Somalia: an example of an anarchist country.
That damage was done while there was still a government. Fail.
Topic: Closest thing to a libertarian utopia - page 2. (Read 3663 times)
That damage was done while there was still a government. Fail.
Somalia: an example of an anarchist country. Yes, i know it is the Vatican of the anarchists. It is beautiful.
If you want to fuck your country with anarchism, go to somalia and learn about it.
If you want to fuck your country with anarchism, go to somalia and learn about it.
If I live in an anarchist country, shall I go through left road or right road? How would decide it? If there is no law, and I cant do a contract with every person on road, then what shall I do?
If you come in my house, you have to take off your shoes. If you drive on my roads, you have to drive on the right side.
If I cant hurt someone else, then there is a law: not hurt anyone else.
There is no law saying you can't punch me in the face. There is also no law saying that my hired security guards can't punch you back twice as hard.
However, if there is no police or military, who wouod prevent me from hurting someone else?
There are no police in Disney World either. Try to start something there though and you will find yourself surrounded by ducks and mice packing guns.
If I live in an anarchist country, shall I go through left road or right road? How would decide it? If there is no law, and I cant do a contract with every person on road, then what shall I do? if we make a law, then that country would not be anarchist.
If we think in anarchist "laws" as colosal contracts, then there would be a democracy by definition, not anarchism.
If I cant hurt someone else, then there is a law: not hurt anyone else. However, if there is no police or military, who wouod prevent me from hurting someone else?
It seems very contradictory by itself.
If I make a contract to have sex with a children of 5 years, society can think about it like cohesion. However, who determinate what is the age of consent?
Anarchists people prove that, instead of acknowledging their mistakes, they prefer to attribute them to others (society, government).
The system is not perfect, it is rotten, but it have improved a lot through history and it will improve more if we want.
Of course, many personal choices would not be determined by government, but some things have to.
Human nature is about community and laws. Without them, there would not be standars, would not be peace, would not be justice. Would not be civilization.
If we think in anarchist "laws" as colosal contracts, then there would be a democracy by definition, not anarchism.
If I cant hurt someone else, then there is a law: not hurt anyone else. However, if there is no police or military, who wouod prevent me from hurting someone else?
It seems very contradictory by itself.
If I make a contract to have sex with a children of 5 years, society can think about it like cohesion. However, who determinate what is the age of consent?
Anarchists people prove that, instead of acknowledging their mistakes, they prefer to attribute them to others (society, government).
The system is not perfect, it is rotten, but it have improved a lot through history and it will improve more if we want.
Of course, many personal choices would not be determined by government, but some things have to.
Human nature is about community and laws. Without them, there would not be standars, would not be peace, would not be justice. Would not be civilization.
A militia is a private defence firm. Since there is no state, there is no law so all arbitration is done with guns. Its truly a libertarian utopia.
This statement alone shows your ignorance in... well, just about everything. Let's shred it to pieces, shall we?
"A militia is a private defence(sic) firm."
No, A militia is a personal army, especially when run by a petty little tyrant warlord.
"Since there is no state, there is no law so all arbitration is done with guns."
Arbitration is not done with guns. Do a little reading.
"truly a libertarian utopia."
Time and again, we say: "We don't want Utopia. We know we can't achieve Utopia. We just want an end to coercion."
To which you inevitably point at Somalia and say, "There is your Utopia", Just because it has no State. Might as well point to the Marianas Trench. No State there, either.
A militia is a private defence firm. Since there is no state, there is no law so all arbitration is done with guns. Its truly a libertarian utopia.
Whenever Libertarians say they have a policy idea that will end all wars, hunger and social problems, it turns out the model they are proposing is Somalia. It doesn't matter what it was like before it because a libertarian utopia; what counts is that all the stuff you guys want in America has already been done in Somalia.
So, Where are the private defense firms?
All I see are protection rackets.
Where are the Arbitration contracts?
All I see is Law of the Jungle.
Where is the Anarchy?
All I see are a bunch of petty tyrants.
Anarchy != Chaos.
It doesn't matter what it was like before...
Yes, it does.
Whenever Libertarians say they have a policy idea that will end all wars, hunger and social problems, it turns out the model they are proposing is Somalia. It doesn't matter what it was like before it because a libertarian utopia; what counts is that all the stuff you guys want in America has already been done in Somalia.
Libertarianism isn't Utopian. What's Utopian is trying to protect yourself from criminals by creating a monopoly on violence while expecting criminals not to take control of that monopoly. What's Utopian is letting the state be the judge of how much authority it has while expecting it not to overstep its bounds. What's Utopian is thinking that people are incapable of governing themselves but are capable of governing others. Libertarians are well in touch with reality, which is why we strive for changes that can have some realistically stable outcomes. Overthrowing evil empires with bloody revolutions only to allow them to build back up again, thinking that one can give others the right to do something one cannot do, thinking that extortion and payment for services rendered are the same, thinking that secession and emigration are the same, those are the products of delusion. No, we're wide awake.
Right, because Somalia was full of thriving metropolises until it became stateless.
Somalia is a good example of a libertarian utopia. No state; no restrictions and everyone free to live as they choose.
Right, because Somalia was full of thriving metropolises until it became stateless.
Somalia is a good example of a libertarian utopia. No state; no restrictions and everyone free to live as they choose.
Agreed, but keep in mind that in Libertopia or AnCapistan, Drugs would be a perfectly legitimate business, given the same protections as any other voluntary enterprise, and thus, not an inducement to violent crime.
Oh yeah, that's true. I somehow managed to forget about one of the only parts of libertarianism that's actually a great idea. All drugs should be legal, especially since the vast majority of them are less dangerous than alcohol anyway. Well, you can replace drugs with bank robbery or kidnapping for profit or whatever.
Bank robbery would be tantamount to suicide. Kidnapping not much better. Smart kids would know that, stupid ones would improve the gene pool by exiting.
Agreed, but keep in mind that in Libertopia or AnCapistan, Drugs would be a perfectly legitimate business, given the same protections as any other voluntary enterprise, and thus, not an inducement to violent crime.
Oh yeah, that's true. I somehow managed to forget about one of the only parts of libertarianism that's actually a great idea. All drugs should be legal, especially since the vast majority of them are less dangerous than alcohol anyway. Well, you can replace drugs with bank robbery or kidnapping for profit or whatever.
If we could depend on businesses to provide a non-poverty wage for their workers, we wouldn't have a minimum wage to begin with because it'd be unnecessary. People making poverty-level wages now aren't going to get out of poverty if you reduce those wages even further. Some guy who's trying to decide whether he wants to sell dope or make $7 an hour at McDonalds is going to freaking run for those drugs if that 7 turns into a 5 or a 4.
Agreed, but keep in mind that in Libertopia or AnCapistan, Drugs would be a perfectly legitimate business, given the same protections as any other voluntary enterprise, and thus, not an inducement to violent crime.
Quote
Agreed, but I am of the opinion that violent, crazy people are made, not born, and that with the proper incentives, and the removal of our 'criminal colleges', that production rate can be brought WAY down.
Maybe, but as long as Americans value bloodlust and revenge over concrete and verifiable results, that's never going to happen. And we seem to be heading in the opposite direction from that anyway. Joe Arpaio's tent city jail in Arizona has been described as having even worse conditions than Third World jails if you can imagine that.
Quote
I also contend that the removal of taxation and minimum wage would drastically reduce the amount of poverty, as well, further reducing the production rate.
If we could depend on businesses to provide a non-poverty wage for their workers, we wouldn't have a minimum wage to begin with because it'd be unnecessary. People making poverty-level wages now aren't going to get out of poverty if you reduce those wages even further. Some guy who's trying to decide whether he wants to sell dope or make $7 an hour at McDonalds is going to freaking run for those drugs if that 7 turns into a 5 or a 4.
How about we consider the more sensible assumption that if one can protect themselves from any physical attack, kidnapping and therefore coercion one can also protect their property in the same fashion. In the context of you proposal this is the logical extension, therefore making your question moot.
End of thread or modify your question to support a more common sense approach to the issue.
"However, consider for a moment what that would mean for property."
End of thread or modify your question to support a more common sense approach to the issue.
"However, consider for a moment what that would mean for property."
It seems to me that the libertarian/anarcho-whatever ideology hinges on a couple of key ideas. The most important in my view is that every individual has inherent rights to security, self-determination and property (unless of course that individual violates the rights of others).
I want you to consider a scenario: Imagine that every individual had the means to protect themselves from any physical attack, kidnapping and therefore coercion. This seems, in theory, to be the ideal for a libertarian. No one would be able to harm you and you also could harm no other individual; no violent crime of any nature could occur.
However, consider for a moment what that would mean for property. There would be no physical means to preventing theft, and property would only be able to exist as an agreement (Don't steal any of my shit and I won't steal yours). Would this reduce property to a theoretical idea that would not actually exist in practice?
I want you to consider a scenario: Imagine that every individual had the means to protect themselves from any physical attack, kidnapping and therefore coercion. This seems, in theory, to be the ideal for a libertarian. No one would be able to harm you and you also could harm no other individual; no violent crime of any nature could occur.
However, consider for a moment what that would mean for property. There would be no physical means to preventing theft, and property would only be able to exist as an agreement (Don't steal any of my shit and I won't steal yours). Would this reduce property to a theoretical idea that would not actually exist in practice?
Nevermind, just thought about it some more and you are right.
That will taper off very quickly.
Cite: Charles Darwin.
Cite: Charles Darwin.
New violent crazy people are born every day.
And any system that breeds poverty will always breed crime. Here in the U.S. we lock up more of our own people than any other country on Earth, yet our crime rates are still sky high when compared to anything that's not a Third World hellhole.
Agreed, but I am of the opinion that violent, crazy people are made, not born, and that with the proper incentives, and the removal of our 'criminal colleges', that production rate can be brought WAY down.
I also contend that the removal of taxation and minimum wage would drastically reduce the amount of poverty, as well, further reducing the production rate.
"Very quickly," from an evolutionary standpoint, means 'just a few million years.'
I'm using it more on the scale of 'the antibacterial resistant bacteria developed very quickly'.
How about we consider the more sensible assumption that if one can protect themselves from any physical attack, kidnapping and therefore coercion one can also protect their property in the same fashion. In the context of you proposal this is the logical extension, therefore making your question moot.
End of thread or modify your question to support a more common sense approach to the issue.
"However, consider for a moment what that would mean for property."
End of thread or modify your question to support a more common sense approach to the issue.
"However, consider for a moment what that would mean for property."
It seems to me that the libertarian/anarcho-whatever ideology hinges on a couple of key ideas. The most important in my view is that every individual has inherent rights to security, self-determination and property (unless of course that individual violates the rights of others).
I want you to consider a scenario: Imagine that every individual had the means to protect themselves from any physical attack, kidnapping and therefore coercion. This seems, in theory, to be the ideal for a libertarian. No one would be able to harm you and you also could harm no other individual; no violent crime of any nature could occur.
However, consider for a moment what that would mean for property. There would be no physical means to preventing theft, and property would only be able to exist as an agreement (Don't steal any of my shit and I won't steal yours). Would this reduce property to a theoretical idea that would not actually exist in practice?
I want you to consider a scenario: Imagine that every individual had the means to protect themselves from any physical attack, kidnapping and therefore coercion. This seems, in theory, to be the ideal for a libertarian. No one would be able to harm you and you also could harm no other individual; no violent crime of any nature could occur.
However, consider for a moment what that would mean for property. There would be no physical means to preventing theft, and property would only be able to exist as an agreement (Don't steal any of my shit and I won't steal yours). Would this reduce property to a theoretical idea that would not actually exist in practice?
If this were the case, what would prevent me from "protecting" property that belongs to someone else? How does someone adequately say that some piece of property belongs to them? As I said, it would only exist as an agreement.
I want you to consider a scenario: Imagine that every individual had the means to protect themselves from any physical attack, kidnapping and therefore coercion. This seems, in theory, to be the ideal for a libertarian. No one would be able to harm you and you also could harm no other individual; no violent crime of any nature could occur.
Mutually Assured Destruction doesn't apply to regular people with handguns.
Cite: every street gang ever
That will taper of very quickly.
Cite: Charles Darwin.
"Very quickly," from an evolutionary standpoint, means 'just a few million years.'
Imagine that every individual had the means to protect themselves from any physical attack, kidnapping and therefore coercion. This seems, in theory, to be the ideal for a libertarian. No one would be able to harm you and you also could harm no other individual; no violent crime of any nature could occur.
However, consider for a moment what that would mean for property. There would be no physical means to preventing theft, and property would only be able to exist as an agreement (Don't steal any of my shit and I won't steal yours). Would this reduce property to a theoretical idea that would not actually exist in practice?
I can't think of any practical scenario where every individual could defend themselves, even against all the other similarly-armed individuals acting together. Are you imagining a scenario where every individual has sufficient nuclear weapons to blow up the entire world? I don't think people would ever let such a situation happen because one crazy person would end human life.However, consider for a moment what that would mean for property. There would be no physical means to preventing theft, and property would only be able to exist as an agreement (Don't steal any of my shit and I won't steal yours). Would this reduce property to a theoretical idea that would not actually exist in practice?
I can't imagine a scenario where every human is capable of defense such that no human is capable of offense.
Ok, let's say that everyone has some sort of suit that makes it impossible for any other person or group of people to harm them in any way. I agree that it is extremely unlikely to ever be possible, but I am just using it as what could be considered an ideal society for a libertarian.
Jump to: