You are viewing a single comment's thread from:
RE: What comes first? Open borders vs. ending the welfare state
Yeah. absolutely. There is nothing wrong with hierarchy if the subjects consent to it. That's not the case with today's governments though. A very good initiative I recently read about is the idea of Free Private Cities. Imagine a city where you voluntarily adhere to the rules without a central body enforcing random rules they choose to implement without having to ask everyone to agree with them first :D
But without government, there will be lawless chaos!!
Nope, anarchy doesn't mean a lack of hierarchy. Anarchy is order ;-)
Well I think anarchy often comes down to the interpretation of the word authority.
I actually wrote a German article about why I hate Latin words and how their common usage in English is actually hurting the intellectual debate.
Sure we Germans have the word "Autorität" as well and the exact translate meaning is "always right/corrrect" if I remember correctly.
A real German word for the phenomenon would be leadership, but the word "Führer" somehow got a bad rep xD. A leader is nothing without followers. Ron Paul would be a great example for a leader and I think he is often annoyed that nobody within the libertarian community is having a more controversial debate with him, many see him as an authority and not just a leader.
Wait are you just putting words into my mouth or did you reply to the wrong person? :D
Haha those are not your words!! Sorry for the misunderstanding. What I meant is that a lot of people say that ;-)
I actually understood it that way at first, but then I was like wait, maybe he is just talking about something very similar with another person and got us mixed up :D.
Free Private Cities sounds a little like "owned by a private person" but apart from that (leftist) biased association it is pretty much exactly what I am advocating for. In a city or district your voice actually matters, so this should be the main decision making entity or maybe even a little smaller, but cities are a very good start, imo.
I agree that decentralization is a very good way to move power back to the individual, but I also think that individual rights aren't subject to a public vote of some sort. Living in a (small) society is very often necessary, but that doesn't mean that people have to listen to decision makers if they haven't agreed to do so.
Private cities will turn off a lot of people because of the name, but it's nothing more than a person owning a big plot of land and letting people inhabit it according to his/her rule. It's that person's property after all.
Wait... then i am actually completely against it. Cities are century old mammuths that nobody should own.
That's one way to look at it, and I would much rather see that everyone owns his house etc. themselves. But then again, a person should have the possibility to do with his property whatever he wants, so you can't really withhold someone from creating a city on his own plot of land. It wouldn't look like much, but hey, that shouldn't matter :)