if we want a stateless society, why dont a team of private investors and political refugees colonize Somalia
do we get free cheezeburger in socielism?
Stranger:But the point is that I love my country. Don't you?
I've traveled a wee bit. I like my country, but in many ways, it is inferior to others I have been to. I don't feel I particularly owe it anything in the way of allegiance or loyalty.
I could learn to love a free country, regardless of the climate or geography. Being free is more important to me than acknowledging my history and the history of my ancestors with a particular state.
@all, I second the Liberty Colony idea. It's possible that an exodus may at one point be the only option left to us. The world is certainly not getting less statist. Things are moving in the wrong direction, and while choosing to stand and fight might be honourable, it's wise to pick the battles you can win. If you can't beat the state, then change the game. Plus the entrepreneurial opportunities for a Liberty Colony could be tremendous.
If you find something evil that wobbles, push it. - Gary North
Juan:Danno, Despite what some people may claim, an industrial society is not the same thing as a condo and a mall is not a city.
I understand this, but looking at similar situations isn't a waste of time - sometimes, that does bring a possible solution to light, and knowledge is somewhat transferrable - my knowledge of what condo HOAs have been known to do is what makes me leery of any situation that'd use a HOA-style contract.
Maybe you'd be interested in checking the original presentation of libertarian anarchism. The Production of Security (1849) by Gustave de Molinari (1819-1912)
Yes, indeed, I would. New reading pointers are always welcome - I'll peruse it later tonight, when all the chores are done. Thanks very much.
ps: Please don't aim my way.
Juan - unless you're aiming at me, or look like a large piece of paper with printing on it, you've nothing to fear - it's long been my policy to never initiate violence, and I know my gun safety rules. But making ammo isn't shooting - different thing entirely. Boring, repetitive, productive - you've gotta pay attention, but there's time for thinking, and rushing isn't good - it's considerably more relaxing than shootin' holes in paper is. It'd been too long, and it was fun.
Thanks for the pointer - I really needed something new on my "to read" list - but I expect I'll enjoy this one.
Danno, off to finish the day's chores....
The avatar graphic text:
"Are you coming to bed?"
"No, this is important"
"What?"
"Someone is wrong on the internet."
Danno:Oh! Private Ownership! That's what will make roads a non-monopoly, or a monopoly that can't be abused! How could I have not understood that?
No, you have not understood that since you refuse to educate yourself.
Microsecession as a strategy for revolution | Challenge to minarchist | How would a private road system work?
Stranger: Danno:Oh! Private Ownership! That's what will make roads a non-monopoly, or a monopoly that can't be abused! How could I have not understood that? No, you have not understood that since you refuse to educate yourself.
Very neat - you ignore the question, claim a solution you refuse to name, and blame it all on my ignorance - nay, my refusal to correct my ignorance.
You win, I guess. Was there a trophy or somethin'?
Danno, wondering where he left the intellectual honesty - could it be under the couch?
Libertine Joseph:My life is here. My family is here. I don't even know how to get there lol.
Danno:Nope - it's because no one can explain how road systems would not become monopolies in urban areas that I don't believe anarchy would work.
The arguments that anarchy could exist is just flawed because of the assumtptions needed to make it work. Suppose that such a state could be productive what would save it from it's less enlightened neighbours who directed capital disproportionately towards weapons and armies? What would save an anarchic country from the lack of trade and commerce with other countries who would not do business with a 'lawless' socitey? How would such an anarchy seek resolution against wrongdoing by foreigners when it has no binding 'statist' legal structure?
For any idea to be valid, it has to be able to be defended. An anarchist state cannot be defended logically or even by itself if it were to become reality.
baoinvestor:What would save an anarchic country from the lack of trade and commerce with other countries who would not do business with a 'lawless' socitey?
Because it would not be lawless.
At most, 5% of the population would need to stop complying to bring down the government.
who would enforce the laws? Who would agree on the laws? Each contract has to be drawn up fresh with each transaction?
baoinvestor: who would enforce the laws? Who would agree on the laws? Each contract has to be drawn up fresh with each transaction?
You know all of those questions have been answered here countless times.
Semper Fidelis
fezwhatley: if we want a stateless society, why dont a team of private investors and political refugees colonize Somalia
And don't forget the trouble that there is when one tries to radically change a society (French Revolution, War for Southern Independance).
On the whole roads issue... I've debated this too and had the same dilemma as Danno.
Here are my thoughts:
Firstly, right now the roads mostly belong to the state. For them to be under private ownership, they would first have to be transferred. In a society with strong private property rights and a respect for liberty, it would be argued that all properties adjoining a property would have permanent easement rights to access that property. Furthermore, as part of the title and deed, all roads would be open to all traffic in general, and all sidewalks would be open to all pedestrian traffic.
The property owner would have the right to collect fair use fees for use of the road, but would be obliged to do so in a manner that did not impede the flow of traffic. The property owner would have no right to restrict traffic based on arbitrary concerns, like a hatred of cars. This could all be enforced by simply making it part of the title deed. As adjoining properties would be shareholders of that particular road, they would have an incentive to keep costs down and efficiency high. They would also be obligated to move traffic efficiently since it would be part of the title deed.
As far as new construction is concerned, I'm sure appropriate contracts could be drawn up. People would be reluctant to move into a property where they did not have any permanent easements or a stake in the primary access route. Most people would simply not buy into places where they did not have these protections, and as far as barring someone from accessing a property on the whim of the property owner (let's say Larry, Harry, and Moe decide to bar James from using the road, who also lives on the road), they would not be able to do this because of the concept of permanent easements. If James pays his fair share, there would be no legal way to prevent him from using the road.
These are just some thoughts I had in my head that would work toward resolving some of the problems. Simply put, the problem of roads over roads or of turnpikes next to a home would simply never occur because of property rights, easements, and title deed restrictions. If the state would simply transfer all the roads over to a single person, then obviously there would be a huge imbalance of power, and it would not be very libertarian. But even in this case yes, people could have power over this person by simply disallowing HIM access to their stores, etc... or start a public-relations campaign against him. And remember, there is no monopoly on the use of force. If the people collectively want to disobey this guy for being so unreasonable, they can, property rights or not. They could always violate his rights by force and simply pay the price, if things got to that point. If you don't stack the system that way in the first place, then it probably won't get to that point, not for an entire city.
Easement rights should prevent this situation in terms of people's access to their own property (and as for people that don't live there, in an urban environment there are many routes available to you), but let's say John is an asshole and doesn't want some people that bullied him in elementary school using his bridge which is the only one across the river.. first of all there's an enforcement problem, it would probably cost him a lot to enforce this ban. But let's say he decides to do it... he'll hurt his revenue from the enforcement costs and from the public relations nightmare of being known as an asshole. These people could use a ferry, and if they really needed to cross that bridge they would probably do their utmost to make it very expensive for John's bottom line. Maybe John won't relent, but he hurts himself a lot more than he hurts these few people. If he extends his ban to a larger group such as gays, he may very well go bankrupt. Such a policy would just about always be negative to the owner's bottom line, unless the society as a whole was prejudiced... then, that's a problem of the society itself, and would exist under traditional government as well.
I just want to add that any system where you stack the deck so unfairly is bound to lead to some unrealistic scenarios. Putting all the roads into the hands of 1 owner... first of all, the govt. would have a terrible fight on their hands if they tried that (remember society is a progression, govt's won't simply not exist from day 1 to day 2), more likely, what would happen is that competition in providers of security, etc... would spring up, and it would be POSSIBLE for ownership of roads to take place. However, again, even within anarcho-cap's framework I think because of prior use, the homeowners have already "homesteaded" the use of the transportation networks that they face, and the people as a collective have homesteaded the unfettered use of the transportation network, so that has to be built into the title deeds and the property framework.
I don't want to ramble on too much, but obviously even anarcho-cap is still going to be a system of legal frameworks and some men telling other men what to do, whether through property deeds or whatever other means... if it was natural to the world then we never would have had governments in the first place. The real trick is setting up the system to be stable, resilient, and redundant (where govt. is a single point of failure)... if anything i view a true anarcho-cap system not as a regression to some "natural" state that we were in before, and that unfortunately is the connotation that the word "anarchy" gives, which makes us think of tribal warlords and the like, but I rather see it as an evolution to the next form of government, which would be, many forms of government structures competing, and the lines between government and private enterprise being blurred, as organisations would perform the functions of both.
Maxlibert
"Human Life begins at conception, and as such the unborn child is entitled to the same rights as any other individual. The SDK considers abortion only allowable under the circumstance of medical necessity to save the life of the mother."
You claim to believe in freedom yet want to force people to hold your insane religious views.
You make me sick.
Ludwig von Mises Institute | 518 West Magnolia Avenue | Auburn, Alabama 36832-4528
Phone: 334.321.2100 · Fax: 334.321.2119
contact@Mises.org | webmaster | AOL-IM MainMises
Mises.org sitemap