Respect my authority!

[guartz]

oh god shut the fuck up guartz.

you can rethink the jail mentality of "let's keep cramming too many people into prisons" without deciding you need to get rid of government entirely.

Government needs force to keep order? Society needs it to regulate itself.

If that was true, we would all be slaves!

Seriously, what society was entirely ruled by the sword? NONE. It can't be done, maybe for a few years, but never for long. Monopoly on force doesn't keep order. Therefore, It's completely arbitrary.

What's keeping me from sneaking into my neighbors yard and stealing his stuff?

A he might RETALIATE.

B society at large might ostracize me.

Might be just me, but I don't see how monopoly on force plays effect here. Holy shit, if I'm the one who has it. Then A and B can't happen.

[Nystul]

oh god shut the fuck up guartz.

you can rethink the jail mentality of "let's keep cramming too many people into prisons" without deciding you need to get rid of government entirely.

Government needs force to keep order? Society needs it to regulate itself.

If that was true, we would all be slaves!

Seriously, what society was entirely ruled by the sword? NONE. It can't be done, maybe for a few years, but never for long. Monopoly on force doesn't keep order. Therefore, It's completely arbitrary.

What's keeping me from sneaking into my neighbors yard and stealing his stuff?

A he might RETALIATE.

B society at large might ostracize me.

Might be just me, but I don't see how monopoly on force plays effect here. Holy shit, if I'm the one who has it. Then A and B can't happen.

Umm...you don't see how a monopoly on force plays into this? I find that hard to believe. I'd love for you to just write out how you think things should work...but you won't do it.

Who regulates private security groups? Who pays for them? Who ensures that just because one person pays more than another, the high paying person doesn't get special privileges? This devolves into this sort of merc for hire shit where what is LEGAL begins to be defined as "what you can pay to do." Do you want to live in that world?

[Tomodachi]

pretty fcked up decision imo

[guartz]

Here's a challenge for you Guartz.

Explain, in fair detail, how the USA would function without taxes, say starting Jan 1 2009. Where will the money come from? Please frame your answer in the context of the real world, not an idealized concept of reality where people willingly and happily donate large sums of money to various organizations that aren't cute and friendly (like road construction etc).

USA wouldn't function at all. However, the people living in said territory would instinctively use gold/junk jewelry as exchange. Large corporations will almost immediately dissipate. So communication will be limited. Roads and such won't be maintained unless there is a direct need from a merchant or a collection of merchants who must use said road to bring foods and such to a specific place(s). In some places there will be severe food/gas price gouging, and people will be forced to move. People will start living together, kids will move to their parents, etc. Violence will probably skyrocket the first few years, but will gradually calm down as economy begins to find equilibrium based on needs and supply. Communication will be restored gradually, other infrastructure will follow suit. If no government is there to replace the late one, then business minded individuals will quickly realize there is a butt-load of profit to be had in handling disputes between individuals and offering insured property protection.

[guartz]

This devolves into this sort of merc for hire shit where what is LEGAL begins to be defined as "what you can pay to do." Do you want to live in that world?

I thought we were sticking to "the real world"

lol

Yes! In the future, large corporations use cyborgs to rule the world!

No.

[Kuya]

Who administrates punitive and preventionist systems and who funds them?

[guartz]

Who administrates punitive and preventionist systems and who funds them?

Robert Nozick's Anarchy, State and Utopia goes into very good detail regarding that. Previously mentioned company who handles disputes would assess punitive charges against individuals who damaged property, violated contracts. Of course, they don't have any way to enforce it aside from either flagging that person as high risk (like it would cost more for this individual to go into future contracts, like today's credit rating) or in extreme cases ostracize that person all together. Of course, it's safe to assume that these businesses would share information, so it wouldn't be as simple as moving to get away from charges.

What he was a bit stumped on, in my opinion, was how larger crimes were handled. Like say, murder. Because he suggested that the entire society had claim for retaliation, and such retaliation would never be fair. I think it's chapter 4, if you wanna read more into his reasoning.

[Kuya]

At least you agknowledge that. This system of yours is very vague and potentially overly complex. It does not outline who should enforce contracts or even force someone to stand trial or any sort of review. A person could go on a mass killing spree and you wouldn't know what to do without a proper security force or what the punishment should be and how it should be administered, and if you allow it to just be left to relation then you only admit to not knowing what to do in this situation. Also, who funds them? And if not everybody funds the same company to handle these situations, then why should others trust them to not be biased towards their contributors?

[Nystul]

Here's a challenge for you Guartz.

Explain, in fair detail, how the USA would function without taxes, say starting Jan 1 2009. Where will the money come from? Please frame your answer in the context of the real world, not an idealized concept of reality where people willingly and happily donate large sums of money to various organizations that aren't cute and friendly (like road construction etc).

USA wouldn't function at all. However, the people living in said territory would instinctively use gold/junk jewelry as exchange. Large corporations will almost immediately dissipate. So communication will be limited. Roads and such won't be maintained unless there is a direct need from a merchant or a collection of merchants who must use said road to bring foods and such to a specific place(s). In some places there will be severe food/gas price gouging, and people will be forced to move. People will start living together, kids will move to their parents, etc. Violence will probably skyrocket the first few years, but will gradually calm down as economy begins to find equilibrium based on needs and supply. Communication will be restored gradually, other infrastructure will follow suit. If no government is there to replace the late one, then business minded individuals will quickly realize there is a butt-load of profit to be had in handling disputes between individuals and offering insured property protection.

So basically, once a small number of people have price gouged and robbed their way to supreme wealth, everyone else who's got absolutely nothing will live happily under the rule of those people that own everything? Thank god, there's no chance for abuse and repression there. Whew!

Oh oh oh, I mean...this of course all happens when a large chunk of the population dies due to lack of medical care, or to not sitting on a pile of jewelry like scrooge mcduck, or to famine, and violence. And of course since there is no organized military etc, any douche country thats angry with us can waltz in unabated to blow up what still remains.


So basically your idea of a better society is to allow a small minority of people the ability to get stupidly rich at the expense of the general population, then allow those people to control all aspects of government, such as it is, with no system in place to ensure even the slightest checks and balances of power for all those that didn't manage to price gouge, steal, or murder their way into wealth.

[guartz]

So basically, once a small number of people have price gouged and robbed their way to supreme wealth,

Of course, that's dr.evil's plan. He will price gouge rice in a small localized area UNTIL HE HAS...








1 MILLION DOLLARS.


*pinky to mouth*






Go get some sleep Nystul.

[Nystul]

So basically, once a small number of people have price gouged and robbed their way to supreme wealth,

Of course, that's dr.evil's plan. He will price gouge rice in a small localized area UNTIL HE HAS...








1 MILLION DOLLARS.


*pinky to mouth*






Go get some sleep Nystul.

Yea, I was pretty sure you couldn't address those issues either.

[Orph]

Anybody that truly thinks that anarchy types of society will work in the real world should be charged with stupid and be locked up for life.

[Beckwin]

I had this same loooong discussion with guartz before. It essentially boils down to believing that no organization would ever get too large, when there is nothing to support that.

[thestalkmore]

I seriously feel more stupid every time I read one of guartz's posts.

[Nystul]

I had this same loooong discussion with guartz before. It essentially boils down to believing that no organization would ever get too large, when there is nothing to support that.

Not only will they not get too large, but they'll be nice and treat people well and not try to take advantage of anyone. Because humans have a long history of that.

[Maxxthepenguin]

I had this same loooong discussion with guartz before. It essentially boils down to believing that no organization would ever get too large, when there is nothing to support that.

Ya know, without restrictions, smaller organizations could organize cruel and unfair practices AND campaigns of disinformation.

[Nystul]

I had this same loooong discussion with guartz before. It essentially boils down to believing that no organization would ever get too large, when there is nothing to support that.

Ya know, without restrictions, smaller organizations could organize cruel and unfair practices AND campaigns of disinformation.

Wal*mart was once the quaint small town store. I mean, you can't put capitalism in anarcho-capitalism and then turn around and say that the capitalist groups are going to get juuuuust big enough and then stay that way. Thanks very much sir, but we're happy the size we are. No interest in getting bigger.

Without restrictions, the door is so wide open...I just don't see how someone could believe in a political philosophy that, given the nature of man, society, and history, can not, will not, should not ever be put in place because it serves no one other than the douchebags that are in love with the somehow romanticized idea of anarchy.

[Plow]

If you can't pass a G.E.D. test you have serious issues (or don't speak English), and anyone who would allow their child to get to that point outside of being mentally retarded should at the very least be sterilized.


Seriously, the G.E.D. math section is like 4th grade.

[guartz]

I had this same loooong discussion with guartz before. It essentially boils down to believing that no organization would ever get too large, when there is nothing to support that.

And there is no support that says in a pure anarcho society a organization CAN get large.

Look at wal-mart, no way could it continue to support such low prices, essentially selling at cost to drive other businesses away, WITHOUT government subsidies. What was it, 1bil in profits for walmart just in subsidies alone last year? Microsoft would mean shit without intellectual property rights. There wouldn't be a government to freely hand out contracts to haliburton, etc.

You keep saying that corporations will grow large and big, but without any support.

[guartz]

I had this same loooong discussion with guartz before. It essentially boils down to believing that no organization would ever get too large, when there is nothing to support that.

Ya know, without restrictions, government organizations could organize cruel and unfair practices AND campaigns of disinformation.

fix'd