[snip] I do admit, however, at at least one point, I suggested that to me it seems that some people are going to need to be forced to contribute to the community b/c if they were left on their own, they would NOT contribute.
I admit I have a problem with this way of thinking. Again, moral arguments about force and coercion aside, what incentive is there for the community (the government. you still seem to be conflating these two) to bother providing quality products/services if they are granted a monopoly and can just force people to pay? Besides, this creates a situation, where people are left with no choice but to give up their resources to this monopoly and are thus relieved of responsibility for their choices. A society in which people do not feel they have a responsibility to care for their elders, educate their children and care for their own health seems distastefully infantile to me. It is an ideal set of people if you want to control them, though.
You seem to want more of an explanation in places that I feel that already that I have adequately explained. For example, my outlining situation 1 and situation 2 was to ensure with thread participants on this topic that we are talking about the same thing.. and some posters are trying to equate situations 1 and 2 (including yourself) that in my view should clearly and logically be understood as different... b/c the actor in situation 2 is different from the actor in situation 1 (which makes a very meaningful and material difference).
To the best of my ability, the only explanation I am able to grasp is that even though the process you describe is the same (taking by force/coercion), you call it by a different name, because it is initiated by different actors. This reeks of double speak to me. Just like calling armed guerrillas "freedom fighters" or "terrorists", depending on whether you like them or not.
Weren't you supposed to be explaining the steps we're going to take to achieve your ideal? Maybe your buddies will help you, but given the history of them ducking me whenever I ask them to explain the hard stuff, I'd say you might be on your own.
Yes indeed! I have written about this in my article I have linked before, an excerpt follows. But first let me state again that I suspect that the
centralized management of society from the top down by force is the root cause of our problems, so it follows that I do not believe the solution to be the initiation of
centrally planned reform from the top down. I hope that makes sense to you. Here is the excerpt:
Inevitably there comes the angry response: So what is YOUR solution? Tell us how to really fix this mess if you’re so smart as to tear down all our propositions.
And because I have thought about this for a long time I am not afraid to admit that I do not know. I have no solution. I have no five steps to guaranteed prosperity. No grand plan to put a chicken into every pot and secure well-being and happiness for all. Sorry.
Ah ha! So you are just a charlatan! Happy to criticise, but not bringing any solutions to the table. You are what’s wrong with society. You should go vote for the right people.
At this point I have to erupt into laughter once again. Because they have missed the point again. And they might never get it, because it frightens them too much. The point being this: there is no one solution for it all. The best plan, the most well-meaning intentions, the most noble ideals fall flat onto their face when confronted with the messiness of human affairs. The reason for this is simple, though. It’s called complexity. Let me point out that human society is getting more complex and complicated. In an exponential manner, it seems. So what exactly makes you think that one person, or perhaps a group of people can figure out the best way of running everything? They can’t. And the delusion that they can is a very dangerous one indeed. Take a peek at history if you don’t believe me.
But OK, I’ll admit, maybe there is a solution, after all. But it doesn’t consist of what needs to be done, it consists of what we need to stop doing. Stop dictating how people should save for their retirement. Care for their health. Educate their children. Stop taking their resources to turn them into “what they need”. You don’t know what they need. Yes, probably at this point they don’t know either – but that’s because this system has stripped them of the responsibility to figure it out for themselves. So stop doing that as well!
The point this rant is trying to bring across the point, that complexity and diversity can’t be centrally planned and managed without creating atrocities such as we are witnessing today. Yes, it is frightening to think about. But only because we have been taught to not trust other people. See them as potential enemies, competitors and generally as dumb, unwashed masses too stupid to know what’s best for them. Yes, divide and conquer seems to work still just fine.
I realize this might be too vague for your taste, so I will elaborate. But first of all let me state that we find ourselves in a very difficult position to achieve meaningful change by voluntary, decentralized means. Yes, technology is giving us new and better tools all the time, but the government still routinely takes half of our income and limits competition in a wide variety of spheres. I have a feeling that the situation still needs to deteriorate further before enough people view just about any other option as preferable to what they have now. Right now most people seem to prefer the Devil they know.
Richy_T had some good ideas about balancing the budget, cancelling central banks and cutting down on government spending. These are nice, but I'm not sure they're doable. The very structure of the government as an institution prohibits them. Which is why I feel the need for non-governmental alternatives.
My view is we should start with the basics: health care, care for children, disabled people and the elderly, education, social security. Start building local centers which would provide the necessities of life and be financed by voluntary contribution. Sure, this might not work, depending whether people actually are compassionate and willing to donate, or not - but it's worth a try. Crypto could play an obvious and huge role here. I find myself constantly donating some BTC every time I see some cause I support, or product I like. I would definitely contribute some of my time, energy and money to such projects. I find it near impossible to believe that it would take as much as half of our collective resources to achieve the goal of providing basic life necessities for everyone who needs them. I think we need a change in our cultural outlook first of all.
Another related thought I had: so far I have been content to be the bearer of the burden of proof in this discussion, but actually it doesn't necessarily have to be this way. The same way you can tell me I need to explain why a decentralized society might work I can call on you to prove that it couldn't. It is equally hard to do, because we lack data. Also I can put the burden of proof on you to explain, why it is necessary to have an institution with the monopoly on legal initiation of force, which consumes huge amounts of resources, raises armies, routinely imprisons, tortures and kills people, even its own citizens, wages wars, is responsible for the death of millions and is making a small group of insiders obscenely rich while failing to deliver on its promises to help out the rest. This is a clusterfuck of gigantic proportions and I would think addressing the point of if we really need such a thing should be a top priority and evaluated ASAP. How can the benefits of this institution possibly outweigh its cost?
