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.
I firmly believe it's the other way around - the hope within statism is that the right amount of authoritarian control over a population will lead to the ideal society. Everyone is trying to come up with the ideal system to impose on everyone else. The flaw is in the idea that a central authority knows best how to "run" society, rather than allowing society to thrive on its own.
With libertarianism, the philosophy, the idea is that you can't have a perfect society, and treating people like pawns to achieve some end actually creates more problems than it solves. Allowing individuals to make choices over their own lives is the optimal, and most ethical/moral IMO, way to go.
I think you've missed the point of the 'nirvana fallacy'.
You say, "Everyone is trying to come up with the ideal system to impose on everyone else", the point is that some folks have the tendency to compare actual things with idealized things full stop.
There are no perfect solutions to complex problems. Problem-solving is a process, no one thing takes the place of a process.
I think you'd agree identifying the problems of a community alone is complex or complicated enough (interrelated,cascading, considering root cause analysis, etc.) much less coming up with the 'one perfect solution'.
Thus the framework used in attempting to trouble-shoot, solve, &/or resolve the complex problems of a community exists within & as the natural consequence of a (preferably critical & creative thought) process.
Trouble-shooting an individual or a small/large family's problems is often complex enough, even here, there is no 'one perfect solution'.
Here's a short video Does everyone have the same values? Yes, but libertarianism isn’t one of them.
The upshot:
Quote:
Is conflict humanity's natural state? Could we ever agree on a set of values? The knee-jerk response for any student of history would be 'no', but the data tells a different story. Psychologist and author Steven Pinker offers proof in the form of Wagner's law: "One development that people both on the Left and the Right are unaware of is almost an inexorable force that leads affluent societies to devote increasing amounts of their wealth to social spending, to redistribution to children, to education, to healthcare, to supporting the poor, to supporting the aged." Until the 20th century, most societies devoted about 1.5% of their GDP to social spending, and generally much less than that. In the last 100 years, that's changed: today the current global median of social spending is 22% of GDP. One group will groan most audibly at that data: Libertarians. However, Pinker says it's no coincidence that there are zero libertarian countries on Earth; social spending is a shared value, even if the truest libertarians protest it, as the free market has no way to provide for poor children, the elderly, and other members of society who cannot contribute to the marketplace. As countries develop, they naturally initiate social spending programs. That's why libertarianism is a marginal idea, rather than a universal value—and it's likely to stay that way. Steven Pinker is the author of Enlightenment Now: The Case for Reason, Science, Humanism, and Progress.
The only private property you have is your mind and your body.
Also the fruits of your labor!
I think I understand a bit more on why you aren't keen on extending the private ownership to capital. It is ripe with the possibility of morally bad exploitation. I respect that but it can't stand in the way of voluntary association. It's a pre-emptive use of force. A NAP violation and therefore verboten.
Another anarchist that used to post in here really hammered that point home when it came to usury. While we believe in consenting adults making their own choices (including bad ones) we recognize that the practice of usury is very ugly and not very nice. You can't simply "ban" usury just like you can't "ban" any morally bad practice that may result in voluntary exchanges. It is up the good people to put enough societal pressure on everyone to do good things in good faith when they make their private deals.
That's actually the exciting part of freedom: to see just how far we can go in promoting good values and good choices made exclusively through voluntary association.
We've already seen the State's downside (hundreds of millions in body bags in just the last 100 years or so). I've also personally seen the State's downside in my life experiences.
I don't think it can get any worse under freedom. Even if I'm wrong about that I'm right about freedom so it doesn't matter anyway.
Private police, armed guards, yourself--whichever one you decide works best for you.
Of which 99% of the population could not afford. And what would stop a billionaire from hiring an army and ceasing our private property?
Quote:
Originally Posted by rebeldor
Prison is a terrible analogy because no one has freedom or power, as there are armed guards and escaping means arrest or death.
A prison is a confined environment, much like a country or our planet. Also in a prison there is no rank or titles so power is created and formulated by the prisoners much like our own society. So it provides a perfect microcosm for the human creation and application of power structures.
Quote:
Originally Posted by rebeldor
Why do you think that? Governments killed over 200 million people in the 20th century alone; why do you think there'd be more violence without government? Are humans some wild animal that needs to be tamed by a ruler?
We have had upward of 1.5 million murders over the last hundred years just in the US alone. Far more deaths then all of the soldiers we lost in WW1, WW2, Korea and Vietnam combined. And this number comes from within a society with a strong civil structure. Imagine how bad it would be if we had no civil structure and our murder rate was 20x higher like it would be in a pure Libertarian society.
Humans absolutely need structure. And yes some humans are basically wild animals who would kill, destroy and pillage if they had the chance. Its also vital to be able to organize people when needed and sometimes it requires forcefulness. Something that would could not happen in a pure Libertarian society.
What about my car? My phone? My TV? The clothes I'm wearing? Are those communal?
They're of your own private usage but you do not physical 'own' any of them (legally under the current system you do but that is besides the point).
They are neither a part of you nor are they yours by right. Practically it makes sense to have private usage of items and/or space (people shouldn't be sharing tooth brushes, that would be bad) but to consider them under your control beyond the point of usage is a dangerous slope to go through.
If you, and/or others are using a plot of land then functionally it is your right as a human to the shared earth we share. Once you start considering land a potential private ownership by someone then you go down the path of over-sizing their abilities and their individual contributions.
What one person produces is of that one person. Now if they 'own' (which has no real definition being as humans have no mental control over other materials besides themselves) land then their production output includes all the labor done on said land regardless of if it is done by themselves or by the labor of others. Such an excess of production not done by ones selves gives said person excess power that can be used to obtain more ownership of other resources and production capacities that then streamline the freedom of work through your hands.
Individual humans have a right to work on shared land, facilities, or what not without having to give their labor to others, the entire nature of that hierarchical system will not only lead to (decentralized) authoritarianism but is also inherent to the concept of slavery.
Now you may ask why 'owning' a tooth brush is dangerous but the mere fact that society would allow an autonomous human absolute control over something that is not them exceeds human nature, the laws of nature, and creates the ground work for private control of other goods and services that are more consequential.
Are there any problems an an-cap society would not fix or would it be the crystallized perfection of human sociology?
Can any an-cap supporters outline what they see as the flaws in an an-cap system, or is it simply flawless?
Think of all the crap you personally did wrong today, yesterday, or 10 years ago. We know that's at least possible though hopefully non-aggressive pressure will alter your behavior to clean up the bad stuff while promoting the good stuff.
As an individual that is what you bring to any socialization you may have.
Lord knows violence begets violence so I have no clue why a baseline of violence is a desirable starting point but whatever. I just pay my taxes here.
Think of all the crap you personally did wrong today, yesterday, or 10 years ago. We know that's at least possible though hopefully non-aggressive pressure will alter your behavior to clean up the bad stuff while promoting the good stuff.
As an individual that is what you bring to any socialization you may have.
Lord knows violence begets violence so I have no clue why a baseline of violence is a desirable starting point but whatever. I just pay my taxes here.
This is not an answer to either question, merely defensive deflection turning potential introspection back outward. If you really think it is a cure all 100% solution to all the ills of human society..... then, it really is a religion, lol. And you are a fundamentalist.
This is not an answer to either question, merely defensive deflection turning potential introspection back outward. If you really think it is a cure all 100% solution to all the ills of human society..... then, it really is a religion, lol. And you are a fundamentalist.
It will cure nothing. It is no "solution".
It's merely giving up living a fictional collective existence that gives rights/direction to individuals to a reality-based existence in which individuals may make up a collective and if so will voluntarily decide what that collective will do.
I think you folks have a problem with the paradigm of existence. Humans predate government. Humans also have and can exist minus socialization. Government can't.
It's merely giving up living a fictional collective existence that gives rights/direction to individuals to a reality-based existence in which individuals may make up a collective and if so will voluntarily decide what that collective will do.
I think you folks have a problem with the paradigm of existence.
So, what potential pitfalls or flaws do you see with going that route? You gonna tell me there are no possible cons?
So, what potential pitfalls or flaws do you see with going that route?
That I know for sure?
(warning: this is a list of my personal faults because now I'm talking about a completely free society without rulers so it's pointless to speculate on what others may do so here is stuff I'm in the hole on to start off with)
1. I tend to think on problems too long so if a problem is particularly destructive it will probably negatively impact my life.
2. I procrastinate...not just with my problems but with a lot of mundane things.
3. My patience needs a ton of work. I could foresee this being a tough spot for potential partners in voluntarily associations.
4. I tend to be aloof/cold. Again, potential partners may not find me particularly engaging.
5. I take things too seriously.
6. I'm apathetic on many things. Perhaps on things I should care about if I looked at my value system.
7. I'm extremely cheap financially.
8. I'm not very agreeable to a fault.
9. I over-analyze everything.
10. I'm a stickler for rules to a fault. I've improved here but I still need plenty of work.
That's 10 to start with. Many more to go.
So what flaws/pitfalls do you foresee for yourself in a free society?
(warning: this is a list of my personal faults because now I'm talking about a completely free society without rulers so it's pointless to speculate on what others may do so here is stuff I'm in the hole on to start off with)
1. I tend to think on problems too long so if a problem is particularly destructive it will probably negatively impact my life.
2. I procrastinate...not just with my problems but with a lot of mundane things.
3. My patience needs a ton of work. I could foresee this being a tough spot for potential partners in voluntarily associations.
4. I tend to be aloof/cold. Again, potential partners may not find me particularly engaging.
5. I take things too seriously.
6. I'm apathetic on many things. Perhaps on things I should care about if I looked at my value system.
7. I'm extremely cheap financially.
8. I'm not very agreeable to a fault.
9. I over-analyze everything.
10. I'm a stickler for rules to a fault. I've improved here but I still need plenty of work.
That's 10 to start with. Many more to go.
So what flaws/pitfalls do you foresee for yourself in a free society?
1) the guy down the street has 100 million dollars and doesn't give a f**k about the NAP, his private army kills me in my sleep so he can take my sh*t and add it to his fortune.
2) through #N) I'm dead, my families dead, no one in the area has the resources to stop him, the people who would have had the resources dont realize they need to until its too late, he amasses more and more power through unrestrained violence leading to a brutal dictatorship.
Wait is this some fantasy world where literally everyone in the society has the exact same beliefs as you on the NAP? So yea, thats a religion, cause you gonna need some heavy duty godmagic for that to happen.
Last edited by zzzSnorlax; 04-19-2018 at 05:38 PM..
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.
