Libertarian/Anarchist society? Is it modern?

[J0EJ0EJ0E]

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 since they would have to had agreed to it beforehand in a contract.

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.

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.

+1

[1715028593]

1715028593

[1715028593]

1715028593

[1715028593]

1715028593

[J0EJ0EJ0E]

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.

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...

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?

+3

[John Self]

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.

Nobody has been able to come up with a convincing model of an anarchist (libertarian socialist) society, it is something that demands social experimentation- like early market capitalism did. The last major experiment was during the Spanish Civil war and it seemed not to be too disastrous then, but the Nazis, Stalinists and Capitalists backed General Franco and overwhelmed the anarchists. I'm not aware that it's been tried on a similar scale since.

[Anon136]

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.

So say for example that you rape someone and there is good evidence, surveillance shows that it was rape, and dna shows that it was you. Everyone, including myself would say, that guy is not allowed on my property. Well this creates an entrepreneurial opportunity for people who say, look i know that everyone else in the world said that you were not allowed on their property but ill make you a deal, if you do x y and z for me i will allow you to come onto my property. That persons property would be, loosely speaking, a prison in a free society.

As for why cops would still be a pain in the ass, its because people would still have conflicts of interest. Some people like to drive their cars really really fast, and some people who owned roads would not like people to be driving really really fast on them. This would require enforcement, and from the perspective of the person who likes to drive really really fast, this enforcement would be a pain in the ass.

[myrkul]

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.

Nobody has been able to come up with a convincing model of an anarchist (libertarian socialist) society, it is something that demands social experimentation- like early market capitalism did. The last major experiment was during the Spanish Civil war and it seemed not to be too disastrous then, but the Nazis, Stalinists and Capitalists backed General Franco and overwhelmed the anarchists. I'm not aware that it's been tried on a similar scale since.

To be fair, Ken Macleod came up with a pretty convincing model in The Cassini Division, but it ignored Dunbar's number, so I don't know how it got around it. Of course, even he acknowledges that not everyone would be cut out for it, so what's left of London is occupied by "Non-cos" or non-cooperators. It's the third book in the series, and the final one of a trilogy. The fourth one postulates an alternate future, and show how it came about.

It's a good read, and though clearly written from a libertarian socialist perspective, I'd highly recommend the whole series to anyone who wants to know what Anarchy might look like.

[myrkul]

So say for example that you rape someone and there is good evidence, surveillance shows that it was rape, and dna shows that it was you. Everyone, including myself would say, that guy is not allowed on my property. Well this creates an entrepreneurial opportunity for people who say, look i know that everyone else in the world said that you were not allowed on their property but ill make you a deal, if you do x y and z for me i will allow you to come onto my property. That persons property would be, loosely speaking, a prison in a free society.

But would it look like the prisons you see today? I truly doubt it. Like I said, you'd have to get them to agree to come on to your property.

As for why cops would still be a pain in the ass, its because people would still have conflicts of interest. Some people like to drive their cars really really fast, and some people who owned roads would not like people to be driving really really fast on them. This would require enforcement, and from the perspective of the person who likes to drive really really fast, this enforcement would be a pain in the ass.

Or, they could just drive on the roads that let them drive really fast. This is kind of like saying, "For people who like to crap in living rooms, other people not letting them crap in their living rooms is a pain in the ass."

[Anon136]

So say for example that you rape someone and there is good evidence, surveillance shows that it was rape, and dna shows that it was you. Everyone, including myself would say, that guy is not allowed on my property. Well this creates an entrepreneurial opportunity for people who say, look i know that everyone else in the world said that you were not allowed on their property but ill make you a deal, if you do x y and z for me i will allow you to come onto my property. That persons property would be, loosely speaking, a prison in a free society.

But would it look like the prisons you see today? I truly doubt it. Like I said, you'd have to get them to agree to come on to your property.

As for why cops would still be a pain in the ass, its because people would still have conflicts of interest. Some people like to drive their cars really really fast, and some people who owned roads would not like people to be driving really really fast on them. This would require enforcement, and from the perspective of the person who likes to drive really really fast, this enforcement would be a pain in the ass.

Or, they could just drive on the roads that let them drive really fast. This is kind of like saying, "For people who like to crap in living rooms, other people not letting them crap in their living rooms is a pain in the ass."

would they look like prisons we see today? Of course this is a lot of guess work but i imagine in some ways yes probably they would have large walls and guard towers. But in other ways they would be VERY different, and VERY much better.

Yes your analogy about carpets and living rooms stands. Yes being pulled over by cops in a free market society would be annoying in a way that is very analogous to the person who is denied pooping rights on my living room carpet. People shouldnt be annoyed by being forced to obey the rules set by the person who built the road (if you dont like it build your own road), but they would be annoyed. and the fact that they would is all that is necessary inorder for me to say with confidence that people would still be annoyed by cops.

[myrkul]

would they look like prisons we see today? Of course this is a lot of guess work but i imagine in some ways yes probably they would have large walls and guard towers. But in other ways they would be VERY different, and VERY much better.

I'm not convinced they would have high walls and guard towers. Perhaps for those people someone really wanted vengeance on. And it would be an expensive service, few people could afford it. Most people would be satisfied with restitution, and thus most prisoners would need only a secure enough a cell to make sure they don't wander off.

Yes your analogy about carpets and living rooms stands. Yes being pulled over by cops in a free market society would be annoying in a way that is very analogous to the person who is denied pooping rights on my living room carpet. People shouldnt be annoyed by being forced to obey the rules set by the person who built the road (if you dont like it build your own road), but they would be annoyed. and the fact that they would is all that is necessary inorder for me to say with confidence that people would still be annoyed by cops.

Only inasmuch as they chose to try and crap on people's carpet, as it were. Most people who wanted to go fast would get on roads which allowed them to go fast. It takes a special kind of stupid to get on the "slow" road and then try to go fast.

[cypher-punk]

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.

Fewer CIA drones. More people doing honest work instead of jobs like: Spy, Banker, judge, politician, jail warden, drug dealer, political asassin asf.

With no political assassins on anybody's payroll, Obama would have to go back to Chikago as a community street worker.

[myrkul]

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.

Fewer CIA drones. More people doing honest work instead of jobs like: Spy, Banker, judge, politician, jail warden, drug dealer, political asassin asf.

I take offense at drug dealer being in that list. That's a respectable occupation, providing goods to a desiring public. And if you think banks would not exist without government, I'm afraid you're sorely incorrect.

[cypher-punk]

Bankers as we know them (now) then. Like one might discuss Shariah Bankers as an honest profession.

[myrkul]

Bankers as we know them (now) then. Like one might discuss Shariah Bankers as an honest profession.

Shariah banking is pretty cool, but I have no problem with traditional banking. Giving the banks control of an entire country's money supply is a stupid idea, though.

[cypher-punk]

I understand, Mr Rothschild might face some difficulties in obtaining a shariah banking trader license, if he was to open a subsidiary right there in Jericho proper. But that is negligible.

Shariah Banking still is worth exploring with or without Mr Rothschild. The modern world has gotta break with SOME traditions, you see?

[myrkul]

I understand, Mr Rothschild might face some difficulties in obtaining a shariah banking trader license, if he was to open a subsidiary right there in Jericho proper. But that is negligible.

Shariah Banking still is worth exploring with or without Mr Rothschild. The modern world has gotta break with SOME traditions, you see?

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=21732.0

[Severian]

When 'crime' occurs in Libertaria, all bets are off. If the victim is a nobody without a penny to his name, it's fine -- he'll never be able to afford the same high-quality private arbitration or "vigilante leadership" power as a wealthy mogul. And when someone is wealthy, they know how important appearances are. They'll probably go through at least some sham judicial process, knowing that they'll come out the other side looking squeaky clean. How is this different from state workers in authoritarian governments?

Because if the State isn't there to claim a monopoly on force, we all have a better chance at both self-defense and redress. Don't forget that the State is also a criminal factor itself, so it would stand to reason that those criminals and hangers-on drawn to the State in order to use its power for their own ends would be left at the mercy of their own wits against their peers should the State not be there to back them up.

[myrkul]

With reduced imports and exports, Libertaria becomes isolated and must become more self-sufficient. This seems to have both advantages and disadvantages. Advantages: more variety and choice of work as various small-scale industries are required to supplement the trade shortages. Isolation provides resilience against international shocks. Disadvantages: less economies of scale, fewer travel opportunities, less international communication. This slows down the rate of technological innovation and increases the pressure to steal foreign ideas.

It's funny that you think a region with completely open borders, no taxes, and no trade tariffs would have less external trade.

When 'crime' occurs in Libertaria, all bets are off. If the victim is a nobody without a penny to his name, it's fine -- he'll never be able to afford the same high-quality private arbitration or "vigilante leadership" power as a wealthy mogul.

If someone without sufficient resources to pursue a case is harmed, he can sell the right to pursue to someone with the resources. Most people, I think, would have enough for a simple insurance-type policy to cover these sorts of things, though.

[myrkul]

With reduced imports and exports, Libertaria becomes isolated and must become more self-sufficient. This seems to have both advantages and disadvantages. Advantages: more variety and choice of work as various small-scale industries are required to supplement the trade shortages. Isolation provides resilience against international shocks. Disadvantages: less economies of scale, fewer travel opportunities, less international communication. This slows down the rate of technological innovation and increases the pressure to steal foreign ideas.

It's funny that you think a region with completely open borders, no taxes, and no trade tariffs would have less external trade.

Your retort shows that you failed to think before posting. Trade involves more than just one party -- it only takes one side to get annoyed for restrictions to be created.

And when those trade restrictions are created, smuggling will be rampant. Especially since smuggling is not a crime in "Libertaria," so they'd be able to base there safely.

When 'crime' occurs in Libertaria, all bets are off. If the victim is a nobody without a penny to his name, it's fine -- he'll never be able to afford the same high-quality private arbitration or "vigilante leadership" power as a wealthy mogul.

If someone without sufficient resources to pursue a case is harmed, he can sell the right to pursue to someone with the resources. Most people, I think, would have enough for a simple insurance-type policy to cover these sorts of things, though.

I wouldn't trust insurance companies that don't have any oversight. Many of them are already bad enough in the real world.

They'd have the same oversight as any other company in the market. The people.