Democracy 2.0

[FreeMoney]

I don't want to be sneaky with words. I have no problem with contracts, but I wasn't talking about them.

-a regulation or bylaw governing procedure or controlling conduct

I think the rules of chess fit this. We both submit to the rules of the game and there are no problems. If someone breaks them then there isn't a chess game anymore and if I don't want to play whatever the hell it is now I stop. 

Without force, just multiply the crime you already have for 1000... and probably the result would be too generous for reality.

Without force there will be no crimes whatsoever.

[rezin777]

I don't want to be sneaky with words. I have no problem with contracts, but I wasn't talking about them.

-a regulation or bylaw governing procedure or controlling conduct

I think the rules of chess fit this. We both submit to the rules of the game and there are no problems. If someone breaks them then there isn't a chess game anymore and if I don't want to play whatever the hell it is now I stop. 

Without force, just multiply the crime you already have for 1000... and probably the result would be too generous for reality.

Without force there will be no crimes whatsoever.

You think chess rules are equivalent to regulations or bylaws in a discussion about government? It's clear that we are unable to communicate properly. Here is my final attempt.

Chess doesn't fit. I don't have to play chess. Force isn't required because either one of us can walk away. Therefore the rules are only an agreement between the players.

I have to live in society. When there are rules governing what I can and can not do in society, there is only one way to ensure that I abide by those rules: force. There is one way I can choose to walk away: suicide. I never agreed to the rules. I never agreed to pay or be imprisoned, etc. I don't want to play, but I'm forced to play. These are the rules that I'm talking about. These are the rules that imply force.

[FreeMoney]

I don't want to be sneaky with words. I have no problem with contracts, but I wasn't talking about them.

-a regulation or bylaw governing procedure or controlling conduct

I think the rules of chess fit this. We both submit to the rules of the game and there are no problems. If someone breaks them then there isn't a chess game anymore and if I don't want to play whatever the hell it is now I stop. 

Without force, just multiply the crime you already have for 1000... and probably the result would be too generous for reality.

Without force there will be no crimes whatsoever.

You think chess rules are equivalent to regulations or bylaws in a discussion about government? It's clear that we are unable to communicate properly. Here is my final attempt.

Chess doesn't fit. I don't have to play chess. Force isn't required because either one of us can walk away. Therefore the rules are only an agreement between the players.

I have to live in society. When there are rules governing what I can and can not do in society, there is only one way to ensure that I abide by those rules: force. There is one way I can choose to walk away: suicide. I never agreed to the rules. I never agreed to pay or be imprisoned, etc. I don't want to play, but I'm forced to play. These are the rules that I'm talking about. These are the rules that imply force.

I don't think we disagree all that much. I was using chess as an example of rules without force. I'm completely aware that force is involved at every level of our society.

Finding ways to interact with people without force and threats should be the goal of every civilized person. Seeing a problem and thinking "ah, let's force everyone to do X, that will make it better" is wrong (as in incorrect, it doesn't make the world better) and barbaric and it'll suck hard if you lose control of this violent game.

[Barday]

I would say that Democracy is power of giving the right to people . In democratic countries like, USA,Britain. People have the equal rights then there is complete justice in that countries which is the beauty of Democracy .When people will have rights then there will be happiness everywhere .

[goatpig]

Not to piss on your parade but I think democracy is an abomination. Do you think some random guy that lives on the other side of the planet should have a word in what you can or cannot do with your life and property? No. Then why should your neighbor have such power? To be free is to have the right to refuse to interact with others, no matter who they are and where they live.

Bunch of fruitcakes want to vote away they property rights and share all of their belongings together?  No problem go ahead. But why do I have to go to jail because I don't want to join you in your insanity?

I don't think we disagree all that much. I was using chess as an example of rules without force.

You're missing your own point. If you walk away from the game as your opponent starts cheating, you're not enforcing the rules of the game, rather you are giving up on the game altogether. To enforce the rule in that case would be for you to be declared winner by an outside entity, which will then proceed to fine the cheater. You seem to forget that rules aren't enforced by individuals but by entities.

[BCEmporium]

Listen to anarchist is somewhat funny.
goatpig, I don't see anybody forbidding you from go to the middle of the woods, without interaction with whosoever.
Or... you do like the commodity of society, which relies on interaction - people working together - but still come up with all that bs?

[goatpig]

Listen to anarchist is somewhat funny.
goatpig, I don't see anybody forbidding you from go to the middle of the woods, without interaction with whosoever.
Or... you do like the commodity of society, which relies on interaction - people working together - but still come up with all that bs?

More like you force me out in the woods because out of the 100 of you 51 thought I should give them half of what I produce so you can go war the 100 guys living in the next village, and I am left with the clothes on my back and the woods. But guess what? Once I've established myself in the woods and I'm doing fine, you and your 100 buddies will be back to take from me again, to war some more. Good job there chief.

I don't care about society for one single bit. My problem with society is that it won't allow that. Show me one piece of dirt that has no nation controlling it and ima consider apatriating myself there. Hell, even Antartica is under UN legislation.

[BitterTea]

Listen to anarchist is somewhat funny.
goatpig, I don't see anybody forbidding you from go to the middle of the woods, without interaction with whosoever.
Or... you do like the commodity of society, which relies on interaction - people working together - but still come up with all that bs?

What woods? All of the land that is not privately "owned" in the area we call the United States is owned by the federal, state, county, or city governments. There is nowhere to move to.

http://usgovinfo.about.com/od/moneymatters/a/No-Free-Or-Cheap-Government-Land.htm

I say privately "owned" because your land will be taken unless you pay your property tax. Additionally, there is the issue of Eminent Domain. So really, the owner of all land is the Federal Government. They merely allow individuals to live on their land so long as they pay their rent (property tax), and there are no more economically viable uses for the land.