Topic: Libertarian/Anarchist society? Is it modern? - page 2. (Read 1809 times)

+2

+1

To go Rothbard on you:

We operate in a state of anarchy every day. Any time you're not being supervised or controlled by government, you're operating in a state of anarchy. Anytime you're trading, working, playing, sleeping, or eating in a way which is not being directed by a government official, you're doing so in an anarchic environment; you are embracing spontaneous order and self-governance. You are taking personal responsibility for your actions and their outcomes. That is libertarianism.

When you brush your teeth and take a shower in the morning, that is anarchy. When you make breakfast and kiss your wife or husband goodbye for the day, that is anarchy. When you wash your dishes or clean your house, that is anarchy. When you play video games, that is anarchy. When you drive to the store, that is anarchy. When you dance and sing, that is anarchy. When you go to work, that is anarchy. When you go to sleep at night, that is anarchy. When you dream, that is anarchy. It is never far from us. We are always just seconds away from slipping into anarchy.

Anarchy stops the minute the policeman pulls you over because you were going a little faster than everyone else. When you grit your teeth because you have to send your children off to a public school. When you pay your taxes. When you renew your license. When you get a jury summons in the mail. When you see a doctor to get a prescription. When you walk through the body scanners so you can fly on a plane to visit your relatives. Everything else in between is anarchy.

So you tell me... What would it look like if we laid aside the few vestiges of government that yet remain? What would it look like without all of these unnecessary laws, no taxes, and complete freedom to do business and make personal choices insomuch as you didn't violate common law? What would privately run everything look like?

Certainly no prisons we would recognize as such. There would probably need to be some sort of place to keep people you're not sure are going to stick around for their arbitration. The catch is, you need to get them to agree to go there. So they'd likely be much nicer than modern jails. Hotels with locks on the outside of the doors. Most arbitration contracts would probably have a detention clause for certain crimes.

Yup.

I don't think there would be prisons in a free society because it is a really bad system and even if there were you cant really say that people would be forced to go there sense ther would have to had agreed to it beforehand in a contract.

I don't see why cops would still be a pain in the ass, i thinks there will be more like security guards are now.

Yup. Reject another's right, clearly you don't value that right, you don't get it either.

Certainly; the key point is to admit rights by admitting other's rights.  As long as this is upheld, you could subscribe to any form of living you'd like, with others, or without others.

Or, in my analogy, sign non-aggression treaties, make trade agreements, and join "treaty organizations" (DRO's).

I considered this possibility, but I'm not sure if people would really stick to their own single-man governments; people tend to want to follow each other's guidelines, for the sake of sameness; for example, city A would have such and such rules (written or unspoken) and city B, directly next to city A, would have similar, if not the same rules.  However, city C, on the other side of the world, might have completely different rules set in place.  But the point would be, in close quarters, people tend to act alike.  However, I don't see why this couldn't happen naturally.

OTOH, if people naturally want to create laws for themselves, this could be a different matter.  Considering throughout most of history, people were ruled, they would continue this heritage of ruling.  So, would children raised in an anarchistic society also believe there should be local rules, or would they believe these rules have no need to be written in stone; instead, they come naturally, or, as commonly referred, be considered "common courtesy".  History doesn't show too many examples of the latter, and plenty of the former, so it's hard to say what will happen.

You could probably get away with enforcing your own legal system on your own property so long as you didnt piss other people off enough to make it worth their time to spend their money to stop you from doing your own thing. In this sense there would probably be quite a few people who did not subscribe to dro's but they would definitely be the minority as it would involve a lot of extra hassle that wouldnt be worth it to most people.

I've always described it as ~6 billion governments, each with only one citizen.

You're actually right about this.  You would subscribe to small, local governments; anarchism in this sense is against a national, all-powerful government.  If you don't like one government, you say "Well FUUUUCK YOUUUU" and then join another in your general area.  In a way, governments would be privately owned, like everything else   You join them voluntarily, and if you don't like them, you can always form the government of "me".  Just don't expect the governments around you to subscribe to your new law that the world is now your property

i imagine that its a lot like the society we have today except you have choice in your government (dont jump on me ancaps i know it wouldn't actually be a government its just dro doesn't mean anything to most people so its easier to explain this way). If you are subscribed to lg government and they piss you off than you stop paying your monthly bill and switch to sprint government. Just like if lg pisses you off today you can unsubscribe from cell phone service and switch to sprint cell phone service.

I expect that the services provided by these competitive free market governments would be better than the services provided by monopolistic government for reasons very similar to why hondas are better than the cars that were produced by the soviet government.

Over all this would lead to a society that was very similar in most ways except it would be less stratified, more wealthy over all, significantly less poverty, higher employment and a legal regime that would focus on prevention rather than cure.

there would still be cops, they would still be a pain in the ass. You would still get speeding tickets. You might even still be searched at the airport. You would still have to pay taxes or something like taxes, you would just get to decide who to pay them to. There would still be prisons and occasionally innocent people would still be forced to go there. Lots of the crappy things that happen now would still happen. But overall things would be better.

More like:
Ever play EVE?

Like that.

But with perma-death.

So hugely complex system with millions of parts, at base level run by handful of entities and with some regulation?

Internet isn't entirely simple and much of power controlling it is on limited amount of companies...

Ever used the Internet?

Like that.

With less laws.

It's pretty late here so I just go to this shortly and bluntly.

How do people envision libertarian or anarchist society working? Compared to current situation. There has to be some advantages that scale allow on wide variety of fields.

Is it some part of American frontier mentality? Having your own land and getting living of such? With small communities.

And if everything is in relatively small scale, how will living standards fare? Would we have such things as top end electronics and highly advanced medicine?

Would the living standards be the same, lower or higher?

I probably will think more later today...