In A Libertarian state how would the poor survive?

[vcs]

Haha Chomsky useless. Heard it all now.

You might not have heard of this, which is what compilers are built on.

 

[Munificent_Fool]

Because I referred to Michael Eric Dyson? He's been known as a useless intellectual far before Peterson

Not to you though...

 

[vcs]

Haha Chomsky useless. Heard it all now.

You might not have heard of this, which is what compilers are built on.

Jordan Peterson isn't even in the same galaxy w.r.t actual scientific accomplishments.

 

[Ikki]

Haha Chomsky useless. Heard it all now.

You might not have heard of this, which is what compilers are built on.

Chomsky is great on what he does...outside of it he's clueless. His views on economics are lolworthy. I used to think he was a genius too, then you realise he's an old man that really loves attention. Paul Krugman has won a Nobel Prize in Economics...he's a moron as well.

Jordan is in the top 0.5% cited in his field, the idea that he's a nobody is hilarious. Regardless, outside of his expertise, he's on the money with most things and he doesn't overextend himself.

Not to you though...

Nah, have known him well for a while. Just like Sharpton and JJ. They are race hustlers that sound smart to someone not knowledgable enough to know better.

 

[Ausage]

Socialism is an extremely broad term. I could write a long exegesis on its variants but we'd be here all night. The core tenet is worker control over production. That is not predicated on force, nor is it intrinsically tied to statism. In fact it's an antecedent to the deterioration of the state.

Ok. So how would the below example work in such a paradigm?

Person A wants to provide a service that requires more labor than one person can provide. They purchase the requisite infrastructure and come to agreements with persons B, C and D. The service is provided to a customer at an agreed price and person A discharges their duties to persons B/C/D and pockets the remainder.

Pretty standard free market scenario for providing a moderately complex service. How would such a service be provided in a world where workers have control over production that is not enforced by a state?

 

[Uppercut]

I find these political philosophies interesting for their own sake, but in practical terms I always wonder how a society would transition to them without descending into authoritarianism, and how their stability would be maintained once such a system would be in place.

 

[GIMH]

About a year that I've admitted it in that way, 18 months to 2 years when I've had to wake up every morning resisting the urge to admit it.

Been longer than that IMO. You were fully on board with POTP as soon as I recommended it.

"I'm an anarchist", he posted, shortly before he threatened to infract people for breaking a rule

Cevnoing

 

[Prince EWS]

Been longer than that IMO. You were fully on board with POTP as soon as I recommended it.

Yeah maybe it is a bit longer now, I've lost track. I was definitely already an anarchist when you recommended POTP to me, although I don't think I'd told CW that yet.

 

[StephenZA]

My interest is always how people distinguish 'the State' as almost a separate entity to society as a whole... I'm not talking size thereof (which I can understand the arguments of bigger vs smaller argument). I still have yet to see an organisation (of any sort) in society that does not have some sort of leadership governing, assigning tasks, protecting interests etc.

The other idea I find interesting is the word 'voluntary' that is used, not much in my life is voluntary, not in terms of wanting to do whatever I want, while I have made decisions in my life that determine my life path, it is within very specific limits of what is practicable. What I would voluntarily do outside those limits is very different of what I am able to do.

 

[Prince EWS]

My interest is always how people distinguish 'the State' as almost a separate entity to society as a whole... I'm not talking size thereof (which I can understand the arguments of bigger vs smaller argument). I still have yet to see an organisation (of any sort) in society that does not have some sort of leadership governing, assigning tasks, protecting interests etc.

The other idea I find interesting is the word 'voluntary' that is used, not much in my life is voluntary, not in terms of wanting to do whatever I want, while I have made decisions in my life that determine my life path, it is within very specific limits of what is practicable. What I would voluntarily do outside those limits is very different of what I am able to do.

Your questions (if I could call them questions - musing maybe?) are very much related.

A country club may have a leadership structures, rules of entry etc, but it doesn't have coercive power. If I don't like the country club, its fees or its rules, I can simply not join. The club could then exclude me from its property, but not impose any of its rules or fees on me. This makes it a voluntary institution as membership is voluntary and its rules only apply to its own property and the people who have voluntarily agreed to them.

A state institution on the other hand has coercive power -- if I don't like the rules, fees or leadership structure of the state, it can impose itself on me anyway, even outside its property. If your argument is in fact that the entire country is the property of the state and that, for example, the state telling me which plants I'm allowed to grow on my own property is in fact no different to the country club telling me which plants I can grow in the garden out of the front of the entrance - as the state is in fact the rightful owner of my house - then you have fully embraced communism (like silentstriker ). Most people don't embrace communism but argue that the involuntary nature of the state is a necessary evil to defend people from bad actors or fight inequality or grow the economy or protect jobs or prevent degeneracy or whatever else they want to outsource their violence/theft/threats to the state to achieve. A small number embrace communism, and even smaller number (including myself and GIMH) think the involuntary nature of the state makes it fundamentally immoral as an institution.

In terms of your other actions, you may be surprised to learn how many of them a voluntaryist would consider entirely voluntary. If no-one is threatening you with violence or theft, or defrauding you, then it's voluntary, at least in a philosophical sense to a voluntaryist. You may work off a different definition and I'm not particularly interested in dictionary wars, but that's certainly what I mean when I use the term, if it helps you understand my posts and where I'm coming from more.

 

[Dan]

Your questions (if I could call them questions - musing maybe?) are very much related.

A country club may have a leadership structures, rules of entry etc, but it doesn't have coercive power. If I don't like the country club, its fees or its rules, I can simply not join. The club could then exclude me from its property, but not impose any of its rules or fees on me. This makes it a voluntary institution as membership is voluntary and its rules only apply to its own property and the people who have voluntarily agreed to them.

A state institution on the other hand has coercive power -- if I don't like the rules, fees or leadership structure of the state, it can impose itself on me anyway, even outside its property. If your argument is in fact that the entire country is the property of the state and that, for example, the state telling me which plants I'm allowed to grow on my own property is in fact no different to the country club telling me which plants I can grow in the garden out of the front of the entrance - as the state is in fact the rightful owner of my house - then you have fully embraced communism (like silentstriker ). Most people don't embrace communism but argue that the involuntary nature of the state is a necessary evil to defend people from bad actors or fight inequality or grow the economy or protect jobs or prevent degeneracy or whatever else they want to outsource their violence/theft/threats to the state to achieve. A small number embrace communism, and even smaller number (including myself and GIMH) think the involuntary nature of the state makes it fundamentally immoral as an institution.

In terms of your other actions, you may be surprised to learn how many of them a voluntaryist would consider entirely voluntary. If no-one is threatening you with violence or theft, or defrauding you, then it's voluntary, at least in a philosophical sense to a voluntaryist. You may work off a different definition and I'm not particularly interested in dictionary wars, but that's certainly what I mean when I use the term, if it helps you understand my posts and where I'm coming from more.

Honestly Rob , I can't really be bothered arguing with a position like that. While I respect your right to have it, I think you're one exceptionally deluded individual, and I'm glad you're never likely to be in a position to implement your views.

 

[Athlai]

How disappointing to see that this is no longer a thread about cricsim.

 

[Prince EWS]

Honestly Rob , I can't really be bothered arguing with a position like that. While I respect your right to have it, I think you're one exceptionally deluded individual, and I'm glad you're never likely to be in a position to implement your views.

Haha it actually bothers me that people won't get the joke of this post.

 

[Athlai]

Haha it actually bothers me that people won't get the joke of this post.

Some bloke said this to Cribbage on FB.

/tldr

 

[Munificent_Fool]

Ok. So how would the below example work in such a paradigm?

Person A wants to provide a service that requires more labor than one person can provide. They purchase the requisite infrastructure and come to agreements with persons B, C and D. The service is provided to a customer at an agreed price and person A discharges their duties to persons B/C/D and pockets the remainder.

Pretty standard free market scenario for providing a moderately complex service. How would such a service be provided in a world where workers have control over production that is not enforced by a state?

How does any of this necessitate state intervention?

 

[Ausage]

How does any of this necessitate state intervention?

My scenario? It doesn't. The existence of a service being provided in a free market is pretty easy to understand. I was asking how "worker control over production" can exist without a state.

I understand that collectives can be voluntarily entered into. Is that all we're talking about here? If so, presumably no one is going to force people to enter such collectives and people will be free to enter corporate/worker arrangements as they currently exist?

 

[hendrix]

My scenario? It doesn't. The existence of a service being provided in a free market is pretty easy to understand. I was asking how "worker control over production" can exist without a state.

this is automatically the case when work is truly optional i.e. true freedom. No state required.

 

[Ausage]

this is automatically the case when work is truly optional i.e. true freedom. No state required.

Are you not just describing a world without slavery? Work is optional for me now because I'm an employee, not a slave. Not working is a bad option, but it is an option.

 

[hendrix]

Are you not just describing a world without slavery? Work is optional for me now because I'm an employee, not a slave. Not working is a bad option, but it is an option.

Unless you've discovered a way to live without eating or paying rent or maintaining your living quarters it's not an option.

 

[Ausage]

Unless you've discovered a way to live without eating or paying rent or maintaining your living quarters it's not an option.

Sure it is. I could mooch off my parents, my sister, my in-laws. I could live in a hut and survive off what I could hunt/forage. I could throw myself on the mercy of the kindness of strangers.

But I'm not the one proposing a stateless, worker controlled system. I'm just trying to figure out how such a system would work.

How are you obtaining food and living quarters (of a reasonable standard) without a) providing value in another area that is quantified using money or b) taking it?