European Splintering Escalates: Dutch Government Falls; Slovakia Government Collapsed In March; Czech Government Collapse Coming Right Up

[Traktion]

I would phrase this slightly differently : No decent state would control its people beyond the level at which a super majority (say 2/3 or even 3/4) consent to being controlled. Any state which exerts more control is definitionally statist.

I agree completely with the rest of your post.

IMO, the only useful place for democracy, is when membership of said organisation is optional. For instance, a cooperative/mutual could take votes on how to run the business.

When it comes to deciding how to force people to do one thing or another though, I don't think democracy is an acceptable solution.

For law and order, courts can judge who is due compensation and when.

[mfp123]

IMO, the only useful place for democracy, is when membership of said organisation is optional. For instance, a cooperative/mutual could take votes on how to run the business.

When it comes to deciding how to force people to do one thing or another though, I don't think democracy is an acceptable solution.

For law and order, courts can judge who is due compensation and when.

why should a court or arbitrar ever get involved in a stateless society? its got nothing to do with them, they are interfering in other peoples affairs.

if i steal something from you its between you and me and no one else.

Edited April 26, 2012 by mfp123

[the shaping machine]

How would all this work in a practical manner.

I'll bite on a few of these...

Take student fees, how would they pay them?

You'd get a loan from the same kind of organisations that provide loans now.

You might reply, the same as now, with a loan. But what if no-one would make loans?

If no one is willing to loan you money on an invetsment, then you aren't a very good risk. You will just have to find another way to get your education (apprenticeships, self teaching, etc).

Who would want to pay for medical research if they were not ill?

The state isn't the only source of funding for research, besides which the ill are even now probably a very good source of funding.

Who would do the planning (New roads bridges etc.)

Planning, yuck, don't bother. Roads are part of the minimum common infrastructure, and should logically be paid by all who use it (e.g. hypothecated petrol taxation).

Take policing, it is argued that you would buy the level of security you needed, but what if you had been murdered?

An effective police force could probably be largely financed by fines on offenders, plus contributions from insurance firms.

To help: repeal the handgun ban and we can all lend a hand.

And, who would deal with AGW?

I don't think anyone is really dealing with it now.

[Traktion]

Is the deeper problem that we have to reject the notion of the nation state as a necessary condition for the removal of threats and theft?

Yes, I think that is at the heart of it.

[the shaping machine]

BTW, I'm personally more of a minarchist than an anarchist.

Edited April 26, 2012 by the shaping machine

[Traktion]

why should a court or arbitrar ever get involved in a stateless society? its got nothing to do with them, they are interfering in other peoples affairs.

if i steal something from you its between you and me and no one else.

It is on the request of the victim.

When someone feels they are owed damages, there is a demand for arbitration. Especially for good, fair, ones.

Additionally, where contracts are involved, arbitrators may be listed in the T&Cs, to adjudicate when there is a dispute.

[Georgia O'Keeffe]

BTW, I'm personally more of a minarchist than an anarchist.

whilst im statist from a realist and easy life point of view (i can adapt or move to any state that i feel benefits me personally) there is simply no moral basis in statism any more or less than there is a moral basis in monarchy, slavery, autocracy, democracy, fascism, racism, sexism, socialism,capitalism or any other violently imposed redistributionism for the greater good, there are degrees of preference but not one of them has the moral high ground outside of absolute freedom and social etiquette, but whether that is ultimately obtainable is another matter.

My driving social belief is that there are no Special flowers and to create and accept them under force is a degree of slavery

Edited April 26, 2012 by Georgia O'Keeffe

[mfp123]

It is on the request of the victim.

When someone feels they are owed damages, there is a demand for arbitration. Especially for good, fair, ones.

Additionally, where contracts are involved, arbitrators may be listed in the T&Cs, to adjudicate when there is a dispute.

thats irrelevant. you advocate a stateless society but apply the concepts of a state.

in your world only relationships matter between individuals, what an arbitrar decides is fair or not is neither here nor there.

there is only me and you and direct relationships in the stateless society, the arbitrar has no right to tell me to compensate you or whatever (and act like a state).

[Traktion]

if i stand on your land would you threaten me off your land?

threats are wrong remember so presumably you would engage in no threats to me, youd just leave me alone?

Yep. If you aren't damaging anything, no compensation is due.

is violence wrong? what if i attacked you and your family would you try to stop me? hit me maybe?

if so, youre using violence against me.

you would justify using violence based on your own moral principle. so it can be justified. the state can justify using violence also based on moral principle.

The non-aggression principle is not called the pacifist principle. If someone is trying to harm you, it seems entirely reasonable to try to prevent them from doing so, just to restore neutrality.

it doesnt have to be your moral principle. you dont get to choose where that line is drawn. the world doesnt revolve around you.

so to just say threats and violence is wrong therefore tax is wrong is looking at things through blind logic.

Universally preferable behaviour implies that you should only do to others, what you would be happy to have done to yourself.

If you're saying that it is fine for you to attack people, but not for them to attack you, you're contradicting yourself. Or, 'do to others as you would have done to yourself'.

[Traktion]

thats irrelevant. you advocate a stateless society but apply the concepts of a state.

in your world only relationships matter between individuals, what an arbitrar decides is fair or not is neither here nor there.

there is only me and you and direct relationships in the stateless society, the arbitrar has no right to tell me to compensate you or whatever (and act like a state).

I am free to ask the opinion of another in a free society.

You are free to reject their judgement in a free society too.

However, if you reject the judgement of a well respected and supported arbitrator, you are risking ostracism.

[the shaping machine]

...there is simply no moral basis in statism any more or less than there is a moral basis in monarchy, slavery, autocracy, democracy, fascism, racism, sexism, socialism,capitalism or any other violently imposed redistributionism for the greater good,

Exactly, just ask for our permission first, everyone should have the right to say no.

My driving social belief is that there are no Special flowers and to create and accept them under force is a degree of slavery

I rather suspect that violence isn't actually a requirement for a workable state to exist, but that for for some people, the presence of force is the point.

[mfp123]

Yep. If you aren't damaging anything, no compensation is due.

The non-aggression principle is not called the pacifist principle. If someone is trying to harm you, it seems entirely reasonable to try to prevent them from doing so, just to restore neutrality.

Universally preferable behaviour implies that you should only do to others, what you would be happy to have done to yourself.

If you're saying that it is fine for you to attack people, but not for them to attack you, you're contradicting yourself. Or, 'do to others as you would have done to yourself'.

so there are circumstances in which breaking your principle of not threatening people and not using violence can be justified.

the point is we all have different lines when it comes to morals. you might not threaten me off your land but another person might and deem it to be justified.

that simple fact alone means that there are no distinct black and white lines of when threats and violence is justified.

can threats and violence from the state through taxation be justifed? yes it can.

we all have different degrees of moral justification. but can state force be justified morally? yes.

can robin hoods actions be morally justified? using your blind logic, stealing anything from someone is wrong. another group might say taking from some people to feed the poor is morally ok.

so your simple logic of tax is theft and theft is wrong is poor logic. there are different degrees of moral justification with everything.

Edited April 26, 2012 by mfp123

[mfp123]

I am free to ask the opinion of another in a free society.

You are free to reject their judgement in a free society too.

However, if you reject the judgement of a well respected and supported arbitrator, you are risking ostracism.

without law, contracts have no legal basis, so if i break a contract there can be no repercussions because i havent dont anything wrong. all ive done is broken an informal agreement.

so why would an arbitrar need to get involved in an informal agreement? ive said id do something for you but i didnt. why should anyone else need to get involved?

its seems to me youre now advocating the involvement of third parties to interfere in private relationships.

if i risk ostracism if i dont comply, could that be deemed a threat??

on a personal basis if in my opinion i feel it does, and of course threats are wrong, it shouldnt be allowed, no?

Edited April 26, 2012 by mfp123

[Lepista]

so there are circumstances in which your principle of not threatening people and not using violence can be justified.

the point is we all have different lines when it comes to morals. you might not threaten me off your land but another person might and deem it to be justified.

that simple fact alone means that there are no distinct black and white lines of when threats and violence is justified.

can threats and violence from the state through taxation be justifed? yes it can.

we all have different degrees of moral justification. but can state force be justified morally? yes.

can robin hoods actions be morally justified? using your blind logic, stealing anything from someone is wrong. another group might say taking from some people to feed the poor is morally ok.

so your simple logic of tax is theft and theft is wrong is poor logic. there are different degrees of moral justification with everything.

This is where me and Traktion (and, in deed, Injin) part company - I think there is a minimum level of "state" that is inevitable to be applied. It's not necessarily inconsistent with reducing the state as far as possible. applying the principle tenets could justify such a thing. However, the list of tenets should be stated up front, of which "not stealing" is just one. A bit like a set of commandments", the moral rules that drive all of society.

I even think that some form of elected governent would be possible - based on them listing out their "core principals" - their commandments that all judgements and rules would be made.

[Georgia O'Keeffe]

This is where me and Traktion (and, in deed, Injin) part company - I think there is a minimum level of "state" that is inevitable to be applied. It's not necessarily inconsistent with reducing the state as far as possible. applying the principle tenets could justify such a thing. However, the list of tenets should be stated up front, of which "not stealing" is just one. A bit like a set of commandments", the moral rules that drive all of society.

I even think that some form of elected governent would be possible - based on them listing out their "core principals" - their commandments that all judgements and rules would be made.

that simply doesnt work, the magna carta is somewhat a defining document and from there it was dare i say it even improved by the Constitution, both documents are works of humanitarian art laying out clear, specifically defined rights and have gradually been eroded over time by the state via sloth, lazyness,complacency, whatever and individual rights and freedoms have been gradually eroded by the state, the only developed country that has stayed anywhere near its fundamental pillars is Switzerland with the Ewiger Bund der Drei Waldstätten and on numerous occasions in the last century the federal state has tested its removal. People are too devious to give special flower status to no matter how strong your 10 commandments or constitution.

If the ending of this multigenerational debt cycle and the technological advantage of access to education cant highlight the detrimental effect of special flowers and apparatchiks at all times then i guess nothing will

Edited April 26, 2012 by Georgia O'Keeffe

[Traktion]

How would all this work in a practical manner.

I would suggest reading some Murray Rothbard, if you are genuinely interested. This is a good free one to start on: http://mises.org/rothbard/foranewlb.pdf

I would also suggest reading (or listening - audio books are there) a few of Stephan Molyneux's books: http://www.freedomainradio.com/FreeBooks.aspx

For the latter, 'Everyday Anarchy' and 'Practical Anarchy' list many solutions to such problems. 'Universally Preferable Behaviour' is also a good read, which attempts to define core morality by first principles.

I would also watch many of Stefan's Molyneux's videos, as he has some really good ones. There are hundreds on YouTube.

I will go over some of your points, but really these aren't the sort of questions which can be answered in a few forum posts.

Take student fees, how would they pay them?

Much like they are now. Loans, bursaries and so on.

You could also buy equity in a person's career, rather than lending them money. This could result in a share of earnings occurring for a pre-defined period, but only if earnings are made.

You might reply, the same as now, with a loan. But what if no-one would make loans?

Grants and bursaries from existing companies. Charities, churches and lottery funds may also contribute, especially if the individual is fairly gifted.

What about the armed forces, would people really buy their services, would you like to see commercial armies competing for your custom?

I would expect far less to be spent and for defence to really be defence. A defence agency would be unlikely to get funding to roam the planet, picking fights.

Who would want to pay for medical research if they were not ill?

I should imagine that rich folk nearing death would pay almost any sum to live. You can't take wealth with you when you die.

I suspect there would be many charities raising funding for research (much as they are today).

Even if you weren't ill, you would probably also pay for insurance, in case you became ill. It may be that they agree to spend a certain percentage on R&D, as part of the T&Cs.

Who would do the planning (New roads bridges etc.)

I would suggest it isn't needed.

Gas pipes were built from one end of the US to the other, all without compulsory purchase orders. They just auctioned off several routes and the first which was agreed (and contracted for), was committed to.

If you aren't damaging anyone, there is no reason for people to stop you building something somewhere. As people will likely have insurance against pollution, the insurance companies would act on behalf of their clients to claim damages if such pollution occurred.

If people didn't want their view spoiled, land preserved and so forth, they could group together and buy it, much like the natural trust does (ignoring their rotten history for the moment).

Re roads in general, you could have tolls, automatically billed. You could also have subscriptions to groups of roads which you use most.

Road owners could also be mutuals too, with each subscriber having a share and a vote in the way the road was run. You could have annual auctions where all share holdings were ceased and re-sold, with a single person only being allowed one share or some such. This way, you commonly own the roads you use and have a vote in how they are run, should you want one.

Hospitals, schools etc could also be mutual cooperatives, with both the workers and the customers having a say in how they are run, should they decide to work/buy from them. This way, such organisations could be commonly owned, democratically accountable to their workers and customers, while also facing market forces.

Because we have a state, then we can deal with more complicated things, so you could contrast Pasteur, working almost alone at a small pox vaccine, with modern day genetic research requiring a small army of different disciplines. But if you do not have a genetic disease, would you want to buy their services?

IIRC, we are still using many treatments from before the time private patents were common. Some of these guys even gave away their findings for the greater good.

There is a good section on patents in 'Against Intellectual Monopoly' (in my sig) if you're interested. It also has many alternative ways to work without IP.

Take policing, it is argued that you would buy the level of security you needed, but what if you had been murdered? If you didn't have family or friends willing to pay for a long expensive investigation, murderers would get off scott free.

Policing has only become the responsibility of the state for less than 200 years. State fire services only about 70 or so. Volunteers, insurance and so forth have dealt with these problems in the past and they would no doubt cope again in the future.

However, if you didn't have any friends or family, you may have life insurance anyway (for your mortgage or even for a charity/organisation, just to deter murderers). To recover due fees, the insurers would fund the policing and legal action.

If you don't have friends, family or insurance, as well as enemies, it is likely you will have been ostracised for doing something bad. If you wanted to get out of this situation, you could pay to stay in secure premises, while agreeing to compensate those who feel aggrieved. We would probably call such places prisons in a statist system, but in a free market, they could be optional and for your own safety.

And, who would deal with AGW?

I await your answers

AGW isn't really being dealt with now. If it is a problem, then you could attempt to claim damages if the weather has changed and affected your ability to grow crops. Again, insurance could be involved here (see pollution above).

If the evidence is compelling, individuals can act too. They can change their own habits, not only in their own efficiencies, but also who they buy things from.

There are many, many solutions to problems which don't require aggression/theft. Individuals in a free market will come up with all sorts of ways to deal with problems, should we let them.

[Traktion]

so there are circumstances in which breaking your principle of not threatening people and not using violence can be justified.

I would never attack another person. That's all the non-aggression principle is about.

If I wanted to sell someone some stuff/services, I wouldn't threaten to attack them if they said no.

That's all I've ever said. I've never claimed to be a pacifist, nor that everyone needs to be one. It would be desirable if people didn't feel the need to attack one another, but people seem to assume the non-aggression principle implies a non-defence principle, which isn't true.

It's probably why people often accuse anarchists of needing a world with no violent people in it. This is not at all true.

the point is we all have different lines when it comes to morals. you might not threaten me off your land but another person might and deem it to be justified.

They might deem it justified, but what damages are they claiming? What harm was done?

Every court and judge is different both with or without a state. However, good judges cut through to the facts and people respect their opinions.

A fair judge will likely ask what harm was done and award damages. If you beat someone up for doing no damage to your land, then they would likely have a stronger counter claim against your actions.

that simple fact alone means that there are no distinct black and white lines of when threats and violence is justified.

Aggression is rarely justified. Defending your property (including yourself, which you own) would be acceptable to almost everyone.

However, forcing 'services' and 'protection' on people and then asking them to pay up or else, isn't justified. No damages were due, so no aggression is warranted.

can threats and violence from the state through taxation be justifed? yes it can.

we all have different degrees of moral justification. but can state force be justified morally? yes.

Clearly people can justify it. However, by doing so they're usually contradicting themselves.

If you make it acceptable to force services and protection on people, then demand payment, then any organisation should be able to do the same.

can robin hoods actions be morally justified? using your blind logic, stealing anything from someone is wrong. another group might say taking from some people to feed the poor is morally ok.

so your simple logic of tax is theft and theft is wrong is poor logic. there are different degrees of moral justification with everything.

If you think stealing is wrong, taking from the rich to give to the poor is still wrong. You may think it is a lesser crime than other theft, but it is still theft.

Without a strong moral position, you can justify anything on it being for some personal/common greater good. You then end up with mob rule and a free for all. Is it any wonder that our modern statist society reflects such selfish traits?

[Snugglybear]

<snip> However, if you didn't have any friends or family, you may have life insurance anyway (for your mortgage or even for a charity/organisation, just to deter murderers). To recover due fees, the insurers would fund the policing and legal action. <snip>

Out of interest... Who would do the policing the insurers funded and what would their powers be? Where would the legal action take place?

[Lepista]

A fair judge will likely ask what harm was done and award damages. If you beat someone up for doing no damage to your land, then they would likely have a stronger counter claim against your actions.

If you build a bridge, with the idea of extractin a toll from everyone who walks acroos it, and someone doesn't pay, what damage has been done?

[Traktion]

without law, contracts have no legal basis, so if i break a contract there can be no repercussions because i havent dont anything wrong. all ive done is broken an informal agreement.

A contract is just a formal agreement, with terms and conditions. If you keep breaking your word, people will stop trading with you. Therefore, it is in both parties' interest to honour agreements.

If you are concerned that the other party is flighty, then you may choose to only do business with them if they pay for contract insurance. If they then break their contract, the insurer pays on their behalf. If they can't get insurance, due to having a record of breaking contracts, then they won't get the trade and will be poorer for it.

so why would an arbitrar need to get involved in an informal agreement? ive said id do something for you but i didnt. why should anyone else need to get involved?

Because it was agreed. If you break your word, see above.

its seems to me youre now advocating the involvement of third parties to interfere in private relationships.

Anyone is free to ask another for their opinion. If it is valued by others, disagreeing with it may decrease the quality of your life. You are free to ignore it though - it's your choice.

if i risk ostracism if i dont comply, could that be deemed a threat??

on a personal basis if in my opinion i feel it does, and of course threats are wrong, it shouldnt be allowed, no?

Ostracism is the natural consequence of behaving badly towards people. It's cause and effect.

As you find the idea of ostracism threatening, it is in your interest not to do bad to other people.

BTW, we can play this game of you trying to catch me out on a technicality all night. TBH, I'm mostly replying for the benefit of others, who may genuinely be looking for answers.

[Traktion]

Out of interest... Who would do the policing the insurers funded and what would their powers be? Where would the legal action take place?

No one can know for sure how these things would work - that would be central planning - but the market will find solutions. It could be something like this:

Private detective agencies would likely be used to find the culprit.

Once the suspect had been identified, the insurer would ask a court to hear the case and the suspect would be invited to defend themselves.

If the suspect decided not to defend themselves, the court could still make a judgement in their absence.

If the suspect was found guilty, they would be invoiced for due damages.

If the suspect refused to pay the damages, their refusal would be published for all to see. However, they could appeal, especially if the judge had a poor reputation for fairness.

Insurers, traders and anyone else who wanted to access the quality of the individual could then act on the information. This could lead to them retracting their services, their friendship, their charity and so forth. In short, they would risk ostracism.

I hope that helps.

[Traktion]

If you build a bridge, with the idea of extractin a toll from everyone who walks acroos it, and someone doesn't pay, what damage has been done?

That's a good question.

Clearly, the damages due would be very small, as you suggest. You would probably just try to prevent their access in the first place (security guards, barriers, spikes in the road etc - all clearly telegraphed ahead of time). They would be unlikely to risk damaging their car/persons to circumvent this.

I'm sure a legal expert could give you a better answer though.

edit: noticed you said walk, not drive - updated.

Edited April 26, 2012 by Traktion

[Traktion]

This is where me and Traktion (and, in deed, Injin) part company - I think there is a minimum level of "state" that is inevitable to be applied. It's not necessarily inconsistent with reducing the state as far as possible. applying the principle tenets could justify such a thing. However, the list of tenets should be stated up front, of which "not stealing" is just one. A bit like a set of commandments", the moral rules that drive all of society.

I even think that some form of elected governent would be possible - based on them listing out their "core principals" - their commandments that all judgements and rules would be made.

that simply doesnt work, the magna carta is somewhat a defining document and from there it was dare i say it even improved by the Constitution, both documents are works of humanitarian art laying out clear, specifically defined rights and have gradually been eroded over time by the state via sloth, lazyness,complacency, whatever and individual rights and freedoms have been gradually eroded by the state, the only developed country that has stayed anywhere near its fundamental pillars is Switzerland with the Ewiger Bund der Drei Waldstätten and on numerous occasions in the last century the federal state has tested its removal. People are too devious to give special flower status to no matter how strong your 10 commandments or constitution.

If the ending of this multigenerational debt cycle and the technological advantage of access to education cant highlight the detrimental effect of special flowers and apparatchiks at all times then i guess nothing will

Yes - the US constitution was said to be one of the best and clearest ever produced, which should have resulted in a small state with limited power. The USA now has the largest state in history.

TBH, I think if someone is content to have a state without the power to tax, you're basically looking at a service provider anyway... which is essentially how a voluntary, state free society would operate.

[Snugglybear]

No one can know for sure how these things would work - that would be central planning - but the market will find solutions. It could be something like this:

Private detective agencies would likely be used to find the culprit.

Once the suspect had been identified, the insurer would ask a court to hear the case and the suspect would be invited to defend themselves.

If the suspect decided not to defend themselves, the court could still make a judgement in their absence.

If the suspect was found guilty, they would be invoiced for due damages.

If the suspect refused to pay the damages, their refusal would be published for all to see. However, they could appeal, especially if the judge had a poor reputation for fairness.

Insurers, traders and anyone else who wanted to access the quality of the individual could then act on the information. This could lead to them retracting their services, their friendship, their charity and so forth. In short, they would risk ostracism.

I hope that helps.

So there would be courts. Who would appoint the judges? Would appointments be voted on? And would they have a kind of rule book by which to judge behaviour, in the case of personal injury of any sort, or a copy of a written agreement, in the case of disputes about goods and services? Or would they just take oral evidence and use their own judgement to decide?

[Traktion]

Again, all just my thoughts/musings... I can only guesstimate how a free market would handle this stuff.

So there would be courts.

Yes, although they may not take the same format as they do now. Some arbitration maybe professional, but rather informal, for instance. Others may be very formal and have a full compliment of voluntary jurors.

Who would appoint the judges?

In a sense, you or I, or rather the market.

Anyone could offer arbitration services. I would suspect that providing arbitration for simple cases would build a judges reputation, allowing them to be chosen for more serious cases.

I would also expect that a reputable judge/court would have more weight in its judgements than the less reputable. If a case has been heard by the latter, it would likely be appealed to one of the former (if they agreed, the less reputable would have gained respect too).

I would also imagine that insurers, big businesses and so forth would lead the way, as they would be likely to use the courts more than individuals. It may be that these companies have accredited courts which they used routinely, with smaller courts being able to request membership and so forth.

Would appointments be voted on?

If the courts were mutuals, sure. It may be that some courts are community owned, with those subscribers having a vote on who can judge. Other courts may not and may be more market driven.

Ultimately, a court's success will depend on which courts people use, like and trust.

And would they have a kind of rule book by which to judge behaviour, in the case of personal injury of any sort, or a copy of a written agreement, in the case of disputes about goods and services?

Or would they just take oral evidence and use their own judgement to decide?

Again, it would likely depend on what worked well.

I would imagine people would respect a consistent and fair standard on which all courts were built on. I would expect that murder, theft, rape and so forth would be considered universally bad. I would also expect requests for damages/compensation to be the primary form of punishment (even English Common Law has precedence here).

I would imagine insurance would become even more integral in our lives. We would likely have insurance covering all sorts of things, with them chasing the other party for damages should it be required (much like with car insurance, for instance). This would likely cover the personal injury cases too.

You may also insure yourself during trades, much like credit cards provide. It may be that traders seek accreditation from insurers, which binds them to a contract to trade in a professional way (not ripping people off, not shipping goods etc). If you then get ripped off, you just go to your insurer, ask for your money and then let the insurer seek damages.

I would imagine the courts would take all sorts of evidence. Again, this would depend on what people thought worked best.

All this stuff is very 'what if...' and you can think about all different ways this stuff could work. I'm sure there are many greater minds than mine who could think of better ways too, so these are just suggestions.