To fully understand what polycentric law means would mean that you should take some of your free time to listen/read the resources I provided. If you do not want to, that’s fine by me, but don’t come on this thread, and say, “That’ll never work! We need godverment, just the right kind! And without the godvernment, who will build the roads. Muh social contract.” It is not so cut and dry as you think it is. We are a complex beings using very complex system that majority cannot even comprehend, even for me. Every action we commit has equal or opposite reaction. As taxation goes, it contributes the opposite reaction than what human expected. This needs to be eliminated. We need to look for better solution than running to the godvernment, beg, and hope they’ll do the job.
Anything that needs funded can be funded through Crypto – If it is worth having it is worth having and people and or companies will pay for it. Nobody wants rampant crime. But nobody wants to waste money either… Governments tend to be pretty wasteful and inefficient.
The key difference is that if a private entity fails to perform somebody else can be given the job. You cannot do that with the government. If there is a burglar in my house, chances are my neighbors can be there in 30 seconds while the government police are going to take 8-20 minutes. Just because “thats the way everyone does it” doesn’t mean that is the most efficient way to do things.
Really? A bit presumptuous and sorry but don’t fancy watching yet another 2 hours of video about bloody Mises, I’ve seen enough…please don’t argue via videos, use your own words otherwise it is just propaganda and it really isn’t the way most people converse - it’s like people thrusting pamphlets in your hand, stopping you in the street or knocking on your door for one thing…sort of proselytizing and demands I input a large amount of my own time without expending much effort on your part.
Why would one waste time repeating oneself when the video or article explains exactly what one wants to say in a much better and easier to understand way? Would you prefer time stamps in response to your arguements? That would save you time from having to watch the entire videos.
Can we please just cut to the chase and agree it is a charity based model and that certain members of society will not be able to afford health care, protection etc, therefore it is predictable that it endangers the vulnerable in society? Past experience of charity based societies of any decent size and basic human psychology and things like “game theory” all go to provide reasons to believe if people can cheat or not give money, then some will, others follow and the system creates highly precarious situations for the vulnerable.
Yes they do and there a certainly areas where we can devolve/de-centralise certain aspects/powers, but it is wrong to think we can do without all aspects of Govt and all levels of centralisation.
It is demonstrably cheaper/more efficient to have a National Health System as opposed to a private one, the same I would expect applies to police/power etc.
Do you currently have this arrangement with your neighbours - if not why not? Do you think many people do/would and who would you suggest most people would call in such a situation -the neighbours or the police?
If you can’t explain a concept simply yourself in less than the 2 hours it takes to watch the videos, then it would suggest you do not have a proper grasp of it yourself. A gentleman (such as myself ) would go back and re-watch the videos until such a time as I could explain it simply to another person and be able to answer simple questions about the subject matter without posting videos and rudely instructing the person you are “conversing” with watch hours of video.
OH…I see you posted another 40 mins of video that you expect me to watch?
I have been motivated enough to start looking into Polycentric Law and have just bought “Anarchy and Legal Order: Law and Politics for a Stateless Society” by Gary Chartier but I am with @Al_Kafir with his comments above.
@al_kafir. @philip_rhoades I am not laying out a case of this is the way things ought to be, nor proposing a shift to anarchist systems tomorrow.
Only saying that if we can make it possible we should. It would be great if products and services could built without coercion, use of force or threats of use of force. – And a lot of things everyone wants - so a crypto model like MaidSAFE’s makes a lot of sense.
Pointing to private systems that are more expensive than government systems doesn’t necessarily prove anything as the most private systems are significantly meddled with by government mandates and too many layers of middlemen to function as a proper market. If you where to put medical care into cryptocurrencies instead of the 4 layers of middlemen Me - my employer -the insurance company - the doctor (all dealing with government regulations on top of all of that) The market could become a ton more efficient.
The bigger problem is that “That which cannot be sustained will not be sustained” We are beginning to see the Ponzi scheme of debt reach it’s crux and resolution – It seems doubtful to many that the status quo will be sustainable… Maybe the governments will find a way… Or maybe Cryptocurrencies will find a better way…
Hey you’re welcome to your state and government just so long as I don’t have to put up with it. I think that’s the point: Some people want government and some people don’t. If you want to be governed that’s cool. The problem arises when people that DON’T want to be governed are being coerced into a system that is forcing them to be governed. So let those that want to be governed and have government have their own group. Let those who want small government have their group. And let the anarchists have their own group, or indeed have no group as they see fit. Let me make this plain: People should not be compelled to be in a group they don’t want to be in.
You misunderstand - I imagine there are not many people here who are ecstatic about the state of politics in the world or in our individual countries for that matter. What @Al_Kafir was saying, and with which I agree, is that it not reasonable to say to someone: “I have this great idea, which sounds crazy, but watch a few hours of these videos and you will see I am right.” You have to do something a little more interesting and enticing than that . .
I think you have mis identified the nature of the 2 sides of the argument: It’s not a case of on one side you have some masochistic submissive people “wanting to be governed” and on the other side some rebellious, heroic individuals refusing to be governed…lol
It is more that most people recognise that for a society to function, decisions about services/ideas/laws etc affecting the group have to be made at group level (democratically in lieu of a better way which I literally cannot think of any logical alternative for). Decisions concerning/affecting the group cannot be made at an individual level.
You also cannot have different laws for different people within a society because of equality - in fact that’s why I’m a big supporter of the British Humanist "One Law for All! campaign :(against Sharia/religious exemptions)
Fair enough but I think you are also misunderstanding what I’m saying is more like “I have this great idea and I know it sounds crazy but watch a few of these videos and see that the things you are objecting to have already been addressed.” Whether I’m right or not is debatable but the point of the videos is so that I don’t have to repeat the same points that have been already addressed over and over again. It’s like the proverbial objection of “Who will build the roads?” every statist seems to bring up which gets knocked down flat by “Private contractors and local people. People built roads and other inferstructure just fine before taxation was introduced during world war 2.” I mean it just goes on and on like this. People cite common law much of the time when objecting to anarchism but common law is based on natural law and natural law is essentially what anarchism is based on. If you attack someone they have a right to defend themselves. One generally does not have the moral high ground to initiate violence or force, one is however fully within one’s rights to defend oneself. People generally respond badly to antisocial and hostile behaviour and act accordingly. You don’t need laws to tell you that shooting up the place is going to get you in a world of hurt. Same with lying, cheating or stealing. While there might not be a law against it people tend not to enjoy it happening to them and therefore take measures to prevent it. Anarchism is about voluntary interaction and therefore taking or exerting force to assert your will on another is counter to the philosophy of anarchism and falls into the realm of statism. When you try to coerce someone to conform to your will you are in fact creating a state, a government because you are attempting to GOVERN another person.
It really isn’t that easy though – Where do you draw the line on what is acceptable to fund by coercive force and what is not? Libraries? Parks? Free medical insurance? Free parking? Sexual therapy? Whatever the majority votes for to be free?
Just because a group wants something doesn’t mean much as far as resources needed etc…
The additional problem is that the people who decide where to draw the line tend to be the government, which is a conflict of interest. It grows like a cancer into all aspects of life…
“The group” may very well have wanted the SAFE network but that decision didn’t need to be made at the group level. You put the offer out, people who want it built pay for it to be built, and if it succeeds and is a public service greatly adopted, they will make good money on their investment. The system will be sustained based on the resources contributed.
That is a better model where it fits… And it will fit a lot of places, I suspect with tweaks here and there.
Those saying something is impossible should not interrupt the one’s doing it. If you do not think it is possible for an anarchstic society to be organized the watch and learn how it can be done.
