In A Libertarian state how would the poor survive?

[Ausage]

Ausage is such a gun. No one line drive bys, sarcasm, personal attacks, aggression. He explains his position clearly when asked and is pretty much always respectful.

Regardless of whether you agree with his views I think most of the regulars in this subbie could learn from him.

While I appreciate the sentiment, I think this really could be applied to the majority of the regular posters in the OT sections of the forum. There's a bit of personal stuff, but that's dwarfed by an overall really good posting culture, particularly when you consider the diversity of viewpoints on display. I'm on other forums whos politics subforums are absolute **** shows.

I don't think the regulars need to learn from me. I think the world needs to learn from us.

 

[OverratedSanity]

While I appreciate the sentiment, I think this really could be applied to the majority of the regular posters in the OT sections of the forum. There's a bit of personal stuff, but that's dwarfed by an overall really good posting culture, particularly when you consider the diversity of viewpoints on display. I'm on other forums whos politics subforums are absolute **** shows.

I don't think the regulars need to learn from me. I think the world needs to learn from us.

P:sh look at Gandhi over here. Daemon must be jealous.

 

[Ausage]

Disappointed my one line drive bys are clearly not making an impact tbh.

 

[Spark]

Honestly, I don't know. I do very much share your wariness towards such terms, and skepticism about the true outcomes of change.



Would be interesting to see.

I've learned today that United Airlines is actually worked-owned as well, which actually makes me less positive towards the whole idea...

Just on the general discussions in the last page, it's worth noting that historically people have been willing to put up with an enormous amount and go to great lengths to avoid the situation where no one has a monopoly on force (i.e. there are multiple actors competing for monopoly on force in that certain region). Whether you think that internicine civil war is the inevitable result of anarchism (I personally do, which is a great shame because otherwise there's enormous appeal), it has to be remembered that most people will take almost anything you could offer them in exchange over that.

 

[Ikki]

Dude, I get that. But self defense also requires violence. How are you getting away from that? That's just a fact. My point was, violence is necessary. And someone has to make a call which violence was right (say, in self defense). That requires the deciding party to have a unique power.

Anarchists (not calling you that) can run as hard as they like from state violence, the requirement of that unique power will keep coming back to find them.

I'm not an anarchist but it's besides the point that an individual is also capable of violence. That doesn't justify state violence. If you're like Ausage and I, you at least recognise the evil and limit to where people like you may agree that self defence is a moral act. Attacking someone is not. That's why libertarians or classical liberals define these government actions as coercion: it is an immoral imposition.

I'm not getting away from anything. You initially responded to a comment in which the word violence was used in the context of initiated force. That these categories are different is important and I've been responding as such.

I think we've been talking across topics somewhat though. I understand where you're coming from more generally re anarchy. I struggle to conceptualize how components like law enforcement would work practically in such a society. What I will say is I don't think analogies to modern societies are that useful given the enormous number of things our enforcement have scope to prosecute and I don't think state run entities do a particularly good job even acknowledging that. The private sector might not have as high a bar to jump as we might think.

Like yourself, I think it is hard to imagine law enforcement wrt to anarchy but I don't think it is an impossibility or even improbability. For me, a lot of this has to do with culture. We have to reduce the size of government so that the culture between people necessitates private solutions and remedies. That way we can evolve and learn to co-exist without the state. The state in many ways is a technological tool that will be outdated.

If it's hard to imagine, we should remember that tens of thousands of years ago it was probably hard to imagine what we have now: rows of houses on streets where neighbours, by and large, rarely hurt each other. Where we can gather in stadiums with 100,000 people and violence being relatively rare. It's not something we cannot do but that we need is to create the culture for it in order to progress towards it.

But as long as statism is the cure to everything, the bonds between us that are defined by our culture, to get along with each other, cannot progress and will require more state force as state dependence becomes the norm.

 

[harsh.ag]

Like yourself, I think it is hard to imagine law enforcement wrt to anarchy but I don't think it is an impossibility or even improbability. For me, a lot of this has to do with culture. We have to reduce the size of government so that the culture between people necessitates private solutions and remedies. That way we can evolve and learn to co-exist without the state. The state in many ways is a technological tool that will be outdated.

If it's hard to imagine, we should remember that tens of thousands of years ago it was probably hard to imagine what we have now: rows of houses on streets where neighbours, by and large, rarely hurt each other. Where we can gather in stadiums with 100,000 people and violence being relatively rare. It's not something we cannot do but that we need is to create the culture for it in order to progress towards it.

But as long as statism is the cure to everything, the bonds between us that are defined by our culture, to get along with each other, cannot progress and will require more state force as state dependence becomes the norm.

Why do you just bypass incentives and only emphasize on culture?

 

[Burgey]

Ausage is such a gun. No one line drive bys, sarcasm, personal attacks, aggression. He explains his position clearly when asked and is pretty much always respectful.

Regardless of whether you agree with his views I think most of the regulars in this subbie could learn from him.

Agree with this. Ausage a terrific poster. Many of you have a lot to learn from his posting.

 

[Daemon]

Tbh I just posted that for the likes

 

[Ikki]

Why do you just bypass incentives and only emphasize on culture?

I don't understand, incentives in what regard? Incentives are also inbuilt in culture.

 

[harsh.ag]

Incentives shape culture too, and beyond that, makes people break norms.

Good culture won't fix the bad incentives generated by anarchy.

 

[Ikki]

Incentives shape culture too, and beyond that, makes people break norms.

Good culture won't fix the bad incentives generated by anarchy.

I think you need to frame this question or statement properly. Incentives are always there, it doesn't suggest that just because you may have an incentive to kill someone that you do it. There are a lot of things that are not prohibited by the state that you don't engage in.

 

[harsh.ag]

I think you need to frame this question or statement properly. Incentives are always there, it doesn't suggest that just because you may have an incentive to kill someone that you do it. There are a lot of things that are not prohibited by the state that you don't engage in.

Sure, but "I" am rich. If I was poor and someone I loved was dying for wont of money, there is no telling what I could do in an anarchy.

 

[Uppercut]

The ‘we can change the culture so that humans behave well enough to make this system work’ line is lifted straight from the Communists.

 

[Anil]

Agree with this. Ausage a terrific poster. Many of you have a lot to learn from his posting.

yeah agree with this, don't agree with a lot of what he says, but very even-keeled, respectful & detailed without being long-winded, i certainly have a lot to learn from his style of posting...

 

[Ikki]

Sure, but "I" am rich. If I was poor and someone I loved was dying for wont of money, there is no telling what I could do in an anarchy.

That isn't an anarchy problem, that situation can occur regardless of society.

The ‘we can change the culture so that humans behave well enough to make this system work’ line is lifted straight from the Communists.

So affecting culture is now communist? I'm pretty sure all ideologies try to affect culture.

Communists use coercion to change culture. Libertarianism uses freedom.

 

[harsh.ag]

That isn't an anarchy problem, that situation can occur regardless of society.

Of course, but the context was "it is hard to imagine law enforcement wrt to anarchy but I don't think it is an impossibility or even improbability".

 

[Spark]

I think the point more was that human nature can or even should be fundamentally rewritten in order to make a certain system work, rather than adapting that system to accommodate human nature, is the sort of blue-sky utopianism usually associated with hippies and Marxists.

 

[Ikki]

Of course, but the context was "it is hard to imagine law enforcement wrt to anarchy but I don't think it is an impossibility or even improbability".

So what's your issue?

I am not sure how a modern anarchic society would have a policing force but just because there is no state mandated law to police doesn't mean people will not attempt to redress grievances between themselves. It doesn't also mean that people will simply kill each other.

I think the point more was that human nature can or even should be fundamentally rewritten in order to make a certain system work, rather than adapting that system to accommodate human nature, is the sort of blue-sky utopianism usually associated with hippies and Marxists.

What I suggested is neither.