|
Nik1ab
|
 |
March 12, 2014, 10:41:29 AM |
|
People wouldn't be enslaved anymore, that's what would happen. The rich would no longer be able to control the poor.
|
No signature ad here, because their conditions have become annoying.
|
|
|
|
Ekaros
|
|
March 12, 2014, 10:53:51 AM |
|
People wouldn't be enslaved anymore, that's what would happen. The rich would no longer be able to control the poor.
Umm, why you say so? I'm pretty sure they still need to eat... What is the fundamental difference from 6 000 years? In the end someone gains an edge and then it's downhill from there... |
|
|
|
|
Nik1ab
|
|
March 12, 2014, 12:43:24 PM |
|
People wouldn't be enslaved anymore, that's what would happen. The rich would no longer be able to control the poor.
Umm, why you say so? I'm pretty sure they still need to eat... What is the fundamental difference from 6 000 years? In the end someone gains an edge and then it's downhill from there... You can grow your own food and don't need others to do that for you. |
No signature ad here, because their conditions have become annoying.
|
|
|
|
Ekaros
|
|
March 12, 2014, 02:11:58 PM |
|
People wouldn't be enslaved anymore, that's what would happen. The rich would no longer be able to control the poor.
Umm, why you say so? I'm pretty sure they still need to eat... What is the fundamental difference from 6 000 years? In the end someone gains an edge and then it's downhill from there... You can grow your own food and don't need others to do that for you. Where? And if someone comes and take that land? |
|
|
|
|
fluidjax
|
|
March 12, 2014, 07:04:08 PM |
|
I think something that is underestimated in an anarchic system is fear. The majority of people will have elevated fear levels which will lead to all sorts of problems.
Illnesses related to stress, more people going postal, a poorer quality of life in general.
Ruthless and powerful gangs may dominate, the sort who will kill anyone at the first sign of conflict, before their opponents 'police force' is even aware there is a problem.
Compassion and karma in the majority is unfortunately outweighed by greed in the few.
|
|
|
|
|
|
theomoplatapus
|
|
March 12, 2014, 07:19:05 PM
Last edit: March 12, 2014, 07:31:21 PM by theomoplatapus |
|
I think something that is underestimated in an anarchic system is fear. The majority of people will have elevated fear levels which will lead to all sorts of problems.
Illnesses related to stress, more people going postal, a poorer quality of life in general.
Ruthless and powerful gangs may dominate, the sort who will kill anyone at the first sign of conflict, before their opponents 'police force' is even aware there is a problem.
Compassion and karma in the majority is unfortunately outweighed by greed in the few.
Like with insurance, fear is quenched by spending more money on protection. Unlike the current system, you get to decide how much protection you think is necessary in an anarchist society. The state is essentially the most ruthless and powerful gang around but is "limited" by a piece of paper which they can choose to obey or ignore. The majority of people do not get what they want by using violence. Businesses don't threaten other businesses with their own personal armies if they're not satisfied. You don't threaten your employer with violence to get a raise. Organized aggressive violence only happens under a power-hungry and empathy-lacking sociopath, which must build their army with funds that are taken by force. Imagine what kind of military Bush would've had if he had gone door to door raising funds for Operation Iraqi Freedom. A great rebuttal to this would be how locals in "anarchic" Somalia invest in weapons which the pirates use to sieze trade ships. I read that a woman invested an RPG into a pirate operation and got $75,000 in return after the heist. In reality, it is the government which makes these investments worthy since trade ships are not allowed to bring weapons to port, and this incentivizes these operations. In a stateless society the sailors would be free to defend themselves from such small pirate groups, and thus they would never try. |
#Bitcoin
|
|
|
|
theomoplatapus
|
|
March 12, 2014, 07:25:22 PM |
|
People wouldn't be enslaved anymore, that's what would happen. The rich would no longer be able to control the poor.
Umm, why you say so? I'm pretty sure they still need to eat... What is the fundamental difference from 6 000 years? In the end someone gains an edge and then it's downhill from there... How does the rich control the poor without force? If there's no centralized bank destorying the poor's currency, or tax system stealing all their wealth, or welfare system keeping them dependent, or minimum wage destroying employment, or regulations denying any opportunities, what's to stop the poor from rising up? |
#Bitcoin
|
|
|
|
Ekaros
|
|
March 12, 2014, 07:31:59 PM |
|
People wouldn't be enslaved anymore, that's what would happen. The rich would no longer be able to control the poor.
Umm, why you say so? I'm pretty sure they still need to eat... What is the fundamental difference from 6 000 years? In the end someone gains an edge and then it's downhill from there... How does the rich control the poor without force? If there's no centralized bank destorying the poor's currency, or tax system stealing all their wealth, or welfare system keeping them dependent, or minimum wage destroying employment, or regulations denying any opportunities, what's to stop the poor from rising up? Larger amount of weapons and disposable manpower holding those... Where would the force go? Rich would just give up using the old style force? |
|
|
|
|
Nik1ab
|
|
March 12, 2014, 07:46:19 PM |
|
People wouldn't be enslaved anymore, that's what would happen. The rich would no longer be able to control the poor.
Umm, why you say so? I'm pretty sure they still need to eat... What is the fundamental difference from 6 000 years? In the end someone gains an edge and then it's downhill from there... You can grow your own food and don't need others to do that for you. Where? And if someone comes and take that land? Property is something you can defend. So if someone comes and wants to take it, just prevent him from doing that. |
No signature ad here, because their conditions have become annoying.
|
|
|
|
theomoplatapus
|
|
March 12, 2014, 07:47:08 PM |
|
People wouldn't be enslaved anymore, that's what would happen. The rich would no longer be able to control the poor.
Umm, why you say so? I'm pretty sure they still need to eat... What is the fundamental difference from 6 000 years? In the end someone gains an edge and then it's downhill from there... How does the rich control the poor without force? If there's no centralized bank destorying the poor's currency, or tax system stealing all their wealth, or welfare system keeping them dependent, or minimum wage destroying employment, or regulations denying any opportunities, what's to stop the poor from rising up? Larger amount of weapons and disposable manpower holding those... Where would the force go? Rich would just give up using the old style force? Well right now the rich don't have any physical weapons, the governments do. So the rich would have to acquire these weapons first. Then they would have to build an army of disposable manpower which is willing to die for them and kill others for their agenda, somehow. Remember, people must join voluntarily because there is no conscription in anarchy. And even if that does happen, who is going to take care of this army's logistical needs? There is no nationalism, so these rich people would have to convince SOME population that what they're doing is worthy so that they will be feed, clothed, maintained, and have their medical needs served. In a stateless society there is no pot of funds and resources to grab from. |
#Bitcoin
|
|
|
|
Equilux
|
|
March 12, 2014, 09:38:19 PM |
|
Open your mind for a moment and imagine a few hundred people on an island starting with no laws.
With no laws and no way to enforce them they start to run into problems, some murders, theft, property is taken, people build a house and assume they own the land only to have their neighbors think that they own a different part, etc...
People start arming themselves and try to protect themselves and their property but most find that they have to go to work, they cannot stay at home all of the time so a private police force offers to protect peoples' properties for them, some people like it and pay for this police force to protect their home from intruders. The police force is given boundaries of peoples' properties and disputes are worked out to come up with clear property lines.
Some people do not agree with the lines and go with their own police force, a few police forces pop up and pretty soon there are property line disputes between police forces. One guy says an acre is his while another says it is his. They both call out their police forces to keep the other off of their property and soon there is a stand off between forces. Both are right, they are protecting lawful property and a firefight between forces breaks out.
The next time funding for the force comes up, both forces raise rates for those home owners to deal with the extra cost of a firefight with the other force. After some time both land owners realize it is cheaper to come to an agreement on property lines than keep paying higher costs to the police. So they make compromises and the rates go down.
Now imagine one group of people really hates gays, they pass a 'law' against gay marriage. Basically they authorize their police force to go in and kidnap and punish a gay couple. The gay couple is paying another police force to protect their property from intruders (including police) and protect them from kidnapping. The gay law police come to kidnap and imprison the couple and the kidnap protecting police are called to protect them. Another stand off and possible gun fight ensues...
At this point the people who hate gays are told their rates will go up in order to pay for gun fights with other police forces. The battles are costly so the gay haters have to decide if it is fiscally worth it to have such a law. Over time it would not make sense to pay for gun fights.
After a while, the cheapest route for all users of the police forces would be to agree on what 'laws' to impose, and it would gravitate toward such a common agreed law of the land with very few subtle differences. You would also have to factor in people who do not use a police force and protect their own properties and lives. Any outside force used against them or their lifestyle would bring with it a cost that would likely not be worth the higher rate.
Thoughts? With no laws and people willing to pay for competing police protection, how do you think things would end up?
There are lots of problems and shortsighted assumptions in this story. There is a problem with majorities, since they are susceptible to loudmouths, fanatics and sociopaths swaying the "public opinion". Most correct, or just solutions to ethical problems or problems to do with justice are complicated, fairly difficult to explain, and not spectacular or cool to talk about. Most wrong solutions (like killing all the Jews, whipping the gays, going to war with something or someone) are easy to understand, easy to scream at an angry mob, and capitalize one peoples anger and fear. "justice" would sway in favor of the rich, the fanatics and the stupid. Economic incentives are not a suitable base for a decent society, they never have been, they never will. Economic incentives have a place, but definitely not in this role. |
|
|
|
dank
Legendary
 Offline
Activity: 1134
Merit: 1002
You cannot kill love
|
|
March 12, 2014, 10:25:00 PM |
|
I think something that is underestimated in an anarchic system is fear. The majority of people will have elevated fear levels which will lead to all sorts of problems.
Illnesses related to stress, more people going postal, a poorer quality of life in general.
Ruthless and powerful gangs may dominate, the sort who will kill anyone at the first sign of conflict, before their opponents 'police force' is even aware there is a problem.
Compassion and karma in the majority is unfortunately outweighed by greed in the few.
Sorta like how it is now? People living in fear of being blown up by a drone, people living in fear being spied on by their government, people living in fear of a nuclear holocaust. Anarchy is not chaos though. Anarchy is nature, a perfect equilibrium of forces. An anarchist world is controlled by the universe rather than man. Just because there is no man made law does not mean there are no laws of physics. |
|
|
|
mprep
Global Moderator
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 3766
Merit: 2610
In a world of peaches, don't ask for apple sauce
|
|
March 12, 2014, 11:00:56 PM |
|
I think something that is underestimated in an anarchic system is fear. The majority of people will have elevated fear levels which will lead to all sorts of problems.
Illnesses related to stress, more people going postal, a poorer quality of life in general.
Ruthless and powerful gangs may dominate, the sort who will kill anyone at the first sign of conflict, before their opponents 'police force' is even aware there is a problem.
Compassion and karma in the majority is unfortunately outweighed by greed in the few.
Sorta like how it is now? People living in fear of being blown up by a drone, people living in fear being spied on by their government, people living in fear of a nuclear holocaust. Anarchy is not chaos though. Anarchy is nature, a perfect equilibrium of forces. An anarchist world is controlled by the universe rather than man. Just because there is no man made law does not mean there are no laws of physics. 1. In an possible in the real world anarchistic society, you'd get ransaked if you possesed anything of value. Surviving a day without having lots of goods/currency to hire and maintain armed forces would be an achievement. The stringest would win. 2. Anarchy where every person respects and helps each other is a utopian idea. It's due to the violent and selfish nature of man and the fact that a small group of psychos can ruin the whole situation |
|
|
|
TheButterZone
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 3010
Merit: 1031
RIP Mommy
|
|
March 12, 2014, 11:13:05 PM |
|
1. In an possible in the real world anarchistic society, you'd get ransaked if you possesed anything of value. Surviving a day without having lots of goods/currency to hire and maintain armed forces would be an achievement. The stringest would win.
2. Anarchy where every person respects and helps each other is a utopian idea. It's due to the violent and selfish nature of man and the fact that a small group of psychos can ruin the whole situation
1) Non-aggressors who could defend themselves (and be defended by other non-aggressors) would win, if we were no longer subject to innocent victim-only disarmament laws. 2) The last sentence is government in a nutshell - sociopaths, protecting themselves and psychopaths, from innocent victims. |
Saying that you don't trust someone because of their behavior is completely valid.
|
|
|
mprep
Global Moderator
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 3766
Merit: 2610
In a world of peaches, don't ask for apple sauce
|
|
March 12, 2014, 11:20:50 PM |
|
1. In an possible in the real world anarchistic society, you'd get ransaked if you possesed anything of value. Surviving a day without having lots of goods/currency to hire and maintain armed forces would be an achievement. The stringest would win.
2. Anarchy where every person respects and helps each other is a utopian idea. It's due to the violent and selfish nature of man and the fact that a small group of psychos can ruin the whole situation
1) Non-aggressors who could defend themselves (and be defended by other non-aggressors) would win, if we were no longer subject to innocent victim-only disarmament laws. 2) The last sentence is government in a nutshell - sociopaths, protecting themselves and psychopaths, from innocent victims. 1. So those defending would be more important thus making descisions thus it is anothef government, possibly totalitarian or authoritarian at best. 2.You elect the government, you choose who you want to be ruled by. And yes I understand how limited choice the two-party system is, however, it can be changed. In my country, there are lots of parties competing for getting seats in the parliament. If you don't like the current politicians, become one and be better. |
|
|
|
TheButterZone
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 3010
Merit: 1031
RIP Mommy
|
|
March 12, 2014, 11:58:05 PM |
|
1. In an possible in the real world anarchistic society, you'd get ransaked if you possesed anything of value. Surviving a day without having lots of goods/currency to hire and maintain armed forces would be an achievement. The stringest would win.
2. Anarchy where every person respects and helps each other is a utopian idea. It's due to the violent and selfish nature of man and the fact that a small group of psychos can ruin the whole situation
1) Non-aggressors who could defend themselves (and be defended by other non-aggressors) would win, if we were no longer subject to innocent victim-only disarmament laws. 2) The last sentence is government in a nutshell - sociopaths, protecting themselves and psychopaths, from innocent victims. 1. So those defending would be more important thus making descisions thus it is anothef government, possibly totalitarian or authoritarian at best. 2.You elect the government, you choose who you want to be ruled by. And yes I understand how limited choice the two-party system is, however, it can be changed. In my country, there are lots of parties competing for getting seats in the parliament. If you don't like the current politicians, become one and be better. 1) Immediately defending your fellow man against murderers, rapists, and pillagers does not make you "the government" 2) We elect nothing, it's only who counts the votes, not who votes, that counts. |
Saying that you don't trust someone because of their behavior is completely valid.
|
|
|
dank
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 1134
Merit: 1002
You cannot kill love
|
|
March 13, 2014, 02:03:18 AM |
|
I think something that is underestimated in an anarchic system is fear. The majority of people will have elevated fear levels which will lead to all sorts of problems.
Illnesses related to stress, more people going postal, a poorer quality of life in general.
Ruthless and powerful gangs may dominate, the sort who will kill anyone at the first sign of conflict, before their opponents 'police force' is even aware there is a problem.
Compassion and karma in the majority is unfortunately outweighed by greed in the few.
Sorta like how it is now? People living in fear of being blown up by a drone, people living in fear being spied on by their government, people living in fear of a nuclear holocaust. Anarchy is not chaos though. Anarchy is nature, a perfect equilibrium of forces. An anarchist world is controlled by the universe rather than man. Just because there is no man made law does not mean there are no laws of physics. 1. In an possible in the real world anarchistic society, you'd get ransaked if you possesed anything of value. Surviving a day without having lots of goods/currency to hire and maintain armed forces would be an achievement. The stringest would win. 2. Anarchy where every person respects and helps each other is a utopian idea. It's due to the violent and selfish nature of man and the fact that a small group of psychos can ruin the whole situation That's the fallacy about anarchy. The fact of the matter is that, as you said, only a small percent of people are psychopaths and wish to go and take people's stuff. As it is now, these psychopaths are in charge and protected to ransack anyone and anything they desire with the power of armies. If we were in a true anarchist state, with no government or money, the 2-3% of sociopaths would have no way to leverage their powers, thus, if they continued with their ways, they would be killed as the numbers are astronomically against them. |
|
|
|
|
theomoplatapus
|
|
March 13, 2014, 02:44:06 AM |
|
I think something that is underestimated in an anarchic system is fear. The majority of people will have elevated fear levels which will lead to all sorts of problems.
Illnesses related to stress, more people going postal, a poorer quality of life in general.
Ruthless and powerful gangs may dominate, the sort who will kill anyone at the first sign of conflict, before their opponents 'police force' is even aware there is a problem.
Compassion and karma in the majority is unfortunately outweighed by greed in the few.
Sorta like how it is now? People living in fear of being blown up by a drone, people living in fear being spied on by their government, people living in fear of a nuclear holocaust. Anarchy is not chaos though. Anarchy is nature, a perfect equilibrium of forces. An anarchist world is controlled by the universe rather than man. Just because there is no man made law does not mean there are no laws of physics. 1. In an possible in the real world anarchistic society, you'd get ransaked if you possesed anything of value. Surviving a day without having lots of goods/currency to hire and maintain armed forces would be an achievement. The stringest would win. 2. Anarchy where every person respects and helps each other is a utopian idea. It's due to the violent and selfish nature of man and the fact that a small group of psychos can ruin the whole situation That's the fallacy about anarchy. The fact of the matter is that, as you said, only a small percent of people are psychopaths and wish to go and take people's stuff. As it is now, these psychopaths are in charge and protected to ransack anyone and anything they desire with the power of armies. If we were in a true anarchist state, with no government or money, the 2-3% of sociopaths would have no way to leverage their powers, thus, if they continued with their ways, they would be killed as the numbers are astronomically against them. +1 And to add, I think the far-fetched "utopian" idea is one in which a society could elect people who supposedly know better than themselves what's best for everyone, and who will uphold their "duty" to represent the people's best interest. There is absolutely no incentive system in place for this to be the case, where as in a voluntary society providing for others is the highest incentive. |
#Bitcoin
|
|
|
mprep
Global Moderator
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 3766
Merit: 2610
In a world of peaches, don't ask for apple sauce
|
|
March 13, 2014, 05:31:03 AM |
|
I think something that is underestimated in an anarchic system is fear. The majority of people will have elevated fear levels which will lead to all sorts of problems.
Illnesses related to stress, more people going postal, a poorer quality of life in general.
Ruthless and powerful gangs may dominate, the sort who will kill anyone at the first sign of conflict, before their opponents 'police force' is even aware there is a problem.
Compassion and karma in the majority is unfortunately outweighed by greed in the few.
Sorta like how it is now? People living in fear of being blown up by a drone, people living in fear being spied on by their government, people living in fear of a nuclear holocaust. Anarchy is not chaos though. Anarchy is nature, a perfect equilibrium of forces. An anarchist world is controlled by the universe rather than man. Just because there is no man made law does not mean there are no laws of physics. 1. In an possible in the real world anarchistic society, you'd get ransaked if you possesed anything of value. Surviving a day without having lots of goods/currency to hire and maintain armed forces would be an achievement. The stringest would win. 2. Anarchy where every person respects and helps each other is a utopian idea. It's due to the violent and selfish nature of man and the fact that a small group of psychos can ruin the whole situation That's the fallacy about anarchy. The fact of the matter is that, as you said, only a small percent of people are psychopaths and wish to go and take people's stuff. As it is now, these psychopaths are in charge and protected to ransack anyone and anything they desire with the power of armies. If we were in a true anarchist state, with no government or money, the 2-3% of sociopaths would have no way to leverage their powers, thus, if they continued with their ways, they would be killed as the numbers are astronomically against them. However you look at it I guess. However, it being a utopian idea, it's impossible to implement due to the ill nature of humanity. Many people seek power, sometimes at any cost. Also, zero control brings out the worst in people. |
|
|
|
Mike Christ
aka snapsunny
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 1078
Merit: 1003
|
|
March 13, 2014, 06:44:37 AM |
|
Also, zero control brings out the worst in people.
Precisely why it's a bad idea to have a monopoly on force. |
|
|
|
|
