Wait, if following the government that isn't centralized is totally voluntary and there are no consequences to defying it, then why would anyone submit to it's decisions? If a powerful community is committing genocide against another, less powerful community and they simply ignore this voluntary government's condemnation, what is the point of the government?
There has to be enforcement for any kind of authority to have legitimacy. And what's to stop the most powerful community from just enslaving the less powerful ones? There is no threat to them by this voluntary government since there is no enforcement.
You are allowed self defense if somebody is aggression against you. The whole point is that it's voluntary up until that point. If you are being violent and aggressive the community has the right to call in their voluntary police 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.
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.
If it is human run endeavor, no matter how noble or amiable the participants, there is always the potential for corruption. No system you could possibly ever propose will ever remove this fact. (Unless you want to talk about Government by robots, now THAT'S a discussion worth having.)
Wait, if following the government that isn't centralized is totally voluntary and there are no consequences to defying it, then why would anyone submit to it's decisions? If a powerful community is committing genocide against another, less powerful community and they simply ignore this voluntary government's condemnation, what is the point of the government?
There has to be enforcement for any kind of authority to have legitimacy. And what's to stop the most powerful community from just enslaving the less powerful ones? There is no threat to them by this voluntary government since there is no enforcement.
You are allowed self defense if somebody is aggression against you. The whole point is that it's voluntary up until that point. If you are being violent and aggressive the community has the right to call in their voluntary police force.
So, yes, the entire thread is just an argument for vigilante justice?
0
Options
AManFromEarthLet's get to twerk!The King in the SwampRegistered Userregular
All of modern libertarian thought is an argument for vigilante everything.
Wait, if following the government that isn't centralized is totally voluntary and there are no consequences to defying it, then why would anyone submit to it's decisions? If a powerful community is committing genocide against another, less powerful community and they simply ignore this voluntary government's condemnation, what is the point of the government?
There has to be enforcement for any kind of authority to have legitimacy. And what's to stop the most powerful community from just enslaving the less powerful ones? There is no threat to them by this voluntary government since there is no enforcement.
You are allowed self defense if somebody is aggression against you. The whole point is that it's voluntary up until that point. If you are being violent and aggressive the community has the right to call in their voluntary police force.
So, yes, the entire thread is just an argument for vigilante justice?
There are also examples where members have been kicked out for going to the police. It depends on the commune.
And you don't see how this could become an incredibly toxic environment in terms of crimes such as domestic abuse or sexual assault?
The problem was sexual assault, her brothers wouldn't stop raping her and they were all pacifists so instead of stopping it they drove her out of the community after she took matters into her own hands and contacted the police. The community should have called the police instead of telling her to pray harder the first time she asked for help.
This is a rare kind of occurrence, but it was taken care of.
I'm struggling to understand how that horrible story constitutes something being taken care of. And don't assume this is a rare occurrence rather then being something we just rarely here about.
Edit: How would your community handle something like the Trayvon Martin case where the person claimed self defence?
If the vigilantes decide that I killed a guy and come over to beat the shit out of me for it can I opt out because actually I was in France at the time?
0
Options
Nova_CI have the needThe need for speedRegistered Userregular
Wait, if following the government that isn't centralized is totally voluntary and there are no consequences to defying it, then why would anyone submit to it's decisions? If a powerful community is committing genocide against another, less powerful community and they simply ignore this voluntary government's condemnation, what is the point of the government?
There has to be enforcement for any kind of authority to have legitimacy. And what's to stop the most powerful community from just enslaving the less powerful ones? There is no threat to them by this voluntary government since there is no enforcement.
You are allowed self defense if somebody is aggression against you. The whole point is that it's voluntary up until that point. If you are being violent and aggressive the community has the right to call in their voluntary police force.
But the community is overwhelmed by the strength of the aggressor. That is, a community of say 5,000 people has a militia of 500 volunteers (10% volunteerism is like hella optimistic). A community of 50,000 with a professional military of 5,000 slaughters the defenders and enslaves the town.
All the nearby communities, even if the stand together, can muster only 1,000 soldiers between them. What's to stop the aggressor from just continuing the conquest?
Wait, if following the government that isn't centralized is totally voluntary and there are no consequences to defying it, then why would anyone submit to it's decisions? If a powerful community is committing genocide against another, less powerful community and they simply ignore this voluntary government's condemnation, what is the point of the government?
There has to be enforcement for any kind of authority to have legitimacy. And what's to stop the most powerful community from just enslaving the less powerful ones? There is no threat to them by this voluntary government since there is no enforcement.
You are allowed self defense if somebody is aggression against you. The whole point is that it's voluntary up until that point. If you are being violent and aggressive the community has the right to call in their voluntary police force.
What if its late at night? Guy is drunk, beating on his wife real bad. Does everyone in the community collectively have to summon the police? Or maybe someone can be in charge of directing the police when appropriate. To Govern their response in some way?
And what if the Drunk guy is one of the Voluntary police? He's a real nice guy and no one wants to hurt him.
And what happens when the drunk guy says "OK I'll stop" when the "Voluntary Police" show up and then immediately starts beating her again when they leave?
I told you. We're an anarcho-syndicalist commune. We take it in turns to act as a sort of executive officer for the week, but all the decision of that officer have to be ratified at a special biweekly meeting by a simple majority in the case of purely internal affairs, but by a two-thirds majority in the case of more...
There are also examples where members have been kicked out for going to the police. It depends on the commune.
And you don't see how this could become an incredibly toxic environment in terms of crimes such as domestic abuse or sexual assault?
The problem was sexual assault, her brothers wouldn't stop raping her and they were all pacifists so instead of stopping it they drove her out of the community after she took matters into her own hands and contacted the police. The community should have called the police instead of telling her to pray harder the first time she asked for help.
This is a rare kind of occurrence, but it was taken care of.
I'm struggling to understand how that horrible story constitutes something being taken care of. And don't assume this is a rare occurrence rather then being something we just rarely here about.
Edit: How would your community handle something like the Trayvon Martin case where the person claimed self defence?
It was taken care of as in it's over, she went to the police. Yes things would have been better had they gone down another way. But that's neither here nor there.
>How would your community handle something like the Trayvon Martin case where the person claimed self defence?
Depends on the community. There would be a trial and an investigation like there is actually going on. And now I'm off to eat.
I'm watching this youtube video and so far it is just a really boring explanation of what the government is presented in a way that I can tell that I am supposed to object to but am completely ok with. Like yeah, taxation is essentially a legal form of theft, but I'm cool with that.
I'm watching this youtube video and so far it is just a really boring explanation of what the government is presented in a way that I can tell that I am supposed to object to but am completely ok with. Like yeah, taxation is essentially a legal form of theft, but I'm cool with that.
Taxation is a form of subscription to services. In this case, it's a tremendously large subscription for quite a few services. It's sort of like a HOA membership, in that you have to move to unsubscribe.
What is this I don't even.
0
Options
Nova_CI have the needThe need for speedRegistered Userregular
I'm watching this youtube video and so far it is just a really boring explanation of what the government is presented in a way that I can tell that I am supposed to object to but am completely ok with. Like yeah, taxation is essentially a legal form of theft, but I'm cool with that.
Taxation isn't theft - it's part of the agreement made by living in a nation. Everyone is welcome to leave the country if they don't want to pay taxes.
I'm watching this youtube video and so far it is just a really boring explanation of what the government is presented in a way that I can tell that I am supposed to object to but am completely ok with. Like yeah, taxation is essentially a legal form of theft, but I'm cool with that.
Taxation isn't theft - it's part of the agreement made by living in a nation. Everyone is welcome to leave the country if they don't want to pay taxes.
The bolded is an issue, because you need to find another nation willing to take you. None are required to.
But yeah, in general this is my opinion on the matter. Taxes are lower in Mexico, let me know how it goes for you. Even lower in Somalia, I'd wager. See ya.
I'm watching this youtube video and so far it is just a really boring explanation of what the government is presented in a way that I can tell that I am supposed to object to but am completely ok with. Like yeah, taxation is essentially a legal form of theft, but I'm cool with that.
You can see why libertarians always do this. It is hard to argue against youtube videos without transcribing the bloody things. Thus the libertarian can leave for lunch, content that no-one will be able to address the video adequately, revealing that we are all no doubt foundering in response to the video's persuasive arguments.
Wait, if following the government that isn't centralized is totally voluntary and there are no consequences to defying it, then why would anyone submit to it's decisions? If a powerful community is committing genocide against another, less powerful community and they simply ignore this voluntary government's condemnation, what is the point of the government?
There has to be enforcement for any kind of authority to have legitimacy. And what's to stop the most powerful community from just enslaving the less powerful ones? There is no threat to them by this voluntary government since there is no enforcement.
You are allowed self defense if somebody is aggression against you. The whole point is that it's voluntary up until that point. If you are being violent and aggressive the community has the right to call in their voluntary police force.
How does this "voluntary" police force work? Does it only form whenever a crime is committed? That's going to make the resources and personnel very erratic, unlike the current form which is stable. If it is voluntary can't anyone be the detective on cases that interest them? All the popular cases may be over-run by detectives and unpopular ones may not be investigated at all. What's to stop a friend or fellow conspirator become a detective on a case of the perpetrator. It would be easy for them to discover what the other detectives are doing and cover it up. Not to mention you'd get more amateurs over professionals who know what they're doing.
2) How would your ideal society deal with collective action problems?
2) Could you be descriptive? Do you mean a lack of labor or organization problems?
A collective action problem is a situation where individuals working independently towards their own respective personal benefit result in a state of affairs that is collectively less desirable. The tragedy of the commons is the classic one, but there are plenty of others from game theory: prisoner's dilemmas, Nash equilibria, rendevous problems, free riders, etc.
Without an entity capable of coercing people to sacrifice (hopefully small) individual benefits in the interest of collective goals, you end up with undesirable outcomes.
Would you like some real-world examples? I'm not sure how familiar you are with psychology or game theory.
Feral on
every person who doesn't like an acquired taste always seems to think everyone who likes it is faking it. it should be an official fallacy.
I'm watching this youtube video and so far it is just a really boring explanation of what the government is presented in a way that I can tell that I am supposed to object to but am completely ok with. Like yeah, taxation is essentially a legal form of theft, but I'm cool with that.
Taxation isn't theft - it's part of the agreement made by living in a nation. Everyone is welcome to leave the country if they don't want to pay taxes.
But on a practical level you can't always move out of the country, like I can't just show up to Canada and say that I want to live there.
Also so now this video is telling me that nonbinding arbitration with some random guy is better then having a government. What if I don't think Charlie is a good arbitrator? What if he is really good friends with Adam so I think he will favor him video? What if I want to have some guy arbitrate for everyone and we can all pick who he is, we can call him a judge and vote for him.
2) How would your ideal society deal with collective action problems?
2) Could you be descriptive? Do you mean a lack of labor or organization problems?
A collective action problem is a situation where individuals working independently towards their own respective personal benefit result in a state of affairs that is collectively less desirable. The tragedy of the commons is the classic one, but there are plenty of others from game theory: prisoner's dilemmas, Nash equilibria, rendevous problems, free riders, etc.
Without an entity capable of coercing people to sacrifice (hopefully small) individual benefits in the interest of collective goals, you end up with undesirable outcomes.
Would you like some real-world examples? I'm not sure how familiar you are with psychology or game theory.
Wait, if following the government that isn't centralized is totally voluntary and there are no consequences to defying it, then why would anyone submit to it's decisions? If a powerful community is committing genocide against another, less powerful community and they simply ignore this voluntary government's condemnation, what is the point of the government?
There has to be enforcement for any kind of authority to have legitimacy. And what's to stop the most powerful community from just enslaving the less powerful ones? There is no threat to them by this voluntary government since there is no enforcement.
You are allowed self defense if somebody is aggression against you. The whole point is that it's voluntary up until that point. If you are being violent and aggressive the community has the right to call in their voluntary police force.
What if the voluntary police force just turns into an extortion racket like the Mafia or becomes abusive in some other fashion? There is no lawful recourse for it, they either live in fear and tyranny or violently rebel.
}
"Orkses never lose a battle. If we win we win, if we die we die fightin so it don't count. If we runs for it we don't die neither, cos we can come back for annuver go, see!".
That video is dumb. If you can't see that you are dumb.
It says on an island with 3 people, A and B have a dispute, they can ask C to decide. They never say what happens if A doesn't like C's decision.
It then says in a larger society, there would be competition to be an arbiter and if A and B have a dispute they can pick the best arbiter. It says that fairness and honesty would be the best characteristics in choosing an arbiter. It never addresses what to do when A wants to pick his brother Z and B wants to pick his brother Y as arbiters.
Or what the "dispute" is when A rapes and murders B and his entire family and takes all their fucking apples.
Yeah, that video is 'tarded. I'd also swear that is the same guy that read the audiobook of Atlas Shrugged I listened to.
0
Options
Gabriel_Pitt(effective against Russian warships)Registered Userregular
The entire problem with this thread can be summed up as, 'rayofash mistakenly thinks that 'Be excellent to each other' is a binding force of the universe.'
0
Options
Nova_CI have the needThe need for speedRegistered Userregular
Just because the vast majority of the earth's surface is claimed by various nations does not invalidate taxation.
International waters for a ...... submerged city, which could be called Rapture for example, is totally an option. :P
I get that you really are left with little choice but to pay taxes, but I still feel that the call it theft is completely disingenuous. It may not be optional, but it's payment for services provided. Theft implies no return on the money collected, which is rubbish.
Wait, if following the government that isn't centralized is totally voluntary and there are no consequences to defying it, then why would anyone submit to it's decisions? If a powerful community is committing genocide against another, less powerful community and they simply ignore this voluntary government's condemnation, what is the point of the government?
There has to be enforcement for any kind of authority to have legitimacy. And what's to stop the most powerful community from just enslaving the less powerful ones? There is no threat to them by this voluntary government since there is no enforcement.
You are allowed self defense if somebody is aggression against you. The whole point is that it's voluntary up until that point. If you are being violent and aggressive the community has the right to call in their voluntary police force.
What if the voluntary police force just turns into an extortion racket like the Mafia or becomes abusive in some other fashion? There is no lawful recourse for it, they either live in fear and tyranny or violently rebel.
Also on the Huterites...aside from the fact that rely on powerful central governments for trivial things like court systems, police, national defence, currency, emergency health care, basic education, disaster relief and the like, and secondarily rely on the products of modern statist societies to provide literally everything that is beyond the grasp of people with an 8th grade education (plus lots of bible study of course; book is a bit short on the topic of how to make a tractor, though), they also have such a wonderfully free society that women aren't given a vote in running the community, corporeal punishment (or domestic abuse, if you prefer) is allegedly used on minors and women who don't comply. Oh and exile isn't just for murderers and thieves, it's for anyone who deviates from their religious dtrictures. What an awesome bastion of freedom.
Of course if you're born there and don't like working for the "Bosses" or adhering to their religion,well hey, you're totally free to take your 8th grade education and grounding in the Biblical proof of Anabaptist theology somewhere else. Don't expect any compensation for the free labour you provided in the colony, but hey, no one used "aggression" so I guess it's okay.
Just because the vast majority of the earth's surface is claimed by various nations does not invalidate taxation.
International waters for a ...... submerged city, which could be called Rapture for example, is totally an option. :P
I get that you really are left with little choice but to pay taxes, but I still feel that the call it theft is completely disingenuous. It may not be optional, but it's payment for services provided. Theft implies no return on the money collected, which is rubbish.
Well the point is that I don't fundamentally object when the video calls it theft or think it is some huge revelation. I just think that it is a good thing that the government can tax.
I'm watching this youtube video and so far it is just a really boring explanation of what the government is presented in a way that I can tell that I am supposed to object to but am completely ok with. Like yeah, taxation is essentially a legal form of theft, but I'm cool with that.
Taxation isn't theft - it's part of the agreement made by living in a nation. Everyone is welcome to leave the country if they don't want to pay taxes.
The bolded is an issue, because you need to find another nation willing to take you. None are required to.
But yeah, in general this is my opinion on the matter. Taxes are lower in Mexico, let me know how it goes for you. Even lower in Somalia, I'd wager. See ya.
In America, you don't have to leave the country to avoid paying taxes. Just don't own your own home, make any income, or buy anything. Bam, you're set. Hell, there are even charities and such that will provide you with shelter and food for free! Those lucky duckies!
I find it funny(the sad kind), that in a country were owning people and using them as forced labor was so popular with the local populace that 250,000 of those locals were willing to go to war and die defending it, which was then followed by a local system of racial terrorizing, segregation and disfranchisement for another 100 years, until the federal government stepped in, that people can argue in favor of local government as a protector of rights.
I mean my history classes in school did an ass job with the guilded age etc, but Jesus fucking christ, we have an entire month dedicated to the former.
Just because the vast majority of the earth's surface is claimed by various nations does not invalidate taxation.
International waters for a ...... submerged city, which could be called Rapture for example, is totally an option. :P
I get that you really are left with little choice but to pay taxes, but I still feel that the call it theft is completely disingenuous. It may not be optional, but it's payment for services provided. Theft implies no return on the money collected, which is rubbish.
Pay Pal founder and early Facebook investor Peter Thiel has given $1.25 million to an initiative to create floating libertarian countries in international waters, according to a profile of the billionaire in Details magazine.
0
Options
Nova_CI have the needThe need for speedRegistered Userregular
Just because the vast majority of the earth's surface is claimed by various nations does not invalidate taxation.
International waters for a ...... submerged city, which could be called Rapture for example, is totally an option. :P
I get that you really are left with little choice but to pay taxes, but I still feel that the call it theft is completely disingenuous. It may not be optional, but it's payment for services provided. Theft implies no return on the money collected, which is rubbish.
Pay Pal founder and early Facebook investor Peter Thiel has given $1.25 million to an initiative to create floating libertarian countries in international waters, according to a profile of the billionaire in Details magazine.
Just because the vast majority of the earth's surface is claimed by various nations does not invalidate taxation.
International waters for a ...... submerged city, which could be called Rapture for example, is totally an option. :P
I get that you really are left with little choice but to pay taxes, but I still feel that the call it theft is completely disingenuous. It may not be optional, but it's payment for services provided. Theft implies no return on the money collected, which is rubbish.
Pay Pal founder and early Facebook investor Peter Thiel has given $1.25 million to an initiative to create floating libertarian countries in international waters, according to a profile of the billionaire in Details magazine.
free from the laws, regulations, and moral codes of any existing place.
Hmm...
And they will not actually try to stop us until it's too late.
Just because the vast majority of the earth's surface is claimed by various nations does not invalidate taxation.
International waters for a ...... submerged city, which could be called Rapture for example, is totally an option. :P
I get that you really are left with little choice but to pay taxes, but I still feel that the call it theft is completely disingenuous. It may not be optional, but it's payment for services provided. Theft implies no return on the money collected, which is rubbish.
Pay Pal founder and early Facebook investor Peter Thiel has given $1.25 million to an initiative to create floating libertarian countries in international waters, according to a profile of the billionaire in Details magazine.
Just because the vast majority of the earth's surface is claimed by various nations does not invalidate taxation.
International waters for a ...... submerged city, which could be called Rapture for example, is totally an option. :P
I get that you really are left with little choice but to pay taxes, but I still feel that the call it theft is completely disingenuous. It may not be optional, but it's payment for services provided. Theft implies no return on the money collected, which is rubbish.
Pay Pal founder and early Facebook investor Peter Thiel has given $1.25 million to an initiative to create floating libertarian countries in international waters, according to a profile of the billionaire in Details magazine.
A man chooses, a slave obeys!
So rarely in our modern society can you look at someone and say to yourself "That man is going to get murdered by pirates for his gold."
0
Options
AManFromEarthLet's get to twerk!The King in the SwampRegistered Userregular
I find it funny(the sad kind), that in a country were owning people and using them as forced labor was so popular with the local populace that 250,000 of those locals were willing to go to war and die defending it, which was then followed by a local system of racial terrorizing, segregation and disfranchisement for another 100 years, until the federal government stepped in, that people can argue in favor of local government as a protector of rights.
I mean my history classes in school did an ass job with the guilded age etc, but Jesus fucking christ, we have an entire month dedicated to the former.
I find it sad that someone can go through a history class and then make a statement like this.
Government isn't a natural champion of shit. It is how the people use the government.
Posts
You are allowed self defense if somebody is aggression against you. The whole point is that it's voluntary up until that point. If you are being violent and aggressive the community has the right to call in their voluntary police force.
If it is human run endeavor, no matter how noble or amiable the participants, there is always the potential for corruption. No system you could possibly ever propose will ever remove this fact. (Unless you want to talk about Government by robots, now THAT'S a discussion worth having.)
So, yes, the entire thread is just an argument for vigilante justice?
It doesn't work in the real world.
We tried it, it failed. Move on.
Voluntary vigilante justice.
I'd have to watch it again myself and I'm going to go eat. For some reason all those videos just link back to the OP. I fixed them.
Anways, there are three parts to this:
Edit: How would your community handle something like the Trayvon Martin case where the person claimed self defence?
Lots of people have become kings. Having the previous king's head on a stick goes a long way toward cementing the position.
Also on Steam and PSN: twobadcats
But the community is overwhelmed by the strength of the aggressor. That is, a community of say 5,000 people has a militia of 500 volunteers (10% volunteerism is like hella optimistic). A community of 50,000 with a professional military of 5,000 slaughters the defenders and enslaves the town.
All the nearby communities, even if the stand together, can muster only 1,000 soldiers between them. What's to stop the aggressor from just continuing the conquest?
And what if the Drunk guy is one of the Voluntary police? He's a real nice guy and no one wants to hurt him.
And what happens when the drunk guy says "OK I'll stop" when the "Voluntary Police" show up and then immediately starts beating her again when they leave?
QEDMF xbl: PantsB G+
It was taken care of as in it's over, she went to the police. Yes things would have been better had they gone down another way. But that's neither here nor there.
>How would your community handle something like the Trayvon Martin case where the person claimed self defence?
Depends on the community. There would be a trial and an investigation like there is actually going on. And now I'm off to eat.
Taxation is a form of subscription to services. In this case, it's a tremendously large subscription for quite a few services. It's sort of like a HOA membership, in that you have to move to unsubscribe.
Taxation isn't theft - it's part of the agreement made by living in a nation. Everyone is welcome to leave the country if they don't want to pay taxes.
The bolded is an issue, because you need to find another nation willing to take you. None are required to.
But yeah, in general this is my opinion on the matter. Taxes are lower in Mexico, let me know how it goes for you. Even lower in Somalia, I'd wager. See ya.
You can see why libertarians always do this. It is hard to argue against youtube videos without transcribing the bloody things. Thus the libertarian can leave for lunch, content that no-one will be able to address the video adequately, revealing that we are all no doubt foundering in response to the video's persuasive arguments.
How does this "voluntary" police force work? Does it only form whenever a crime is committed? That's going to make the resources and personnel very erratic, unlike the current form which is stable. If it is voluntary can't anyone be the detective on cases that interest them? All the popular cases may be over-run by detectives and unpopular ones may not be investigated at all. What's to stop a friend or fellow conspirator become a detective on a case of the perpetrator. It would be easy for them to discover what the other detectives are doing and cover it up. Not to mention you'd get more amateurs over professionals who know what they're doing.
A collective action problem is a situation where individuals working independently towards their own respective personal benefit result in a state of affairs that is collectively less desirable. The tragedy of the commons is the classic one, but there are plenty of others from game theory: prisoner's dilemmas, Nash equilibria, rendevous problems, free riders, etc.
Without an entity capable of coercing people to sacrifice (hopefully small) individual benefits in the interest of collective goals, you end up with undesirable outcomes.
Would you like some real-world examples? I'm not sure how familiar you are with psychology or game theory.
the "no true scotch man" fallacy.
Also so now this video is telling me that nonbinding arbitration with some random guy is better then having a government. What if I don't think Charlie is a good arbitrator? What if he is really good friends with Adam so I think he will favor him video? What if I want to have some guy arbitrate for everyone and we can all pick who he is, we can call him a judge and vote for him.
Crabs in a Bucket
What if the voluntary police force just turns into an extortion racket like the Mafia or becomes abusive in some other fashion? There is no lawful recourse for it, they either live in fear and tyranny or violently rebel.
"Orkses never lose a battle. If we win we win, if we die we die fightin so it don't count. If we runs for it we don't die neither, cos we can come back for annuver go, see!".
That video is dumb. If you can't see that you are dumb.
It says on an island with 3 people, A and B have a dispute, they can ask C to decide. They never say what happens if A doesn't like C's decision.
It then says in a larger society, there would be competition to be an arbiter and if A and B have a dispute they can pick the best arbiter. It says that fairness and honesty would be the best characteristics in choosing an arbiter. It never addresses what to do when A wants to pick his brother Z and B wants to pick his brother Y as arbiters.
Or what the "dispute" is when A rapes and murders B and his entire family and takes all their fucking apples.
QEDMF xbl: PantsB G+
International waters for a ...... submerged city, which could be called Rapture for example, is totally an option. :P
Voluntarily violently rebel.
So it's coo'.
Of course if you're born there and don't like working for the "Bosses" or adhering to their religion,well hey, you're totally free to take your 8th grade education and grounding in the Biblical proof of Anabaptist theology somewhere else. Don't expect any compensation for the free labour you provided in the colony, but hey, no one used "aggression" so I guess it's okay.
Also on Steam and PSN: twobadcats
I mean my history classes in school did an ass job with the guilded age etc, but Jesus fucking christ, we have an entire month dedicated to the former.
http://news.yahoo.com/blogs/lookout/silicon-valley-billionaire-funding-creation-artificial-libertarian-islands-140840896.html
A man chooses, a slave obeys!
I find it sad that someone can go through a history class and then make a statement like this.
Government isn't a natural champion of shit. It is how the people use the government.