Riedquat Posted February 29, 2012 Share Posted February 29, 2012 Don't worry, we'd have a completely voluntary People's Optional Justice Organisation which would make sure that everyone was free from government and the threat of coercion from anyone else.. Good point, when the decision of such a group goes against someone they'll admit "Fair gop, guv" and volunteer to surrender something in compensation. There can't possibly be any flaws with that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Traktion Posted February 29, 2012 Share Posted February 29, 2012 Human nature hasn't. Politicians are human too. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
erranta Posted February 29, 2012 Share Posted February 29, 2012 Science and education have come a long way since the dark ages. Rubbish it's all uber-manipulated Peer-reviewing is a constant cycle of lies by bull-shysters - cos the next scientist to further a subject disproves the previous "Peer reviewed" acceptance of a 'discovery' as a present day 'truth' endorsed by pompous asses who claim to know Watts Watt You've seen "THE WALL" " if ya don't eat yer meat you don't get any pudding" - skool 'conveyor belt' churning out Uni/skool compliant clones Well brainwashed & receptive to the manipulations of the elites of each era Your kids are going thru a "Green Cycle" of ******** double-speak at present which is the new fascist movement and divisive population game the elites have devised for the NWO takeover Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Traktion Posted February 29, 2012 Share Posted February 29, 2012 Good point, when the decision of such a group goes against someone they'll admit "Fair gop, guv" and volunteer to surrender something in compensation. There can't possibly be any flaws with that. They don't get a choice about surrendering something. Your reputation is something given and taken away from you by others. It isn't something you get to dictate. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fluffy666 Posted February 29, 2012 Share Posted February 29, 2012 Why would the majority think that, but a subset called 'the government' think otherwise? Because the majority may be irrational. On heavily influenced by propaganda. A free market is just one without force. Only for a very narrow definition of free. By implying that a free market cannot solve all issues, you are saying that force needs to be wielded, by a subset of the very same people, in order for things to be done. Yeah, that's why we elect people and give them limited powers to do this. Why would that subset of people have a different opinion, when they are just people like the rest of us? Why would that subset enforce their informed choice, rather than suggest it as their informed opinion? Well, they do - we have elections, you know. Now, you can certainly argue about how democratic the system really is, the need for more transparency, the total extent of government and many other things.. but that is not a reason to throw the whole system out. Government is inevitable. Bad government is not inevitable. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fluffy666 Posted February 29, 2012 Share Posted February 29, 2012 Rubbish it's all uber-manipulated Peer-reviewing is a constant cycle of lies by bull-shysters - cos the next scientist to further a subject disproves the previous "Peer reviewed" acceptance of a 'discovery' as a present day 'truth' endorsed by pompous asses who claim to know Watts Watt You've seen "THE WALL" " if ya don't eat yer meat you don't get any pudding" - skool 'conveyor belt' churning out Uni/skool compliant clones Well brainwashed & receptive to the manipulations of the elites of each era Your kids are going thru a "Green Cycle" of ******** double-speak at present which is the new fascist movement and divisive population game the elites have devised for the NWO takeover Yet still the lights come on.. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Riedquat Posted February 29, 2012 Share Posted February 29, 2012 Politicians are human too. Indeed, which is why we need to be a damned sight more careful about who we allow to become politicians. Not everyone has the same motiviations, and unchecked those most interested in forcing their way to the top will force their way to the top. They don't get a choice about surrendering something. Your reputation is something given and taken away from you by others. It isn't something you get to dictate. So damage to reputation is the only downside? Oh dear, everyone thinks I'm a mugger. Now hand over your wallet, and by my reputation you know what I'll do to you if you don't. And the person I spend your money with won't give a damn about my reputation because I'll have money to pay him with. He might not give a damn about having a reputation for dealing with muggers either, as long as the muggers keep paying him. Sure, ignore the people he deals with too. End result - the people with the bad reputation have everything whilst everyone else scrabbles for scraps in the dirt. Just the same as now, only more blatant and even more violent. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
erranta Posted February 29, 2012 Share Posted February 29, 2012 Yet still the lights come on.. Peer reviewing exists sol-ely to filter out what is not acceptable to the elites control mechanisms eg if someone brought in a new discovery of free energy he/she gets bought off or handed over by Mi5/6 to sub-contracted terrorists supported by the US Govt who eliminate any undesirables seen as a threat to their/Elite monopolising - so in this case it would be the energy monopolies they control are left undisturbed at the cost to Worlds population still enslaved by the secretive Egyptian Pharaoh classes Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Traktion Posted February 29, 2012 Share Posted February 29, 2012 Because the majority may be irrational. On heavily influenced by propaganda. Politicians are immune to this because? Only for a very narrow definition of free. You're either free to make any trades or you are not. There isn't a middle ground. Yeah, that's why we elect people and give them limited powers to do this. Politicians are just people too. Well, they do - we have elections, you know. Now, you can certainly argue about how democratic the system really is, the need for more transparency, the total extent of government and many other things.. but that is not a reason to throw the whole system out. Who said anything about throwing it all out? Just give people the choice to opt in or out. Those who appreciate the work of the state can continue to use its services. You also didn't answer the questions: Why do you think politicians are so special, when they are just people like the rest of us? Government is inevitable. Bad government is not inevitable. Nope, unless you think people are destined to be born into slavery, there is always a choice. How about you let people exercise that choice and let them opt out of governance on reasonable terms? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Traktion Posted February 29, 2012 Share Posted February 29, 2012 Indeed, which is why we need to be a damned sight more careful about who we allow to become politicians. Not everyone has the same motiviations, and unchecked those most interested in forcing their way to the top will force their way to the top. Those who want power will always reach for the top, both in corporations and in the government. I'm still waiting for your answer as to why you think politicians are special, when they are just humans too. So damage to reputation is the only downside? Oh dear, everyone thinks I'm a mugger. Now hand over your wallet, and by my reputation you know what I'll do to you if you don't. And the person I spend your money with won't give a damn about my reputation because I'll have money to pay him with. He might not give a damn about having a reputation for dealing with muggers either, as long as the muggers keep paying him. Sure, ignore the people he deals with too. End result - the people with the bad reputation have everything whilst everyone else scrabbles for scraps in the dirt. Just the same as now, only more blatant and even more violent. The non-aggression principle isn't about pacifism. Defending yourself against someone trying to steal your stuff is acceptable. Removing the monopoly on violence, doesn't mean that you cannot defend yourself or ask others to assist. Additionally, a mugger isn't going to get a job, for fear that they will not deliver the goods. They will be stuck in a life of crime and violence unless they mend their ways. It's a career choice, I suppose, but not one many would consider a good one. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
57percent Posted February 29, 2012 Share Posted February 29, 2012 Rubbish it's all uber-manipulated Peer-reviewing is a constant cycle of lies by bull-shysters - cos the next scientist to further a subject disproves the previous "Peer reviewed" acceptance of a 'discovery' as a present day 'truth' endorsed by pompous asses who claim to know Watts Watt My understanding is that peer reviewing was created with the intention of weeding out bad science before it got into the main stream. It's now been perverted into a way for the older scientists to steal credit for stuff from the younger. Also, there's a study somewhere showing that over 50% of the peer reviewed stuff is later found out to be wrong, so important not to treat it as some kind of stamp of correctness. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vagabond Posted March 1, 2012 Share Posted March 1, 2012 http://rru.worldbank.org/Documents/PapersLinks/280-nenova-harford.pdf http://mises.org/daily/5418/Anarchy-in-Somalia http://www.independent.org/pdf/working_papers/64_somalia.pdf Interesting. They do appear to be using figures that include the areas that do have offical governence, even if its not recognised internationally though. Foreign Aid may well add a fair bit of zest to the figures as well. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Traktion Posted March 1, 2012 Share Posted March 1, 2012 Interesting. They do appear to be using figures that include the areas that do have offical governence, even if its not recognised internationally though. Foreign Aid may well add a fair bit of zest to the figures as well. From what I read (in those links or elsewhere), the taxation/donations (they only quoted expenditure and population) in the governed area is about 50c per person, per year. The average daily income is about $1, so it's about half an average day's income. For the UK, that would work out at about £70 per year - less than a month's council tax for most people in the UK. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vagabond Posted March 2, 2012 Share Posted March 2, 2012 From what I read (in those links or elsewhere), the taxation/donations (they only quoted expenditure and population) in the governed area is about 50c per person, per year. The average daily income is about $1, so it's about half an average day's income. For the UK, that would work out at about £70 per year - less than a month's council tax for most people in the UK. Yeah but my point was that in the governed areas you may have a better quality of life which pushes up the average for all area including the non-governed areas. In these areas there is at least a nominal state. Regardless of the level of taxation though, the state or governed area provides a certain measure of rule of law, which is the basic thing required for people to invest. Well, for outside investors at any rate. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Traktion Posted March 2, 2012 Share Posted March 2, 2012 Yeah but my point was that in the governed areas you may have a better quality of life which pushes up the average for all area including the non-governed areas. In these areas there is at least a nominal state. I have read nothing to suggest this assertion is true. The governed area has only been there for a few years, IIRC. Regardless of the level of taxation though, the state or governed area provides a certain measure of rule of law, which is the basic thing required for people to invest. Well, for outside investors at any rate. You don't need a state to have order. A polycentric legal system doesn't require a central government. English common law is actually an example of such a system. Some say a polycentric legal system isn't law at all, as compliance is optional. However, going against what others think is acceptable leads to alienation and ostracism. If others don't trust you, including insurers and traders, your options will decrease. While doing as the rules suggest is the prerogative of the individual, some choices will make like much easier than others. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.