You are viewing a single comment's thread from:
RE: Reviewing Basic Voluntaryist Ideas for Beginners
I think voluntaryists and anarchists fail to understand why societies and governments exist. I support fighting for change but there are reasons to have leaders, we just need better ones who are not corrupt and do the right thing.
I am not against leaders if they are chosen freely and consensually by each individual under their leadership. I am against ruling others by violent force and non-consent.
I think all human interaction should be consensual. Don’t you?
That will never happen.
No. Perhaps 99% should be maybe even 99.99 percent but it's not consensual when murderers, rapists and thugs get arrested.
Yes we do need more freedom and we should work to get it but we should acknowledge the realities of our societies and work to improve them.
It'll never happen? Asking for people to be equal under the law is too much to ask for? The difference between a ruler and a leader is the ruler is not equal under the law to others. Them and their agents are protected and are provided special protections.
That's common sense to ask that everyone be equal under the law, and the law should be simple and based off damage done to people or their property. You'd also be held accountable for breaking your word (contract law). This shit isn't complicated. It also doesn't require rulers.
Saying “that will never happen” is not an answer to the question.
Sure, there will always be problems, but governance today (statism) is based on the belief that human interaction doesn’t need to be consensual to be ethical.
Do you agree, or disagree?
I think it is ethical to make murder illegal and use economies of scale. A lot of what government does is ethical and a lot of it is unethical.
Government (all modern government) is funded via extortion (theft) and thus cannot be described as ethical.
Yeah good talking point. It does take theft to jail a murderer. We could eliminate our democracy and eliminate government but we would probably need to form a new one. I'm with you in theory and we need to dramatically reduce the size of government but the government is similar to a union. I think after voluntaryists figure out a plan to eliminate murder and build roads and provide trash collection I think then we can start talking about ethics. We do need to reduce government and reduce taxation though. We should be able to fund the Federal government with tariffs and no income tax and I don't think there should be state income taxes either.
No, it does not. PEople who aggressed unethically against others would be outlaws. They would lose the protections of common law courts made of volunteers. It would be a very hard life. People like me would gladly hunt predators like them down like the dogs they are too. You don't have to steal from people to have that process work either. I'm a private investigator. There are bounty hunters. Lawyers would still find work. The system as we know it today would still continue, but it would be lacking all of the major corruption, special protections, and double standards.
There is no need for a plan to eliminate murder. That’s a utopian idea. Private companies are already building roads. Voluntaryism makes the realistic and moral suggestion that violence isn’t necessary for peace. Anything that says someone must be violated for order to exist is a position out of touch with both ethics and reality.
In the imaginary world of anarchism and voluntaryism I think murders, rapes and theft would be much higher.
As long as there are bad people in the world we will need to combat them with violence.
In addition although voluntaryism is nice on paper economies of scale are real. It's a bit of a pain to be off grid or for a small group of individuals to make their own grid. Generally private companies are not going to build roads for free and would expect to get paid for it.
Under voluntaryism and anarchism if someone has a problem with you couldn't they execute you if they feel like it? If you support individualism why would somebody care if someone else got murdered especially if they could just take your stuff if they knew you were dead?
I assume people would step forward and do charity under voluntaryism but if not would it be ok for hospitals to deny medical care for people who can not pay and let them bleed out? What about ambulances? Just not show up if people can't pay?
Yeah, uhm, thanks for making this easy.
Leaders are not protected by double standards or special protections. The entire court system would not be on their side and biased. They wouldn't have free legal defense. Their actions would have the same consequences as everyone else. Oh, most importantly, they would be equal under the law.
Pfft
Come on!