Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[Vector]

Right.  At this point, it may indeed be too late to establish government in the way that I have been suggesting.

At the same time, maybe with enough microcosms...

[Leafsnail]

Either you already lack a political body, in which case you're basically running a government in order to keep a bunch of people who have no desire or reason to associate with each other together (why would you do this?)

Essential services (possibly including some kind of justice system, education, road maintanence and so on).  There are plenty of things you can't provide on your own but which are needed for a society to run well.

or you have a political body in which people say "all right, this isn't about me" and work together for the greater good.

This is a false dichotomy ("Either everyone is completely selfish or you all completely agree with each other") and ignores the problem.  Even if I completely agree that this "isn't about me" and that I should contribute to the collective I can easily disagree with other people on the exact amount I owe.

In some deep sense, that person who says "I don't want to pay $200" is already not part of the community, because they are making it about what is due to them, rather than what is owed to the situation.

This seems to dodge the problem by assuming that I must automatically be in the wrong if I disagree with the amount of money other people want me to pay.  It may be that actually there are legitimate reasons I feel like I should be contributing $100 rather than $200 (maybe other people are contributing $100, or I won't be able to reasonably afford $200).  And that there are also legitimate reasons why other people think I should pay $200, to the extent that we can argue and not make any progress.  So, I ask, how do you resolve this conflict?  Do you just effectively exile me from the community for not agreeing with everyone else?

[Vector]

Unfortunately, I can't actually link you to this article.

But what you seem to be saying is this: because both of us are right, there's no compromise that can be made.  We wouldn't both be wrong.  I can't pay $200, other people are paying $200, we are both working from correct, albeit colliding, principles.

Generally both parties recognize the other's correct principles and work something out.

[LordBucket]

but practically?
The problem here lie in
you'd try to prevent it by...?
But how do you plan on
How do you expect such a society to
This seems to dodge the problem
how do you resolve this conflict?

etc.

Can we have a common sense check please?

If you don't understand, that's fine. If you understand, but you don't agree, that's fine. If you simply wouldn't want to live in such a system for aesthetic reasons, that's ok too. But a lot the questions and objections you guys are bringing up are basically dumb. Not all of them. But a lot of them.

Let's reverse this:

 * Democracy could never work in a large society. How could you possibly get millions of people to vote? It's impractical.
 * How would you stop people from doing bad things in a democracy? Just because there are police and laws and prisons doesn't mean that people won't do bad things. And sometimes those people won't even get caught. So obviously democracy is flawed.
 * If officials are elected by the general public, doesn't the whole thing just become a popularity contest? There's no guarantee that qualified, well-intentioned individuals will be put into office.

All of these objections are dumb. Yes, there are millions of people who don't vote. Society marches on. Yes, there are people who steal and kill and generally do bad things and sometimes those people don't get caught. Nevertheless, the country is still here. Yes, sometimes corrupt officials are put into office. And nevertheless, our society does continue to function.

These objections are not valid dismissals of the concept.

Neither are yours.

[Leafsnail]

* How would you stop people from doing bad things in a democracy? Just because there are police and laws and prisons doesn't mean that people won't do bad things. And sometimes those people won't even get caught. So obviously democracy is flawed.

The problem here is that no better solution is being proposed.  Wheras when objecting to your system with no police or laws there is a better way of dealing with crime being suggested (ie police and laws).

[Vector]

What makes it better?

[LordBucket]

What makes it better?

Exactly what I said a couple pages back: they get to live in a comforting illusion. They believe that laws make them safe. There's no comprehension that certain systems are condusive to certain behaviors. Poverty does not exist in a society with no money. But if you try to tell somebody who feels like they don't have enough money that the solution to poverty is to build a system without money, what they hear is "to not be poor, throw away your money," which is obviously ridiculous from their point of view.

I said this all back on page 2. It's difficult to have these conversations because people are entrenched in a worldview from which the ideas we're discussing don't make sense. The problem is not the ideas. It's the worldview.

[Vector]

I'd prefer to hear it from them, if you don't mind.  You can't engage someone in dialogue by putting words in their mouth.

[Phmcw]

In my views, whatever they may be called, but that I see as a way to fix Belgian system, adjustment must be made to the existing infrastructure to sanction action against the collective good by government officials. Namely a better independence of justice and state and more transparency of the government. For both to work, a simplification of the decision making must be made (I kid you not, we have six full government for about ten million citizens, it's insane, and insanely complicated), and some law must be passed to drain mafia from its revenue (legalisation of drugs and prostitution, as the latter is already accepted everywhere in the country and the former available legally and part of our culture in two of their most nasty versions (alcohol and tobacco are both incredibly addicting killers)).

These are simple proposition that answer your questions LordBucket. You can question me further if you like.

Of course, libertarianism is a leap into the unknown, and I don't expect perfect responses to my questions. But since the whole point of libertarianism is to have more freedom, and that I'm at a loss on how you manage to have those very freedom taken from you without the protection and services of the government, I find this question, at least, to be relevant.

TL;DR : You advertise libertarianism as a way to protect everyone's freedoms. I simply ask how it would achieve the desired effect.

[lemon10]

What makes it better?

Exactly what I said a couple pages back: they get to live in a comforting illusion. They believe that laws make them safe. There's no comprehension that certain systems are condusive to certain behaviors. Poverty does not exist in a society with no money. But if you try to tell somebody who feels like they don't have enough money that the solution to poverty is to build a system without money, what they hear is "to not be poor, throw away your money," which is obviously ridiculous from their point of view.

I said this all back on page 2. It's difficult to have these conversations because people are entrenched in a worldview from which the ideas we're discussing don't make sense. The problem is not the ideas. It's the worldview.

Laws to make people safe.
Some laws have no effect, or reverse/negative effects (laws against drugs, prostitution ect), but some laws do have the desired effect.
A good example is organ trafficking (and the murder that often accompanies it), if there are no laws to stop it, there is no reason for companies not to go and kidnap and cut out peoples vital organs.
While such a action would be morally bad, obviously there are people who would do it (and they would be far more numerous then the groups who do it in violation of the law currently, since there would be no real downside if they were caught).


That said, to some extent we are arguing at cross purposes, since I (and probably everyone else in this thread), have been unable to exactly pin down the type of society you are arguing for.
It seems you are arguing for absolutely no laws or police.
Are you also arguing for absolutely no government/ruling bodies of any kind?
If so, how would you prevent concentrations of power from growing large enough to be considered governments in the same area (eg. gangs, corporations, people deciding to have a goverment).

Poverty does not exist in a society with no money.

Poverty is the state of one who lacks a certain amount of material possessions or money.[1] Absolute poverty or destitution is inability to afford basic human needs, which commonly includes clean and fresh water, nutrition, health care, education, clothing and shelter. About 1.7 billion people are estimated to live in absolute poverty today. Relative poverty refers to lacking a usual or socially acceptable level of resources or income as compared with others within a society or country.[1]

Yes it does.

[Vector]

A good example is organ trafficking (and the murder that often accompanies it), if there are no laws to stop it, there is no reason for companies not to go and kidnap and cut out peoples vital organs.

I'm having a little bit of trouble following your reasoning here.

[LordBucket]

to fix Belgian system, adjustment must be made to the existing infrastructure
to sanction action against the collective good by government officials.

Rather than punishing your dog every time he poops on your carpet, wouldn't it be easier to not have a dog? Maybe you want a dog. And maybe you're willing to have dog poop on your floor from time to time in order to have one.

Some people don't want a dog, and find very unpleasant the notion of having to clean up the poop of a dog they don't even want.

You advertise libertarianism as a way to protect everyone's freedoms.
I simply ask how it would achieve the desired effect.

By eliminating the systems that limit freedom.

You apparently perceive government as an entity that "protects" freedom. Why do you not see that government:

 * Creates laws for you to obey, and will imprison you if you do not
 * Extorts money from you in the form in taxes, and will imprison you if you do not pay
 * Creates systems that require financial support, and expects you to provide them
 * Engages in wars of aggression, imposing on the lives and freedoms of people abroad

Wouldn't eliminating the organization that does these things increase freedom?

[Nadaka]

Libertarianism isn't a leap into the unknown. We already know that not every person is naturally moral. We already know that some people will do anything they can to take advantage of others. We already know that most people are happy to benefit from society and reluctant to provide for it. In a libertarian society, charity is the only support available for those who don't have access to resources. And charity is insufficient because it is not a quality common to those who have the immorality to exploit others and rise to the top. We already had a mostly libertarian society in the US during the 1800's.

[Vector]

I don't really see how removing the government would increase freedom, properly speaking.

Everything we do already has effects and consequences, after all.  We aren't going to end up in some magical land where we can do anything we want without repercussion.

[Leafsnail]

What makes it better?

Three things:
Firstly, you can deter people from committing crimes if they know there are consequences for wrong behaviour.  It doesn't really matter whether they're good people for only refraining from committing a crime because of the possible punishment for doing it - the end result is that people who would have committed crimes and harmed people didn't.
Secondly, you can prevent people who have already committed crimes from committing any more, at least for a while.
Thirdly, you can help to rehabilitate people who do wrong things and show them how to behave rightly.

Basically, I need either a strong argument that shows why these are unnecessary/ bad or a good alternative proposal that does these just as well or better before I'll consider it a good idea to not have a justice system.

Wouldn't eliminating the organization that does these things increase freedom?

Pet hate: saying that some idea will "Increase freedom" (for some vague definition of freedom) without considering any other consequences (such as how it would actually effect people's qualities of life or their freedom in practise).