the Chinese realized pure Communism wasn't fun and bought Lambos and shit.
Capitalism isn't stable though. If fact, pure capitalism is ruinous and demonstrably so. We've mixed and matched in order to compromise to the best sort of paradigm, but pure anything working well is fantasy.
To answer your questions, I don't know the exact details of how somebody would be removed. He'd probably been given time to pack his things and leave on his own. If he doesn't maybe arrangements would be made for him, I don't know. The specifics aren't important. If he doesn't want to go? This depends on what kind of person he was. Was he a violent murderer? I think he's going either way. Keep in mind there would be courts with case history and precedents and all that.
Actually, the specifics are crucial. Because what you're basically been proposing is some serious Underwear Gnomes shit.
Discrimination is not allowed in a free society. That goes against the NAP. They would be stopped.
BY?
EDIT: I will make it flash if I have to.
mcdermott on
0
Options
AManFromEarthLet's get to twerk!The King in the SwampRegistered Userregular
I don't understand why people hate a king but love a CEO.
Posts
Absolutely
Anarchism works on a small scale in homogeneous communities. There's tons of tiny villages in eastern Europe that are effectively either communist or anarchist (the two are shockingly similar when you skip past the dictatorship stage of communism as laid out by Marx) and get by just fine.
You don't hurt your neighbor because he or she is in your "tribe"". There are no "others" in the village, it's basic human psychology.
When you have a city or whole country that has diverse ethnic and religious viewpoints? Anarchism just means Somalia. For example, in the town I live in right now absent government there would be an inevitable conflict between the religious fundamentalists who believe fetuses are people and gays are sinners and those that don't believe that, because those two viewpoints cannot exist on their own without the law already being firmly established. Hell we just had a fucking abortion clinic bombed, even with the law and society saying one thing we still have deviants. If the laws were gone, the most unified group would suddenly be various religions and church groups.
It doesn't even get that fucking far. Because without government there's no way to protect property rights. That's one of the foundational reasons for government. If you have courts, they are meaningless without a means to enforce its rulings. If you have police powers, you're a fucking government.
QEDMF xbl: PantsB G+
Nope.
Because there aren't any.
That's the point, bud.
It only took about 5 minutes to get him to admit it was basically the same thing. He just didn't like the way the public schools were run.
rayofash's dream society basically sounds like the US, but a lot less efficient, because he wants all the same services, he just wants to not be able to trust whoever's providing it.
In a society free from government coercion its perfectly legal for bunch of grown men to beat up a 13-year old and give him a wedgie.... and hold him down and sodomize him with a broomhandle... because who is he going to call?... the police?.... Even if he called a private sector equivalent, we can just pay them off... after all renta-cops are in it for the money, not justice.
Everything you've put forth requires a person or group of people to occasionally force another person or group to do something that entity does not wish to do. You have three choices for accomplishing this: 1) vigilantism - e.g. lynch mobs, 2) warring gangs (this is what 1 devolves into when people realize that they need force to be effective, and they need numbers and weapons to have sufficient force), or 3) government.
Also, since no one has brought this up yet, people do not act rationally. Like, this isn't even up for debate.
You don't need government for that.
If I live in a small town with only one water treatment plant that is a natural monopoly. How would you stop that natural monopoly from charging 5x the price as plants in areas where there is competition?
How would you remove him? What if he doesn't want to go? Who decides that he has polluted enough to make it worth kicking out? And you didn't answer my question earlier, what about issues like a community deciding that gay people needed treatment even if they didn't want it? What about if there is a violent spouse abusing their partner? What about if two communities get in a dispute about something and neither side is willing to back down?
Government is the word we call the things that do that. This is why you need government.
The community is educating it's young people in a non-coercive fashion.
:P
That's the slippery slope fallacy.
No, this is called the Gilded Age.
Maybe they don't. I'm guessing, though, that if I went onto their land and stole their things, and they failed to stop me through force, they'd probably call the cops. Especially if I killed a few of them.
Also, they sell their goods outside their colonies. And use the money they get from that to buy other goods that they need. Who establishes that money, and backs its value? Yup.
Additionally, they've actually hired non-Hutterite workers to work in some of their enterprises.
Basically, they are not an island. They benefit, directly and indirectly, from the non-libertarian society that surrounds them.
Governments are the only ones allowed to, and can be corrupted as per are current corporatocracy.
They don't seek help for any of those, especially the police. In fact that would be scandalous in an Amish society.
So we should stick with a government because that's all we know? Nothing else should be tried?
Of course, not. You just need a ruling body to decide what is and is not against the rules as well as deciding a punishment if said rules are broken.
Not a government, though!
Yes, but see.
We have a way to at least exercise SOME control over their actions.
If I decide "Man, fuck making sure food is safe for human consumption" and I've worked hard to make my way to the top of the food chain (hehe), what can you do to stop me?
Short of actual murder, nothing. You can't hold me responsible (no government means no laws against what I'm doing).
I'm making it EASIER for companies to put out medicines and products because now they don't need my rubber stamp to sell it, so there goes corporations trying to overthrow me (I just gave them a huge break).
Hell, I might even be powerful enough to buy off some "volunteer" security forces to keep myself in power.
Rayofash, if you looked at a fucking Shadowrun book and said "This Ares corporation sure seems to know what's up", then you have made some horrible life decisions.
Oh, we talking Amish too?
Do we get to talk now about how the Amish community has, in the past, dealt with things like sexual assaults?
Also, apparently some sexually abused Hutterite kid didn't get the memo about not seeking outside help.
Yes, and eliminating the government layer of the current system is sure to fix that whole corporatocracy thing.
QEDMF xbl: PantsB G+
But who does the time cards. What's to stop people from lying up their hours?
Not if it has flaws obvious to a bunch of nerds on a video games forum.
And by "what if" of course we mean "this is exactly what has happened in just about every society ever."
...
A corporation only exists to make money. It will not ever look out for the betterment of people unless outside forces make it. This has been proven over and over again.
What you suggest is creating Somalia.
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.
It's hard keeping up with an entire forum asking questions. I apologize. I'm going to take a break after this post and get a snack, drink some coffee. I'd like to thank everybody for debating civilly, another forum I was on resorted to insulting me. I was called a racist who wanted all black people to die. This has been much nicer.
To answer your questions, I don't know the exact details of how somebody would be removed. He'd probably been given time to pack his things and leave on his own. If he doesn't maybe arrangements would be made for him, I don't know. The specifics aren't important. If he doesn't want to go? This depends on what kind of person he was. Was he a violent murderer? I think he's going either way. Keep in mind there would be courts with case history and precedents and all that.
>what about issues like a community deciding that gay people needed treatment even if they didn't want it?
Discrimination is not allowed in a free society. That goes against the NAP. They would be stopped.
>What about if there is a violent spouse abusing their partner? What about if two communities get in a dispute about something and neither side is willing to back down?
That's violence, they would be taken to court. The two communities could also settle their disputes in a court, like two communities do today.
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.
You also seem to like the idea of tribalism, which has been not so great throughout human history. A large group governed by a central authority has always wielded more power than hundreds of loosely affiliated, but independent communes.
Wait... you think the problem with government is that it's corrupted by corporations, and your solution to this is to remove the middleman entirely and just let the free market corporations run the show?!
Capitalism isn't stable though. If fact, pure capitalism is ruinous and demonstrably so. We've mixed and matched in order to compromise to the best sort of paradigm, but pure anything working well is fantasy.
Actually, the specifics are crucial. Because what you're basically been proposing is some serious Underwear Gnomes shit.
BY?
EDIT: I will make it flash if I have to.
Like, what is that?