Confirmed and welcome Larken!
8 years ago in #voluntaryism by xeldal (60)
$106.68
- Past Payouts $106.68, 0.00 TRX
- - Author $91.00, 0.00 TRX
- - Curators $15.68, 0.00 TRX
Larken, I'd like to ask you a question, since I'm having trouble coming around to the anarchist point of view.
Question: How do individuals in an anarchist setting protect themselves from aggressors? Now I know you think that everyone should just do the right thing, and I'm sure the majority would, but there are always some bad people out there. How exactly do we protect ourselves from them? Do we form a group, or a coalition to fight them off? If we do something like that might it not be necessary to fund that group? Might we not ask for some kind of funding to help our brave protectors keep us safe. Wait... is that just taxes by another name?
There are communities where each household pays $250 yearly to hire a company to monitor the area and respond to any calls. It's voluntary so some pay and some do not however, everyone in the community is covered. This makes for less intrusive circumstances when the person who shows up to help is paid by you and acts like it. Unlike the other guys who are paid by you yet they have become more intrusive then ever before.
For me, when I add it all up, I can plainly see there is more that connects us then divides us and there is enough on Earth for all of us. Technology stagnation and planned obsolescence are two driving factors that help keep centralized control. Once liberated from restrictions there will be more innovation, Iceland is a great example, they cancelled debt and funded the scientists and now they are a technology powerhouse. Freedom brings innovation. The path to freedom is self-ownership.
Thanks for you reply. I see that key point for you is that contributions are voluntary and never enforced. An interesting perspective and something for me to think about.
I've got some more questions though. How is the innate need for justice handled in an anarchist society. Is there anything like judges and juries? Or is their some other form of arbitration that needs to come into play?
There are various scenarios that can play out. You can have private court systems that intermediate between members from the same or different court systems that can either use judges or juries or both. Yes private arbitration will become more widely accepted and is already gaining popularity today compared to inefficient and ineffective courts. Most private law will probably be based on common law precedents that exist today so there won't be drastic changes.
I think one major problem with our current system is that it revolves around punishment instead of restitution to victims. I'd rather have a criminal be outside and productive and pay back a victim money rather than be unproductive, punished and wasting tax dollars. The victim typically gets nothing tangible.
I'll write more about how blockchain technology can help in all facets of society soon. Think of smart contracts as the law and that should open your mind up to the vast possibilities. Blockchain tech can help replace many functions of government: property title management, voting, governance, law etc. Back to one example regarding tort law people can more easily be bonded and insured with blockchain technology against various general liabilities just like people are insured today against lawsuits. When you have a claim, you can quickly and efficiently execute a digital legal contract and transfer digital value escrowed in the cloud.
Also regarding Steemit, reputations become incredibly valuable. Self-defense should be the focus against criminal activities, but ostracism is still a powerful preventative tool against criminal behavior. When people participate in a blockchain economy their reputations and livelihood depend on maintaining good behavior and have much to lose if their criminal activities are known. Being shunned from a blockchain community like Steemit can be devastating, especially if a lot of value is tied up in it. We'll see exactly how everything plays out, but no doubt blockchain tech will help usher in an exciting and liberating future.
seafood, you seem like a thoughtful person. Thanks for asking questions, and please forgive any snarky responses you get. I have investigated voluntaryism and learned a good bit over the last 9 years, and I must say that like any good idea, not 100% of the "possible problems" have been figured out to perfection.
I do look back though at what we have to compare, and I must admit that the unknown probabilities are less 'bad' in most cases than the current-day realities.
I don't know what freedom would look like or how you and I might resolve our conflicts, but I know what things look like now. Most folks that use judges and juries under our current system do not walk away pleased. Please keep exploring and investigating, and if you really get interested, check out Larken's "Snarkin With Larken podcast."
OpenlyVoluntaryOne
I hope you are not talking about police...
And yet... look, what keeps that company you're paying for protection from deciding to enforce that protection? Nothing. They'll be the warriors, they'll decide everyone should pay, and they'll beat it out of him.
I'd also argue that, if one person is enjoying protection but other people are paying for it he's stealing that service from his neighbors. He's forcing them to pay more for something they all, including the non-payer, want.
Government isn't "divine" or magical. It's societies' answer to mitigating problems that crop up within groups of people. There will always be people who want to take advantage of others, as well as people hurt by thoughtlessness and even accidents.
These can be simple disagreements too. Take a neighbor who builds their fence on your property line. Without a government who do you go to in order to get your property back? And independent mediator? What keeps your neighbor from bribing him?
Right now, you'd go to the government and laws keep your neighbor from bribing him.
Let me ask you a question. What keeps that neighbor from bribing the government? Laws? Sure, but look at all the cases where government officials went back on the laws they said they upheld and whatnot.
No one is saying Rose's solution is going to be all peaches and cream. There would be abuses and problems like how there are abuses and problems now. The difference is, the abusers and problem makers are no longer centralized into a group that enough people believe has the right to do anything.
Simply put, the difference between the mafia and the government is simply that no one believes that the mafia has any right to extort and kill people. But when the same actions are applied to government, suddenly, it becomes ok. Goose and gander sort of thing you know?
@the-zone12:
First of all, why does it seem like I can never reply after a couple levels of the threading?
Now, on to the actual reply...
The difference between the mafia and the government is that the people have a say in how the government operates. If the mafia doesn't think you paid your dues, they break your legs. If the government doesn't, you get a trial. If mafia dues are too high, that's your problem. If taxes are too high, elect fiscal conservatives to get the taxes lowered. If the mafia don thinks you insulted him somehow, he can summarily kill you. If you talk shit about Obama all day long, the government can do nothing.
Moreover, what about foreign governments? Forget the local stuff... if we have no government and no army, what prevents Canada from taking over and becoming your ruler without even giving you the benefit of Democracy?
I'm going to guess you'll say civilian army, but without government funding, training, leadership... well, they'd get creamed.
"Government...It's societies' answer to...problems..."??? No, govt. is not the answer to problems of society. It was created to be. It failed. Here, and everywhere, every time. Obviously you have not been victimized by LEOs and in court. And you ignore all the stories, all the videos on Youtube. I grew up in the ghetto where LEOs seldom came, and gang violence was common. After getting out I still saw tyranny and chaos, but by men in uniforms/badges. In the Navy I saw it again with the SP & my captain. From the lowest authority to the highest, I see it.
"Right now, you'd go to the govt...."? I have. I got burned every time. I finally learned in my 50s. I don't call 911. I am armed. Now at 74 I wonder why it took me so long. When are you going to open your eyes and stop defending the biggest gang in the world, the US Empire?
No, "asking" is very much NOT "just taxes by another name." You already have countless examples in your own life of how people can OFFER goods and services to others, and potential customers VOLUNTARILY choose to buy them. "Taxation" is when the ruling class DEMANDS that you pay for something, whether you want it or not, and whether you benefit or not, and cage you if you refuse. Can you really not see the difference there?
seafood: Your line of questioning appears to ask nothing of yourself, which is the subject of your concern, right? Doesn't that seem to be the root of your problem? Aren't you assuming that there must be a group involved in your personal safety? Why is that? Are you attacked often? If so, how exactly is it that you feel safe enough to spend time asking these questions? Wait - is that just fear by another name?
I have grown up in a very safe society and have not ever been attacked. Nor do I fear it to any great degree. But this is because of institutions such as a police force, and a standing army, both services provided by a government. I have heard a couple of anarchists talking about other ways to satisfy the need for safety. Yes, I threw out a little barb to get the discussion going but I really was quite interested to hear about how anarchism might work in practice.
The error, IMO, is thinking that anarchism is something that has to be implemented or practiced. Anarchists are not saying governments do not provide services. They are not saying that they know how to create a utopia. They are pointing out reality and irrational arguments. An atheist can acknowledge that religious people and institutions provide some good to the world, that doesn't mean they have to accept that religion as legitimate "truth." The anarchist merely points out that definitionally many of the institutions people defend (people called "Statists) are violent and aggressive and anarchists ASK whether it is possible to satisfy those same needs in a voluntary way and seeks to prove that it is possible. Statists assume it is not possible without serious inquiry. A non-anarchist simply accepts that because someone has power and renders a service that it is legitimate no matter how little choice is involved (e.g. referring to institutions that have a force-based monopoly as if you had any choice in choosing their services), how little experimentation and variety, how little technology, and no matter how horrifying, irrational, and lacking in evidentiary support their claims are.
In reality you practice anarchism on a daily basis, anytime you do something without someone telling you, that is a form of anarchy, you just don't realize it, but anything you do that you were never told to do is Anarchy, anything you do because someone tells you to, is not, unless you agreed to those term without coercion. Also the Government monopolies, such as LE and Military are not there for your protection, even in the Government system they have ruled it in their courts, you just have to look a little harder. So Governments do not make you safe, if anything, Governments make you less safe, through many ways, from policies to statutes they make to violate your rights.
lifecoach level astronaut
@seafood "Statism: The Most Dangerous Religion" is an awesome video that is a compilation of Larken Rose's wisdom. It was one of the videos that got me to snap out of the illusion of government. I featured it in a post a few days ago along with Stefan Molyneux's "The Story of Your Enslavement" ... very highly recommended watching for anyone exploring the tenets of self-governance and self-ownership. Cheers!
A fee and a tax are 2 different things. A fee should be voluntary where with taxation you don't have a choice. Many things can be funded through an organized fee structure. Here is an idea, what if instead of being forced by the government to pay taxes for the roads we drive on. What if we just had "roadcoin" crypto currency that we filled up on just like gas and then we were just charged a fee based on our useage?
Awwww snap, Steemit is turning into the Anarchy Blockchain :)
I just wonder how the blockchain based anarcho communist blogging site that pays you money is doing? Oh wait, that doesn't exist. haha
@larkenrose yeah it looks good and I do not want to talk much about it, just Upvote you now :)
Not a bad thing at all
Very awesome to be the first to upvote Larken Rose's first Steemit post. It's like catching a shooting star. haha
Welcome, Larken. Great to have you here!
Yes, welcome here on Steemit. Good to have you here.
Look forwards to your content larken
Keep up the great work
All I know is that i'm not happy living in a world full of people divided by how much control one faction of society can use upon another and that is why I identify myself proudly as a voluntaryist.