Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Well, parenting involves telling your kids what to do and what not to do, anyway you look at it, and not everything can be explained to a 4 or 5 years old.
What you're postulating here is pure utopia...
You cant have a voluntary society everybody can chose to leave at any given time just like you can't have a highway where people chose which traffic laws they follow and when.
You have to understand, the reason people organized into societies is precisely to avoid that chaos and resulting lack of security. You are trying to take us back to the days of tribal divides but nobody really misses that: we only became successful as species when we organized.
I guess we'll disagree on the parenting.
Voluntary society allows government if you want it. Nobody is stopping you from agreeing to an actual contract to become a part of that. I think it is immoral, so I wouldn't sign the contract and I'd find others who want to organize peacefully.
We do have rights that nobody can rightfully take away. Our rights end where another's begin. If you want to voluntarily waive your rights, you have that right, but nobody else can violate them against your will. It seems that you think the majority's opinion should always be followed. Do you believe in self-ownership? Does anyone have a right to your body but you? What about anything you produce? If you own yourself, then how does anyone else have a right to your life?
We send people to prisons against their wishes. Does it mean we violate their "inalienable rights" or we are "morally wrong"? No. There are no "inalienable rights". This was just a philosophical concept invented by the Founding Fathers to morally justify revolting against the rightful government of King George.
Quote:
Originally Posted by T0103E
I'm glad you believe I shouldn't be forced. With your concerns about it, the way I see it is that (in a free society) if someone killed someone else and claimed they thought it was the right thing to do, people at the very least would think they were crazy and not associate with them.
That's great to know that in an anarchist society Manson Family would be shunned. Puts me at ease about the safety of my family. ARE YOU FOR REAL???
Quote:
Originally Posted by T0103E
In a voluntary society, you make your bed and lay in it. There are still consequences for your actions. It all depends on how the group of people involved wanted to handle it. There could be a DRO (I'd explain what that is but it might be easier for you to look it up) that works to resolve the issue. There could be private police if that community voluntarily agreed to have them settle disputes....there are many possibilities but the point is that there would be systems in place to deter unwanted behavior.
Private police? DROs? .So your anarchist society is not so anarchist at all. What's the point in change then? Seriously now, you're pushing your anarchist agenda when you don't really know in detail how this voluntary society would function? Give us some specifics. What mechanism and institutions would be in place for conflict resolution or would I just have to shoot the neighbor who listens to Metallica at 4 am?
Quote:
Originally Posted by T0103E
As I've said, I can't really leave it. I'll just end up in the same situation somewhere else. What I want is to make people aware of the violence they're supporting.
If you feel that rule of law is violence than I feel really sorry for you, but believe me, nobody wants to go back to the old days of Wild West and lawlessness that was so difficult to uproot. I guess you're the minority that would take Wild West over law and order.
Agreed, there is a trade off between order and freedom. The more order we have the less freedom we can enjoy. That's a given. It makes sense however to give up some freedom in exchange for law and order, because when people can stop worrying about their safety they can then focus on being economically productive. You can't be a soldier and a farmer in the same time.
That's exactly why the lawless areas of the world are so dirt poor while the highly organized parts predominantly affluent.
Last edited by random_thoughts; 09-05-2014 at 12:18 PM..
Sure you can. Plenty of deep woods where you can hang out for months or even years without being forced to take part of established society.
Of course, if you want to partake of the benefits of society - like soft toilet paper, modern dentistry and appendectomies with anesthesia - then you may want to rethink your stance.
Have to admit, this reminds me of the Marxists of my youth - the insistence that if only it was allowed to be done right, everybody would soon see the superiority of the system.
That wouldn't be a voluntary society if I'm living alone in the woods (which would still technically be under a government...I'd just be hiding until they found me). I would want to teach people the non-aggression principle and respect for property rights and not have to escape to anywhere. It's like if every government in the world supported rape and you said "If you wanna live in a civilized society, deal with rape or live in the woods."
Oh, we can grasp all right, it but it doesn't mean that we approve it. [giant snip]
I am more correctly labeled agorist, not anarchist. I understand and appreciate the inevitability of human association and voluntary agreement for the betterment of all involved.
We send people to prisons against their wishes. Does it mean we violate their "inalienable rights" or we are "morally wrong"? No. There are no "inalienable rights". This was just a philosophical concept invented by the Founding Fathers to morally justify revolting against the rightful government of King George.
That's great to know that in an anarchist society Manson Family would be shunned. Puts me at ease about the safety of my family. ARE YOU FOR REAL???
Private police? DROs? .So your anarchist society is not so anarchist at all. What's the point in change then? Seriously now, you're pushing your anarchist agenda when you don't really know in detail how this voluntary society would function? Give us some specifics. What mechanism and institutions would be in place for conflict resolution or would I just have to shoot the neighbor who listens to Metallica at 4 am?
If you feel that rule of law is violence than I feel really sorry for you, but believe me, nobody wants to go back to the old days of Wild West and lawlessness that was so difficult to uproot.
Agreed, there is a trade off between order and freedom. The more order we have the less freedom we can enjoy. That's a given. It makes sense however to give up some freedom in exchange for law and order, because when people can stop worrying about safety they can focus on being productive.
You can't be a soldier and a farmer in the same time.
That's exactly why the lawless areas of the world are so dirt poor while the highly organized parts predominantly affluent.
The key thing to understand is that government is simply a person or group who people perceive to have the moral right to use force. It's a common thing for me to hear people equate any organization to accomplish things with government. It's not the same.
I could spend days debating how a voluntary society would work in practice, but the key thing to understanding my views is this:
Its wrong to initiate force against another person. It might be easier to use force, but I value being consistent with my morals over the consequences. I do believe it would work if people stopped looking to government to solve all of their problems.
Voluntary society allows government if you want it. Nobody is stopping you from agreeing to an actual contract to become a part of that. I think it is immoral, so I wouldn't sign the contract and I'd find others who want to organize peacefully.
So in my 40 story apartment building I'd have half the neighbors who signed up for society and obey the laws and half who chose not to and for instance feel like having wild parties until 6 am.
The key thing to understand is that government is simply a person or group who people perceive to have the moral right to use force. It's a common thing for me to hear people equate any organization to accomplish things with government. It's not the same.
Don't feed me ideological propaganda but simply explain who in absence of the law, would be responsible for conflict resolution in an anarchist society?
Who would ensure that my neighbors can't start burning tires on their balcony or shoot guns at 4 am?
I am more correctly labeled agorist, not anarchist. I understand and appreciate the inevitability of human association and voluntary agreement for the betterment of all involved.
I however believe that there is nothing voluntary about following the laws. I don't want my neighbors shooting guns at 4am just because they feel like it.
Don't feed me ideological propaganda but simply explain who in absence of the law, would be responsible for conflict resolution in an anarchist society?
Who would ensure that my neighbors can't start burning tires on their balcony or shoot guns at 4 am?
I have some ideas of how it could work, but I don't know for sure and it doesn't matter. Slavery is immoral, correct? If you asked me back when it was supported specifically how society would function, I wouldn't be able to tell you that we would replace slaves with giant robots that run on ancient plant juice and are more efficient and productive than slaves ever were, and that we'd have a huge surplus of food. You'd think I was crazy even if I knew the future and told you that.
I have some ideas of how it could work, but I don't know for sure and it doesn't matter. Slavery is immoral, correct? If you asked me back when it was supported specifically how society would function, I wouldn't be able to tell you that we would replace slaves with giant robots that run on ancient plant juice and are more efficient and productive than slaves ever were, and that we'd have a huge surplus of food. You'd think I was crazy even if I knew the future and told you that.
You make a good point regarding the complications involved universal ethics without knowing it...
It took a pretty advanced society to even move to the point where a beaten aggressor wouldn't be put to the sword as a matter of course, but instead allowed to live on as a slave. (You have to feed slaves. It takes organization.) And while we can of course agree that neither is an ethically attractive option, I'd guess the people involved had a clear preference.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
