Big FREEDOM! Stuff > The Philosophy of Freedom/Libertarianism/Doctrine of free will
Help me understand a Voluntarist society
badfish:
I have long considered myself a minimalist libertarian. I believed that government was necessary, however only for enforcement of an infringement of somebody else's rights. In other words, I have trouble understanding how the world could run without some laws and law enforcement that establish punishments for somebody who infringes on my rights. I would love to believe that we could have a society without government, but every time somebody brings up this argument I have never heard the argument go past the whole, "The market will demand protection, so somebody will step up to fill that void" argument. I hear it come up quite a bit when somebody tries to explain anarchism, but the other person never drills into that statement with, in my view, the right questions. Often they drill into with questions that don't make any sense and are easily explained away. One question that I feel is not asked is...
Let's say somebody is raped, and hires somebody on the market to look into the matter. What gives the free market vigilante the right to infringe on the rapists rights? Many times cases of rape are actually just cases where two people both drank too much and somebody regrets or doesn't remember what happened due to being intoxicated. I have actually seen this scenario play out many times. Maybe the defendant is not really a rapist, but the person who was hired isn't paid by the defendant so they will not want to listen to them. What if the rapist really is a rapist, but pays the vigilante even more money to leave him alone? It is a free market society after-all, and the highest bidder wins. This is where I see the problem. I feel like there has to be some agreed upon system in place to handle situations like this. In a utopia nobody would ever get raped, but I don't believe in man-kind that much.
Can somebody help me with this question? I would love to be able to back up a complete voluntary society argument, but until I believe in it 100% I will not be able to. In my view, we should not advocate for something until we have at least most of the answers. This is why I support Gary Johnson. I believe getting America away from this oppression will take many years, and must be done slowly. It can't be done in one term of a presidency. Maybe 2, but more likely 5-6 in my view. I believe in baby steps, but I don't believe in supporting Donald Trump just because he is not "establishment". It would be one step in the right direction to get people away from the establishment, but six steps in the wrong direction. If we choose somebody who could potentially make things worse it will only hurt the cause. We all know if a Trump presidency fails that the citizens will elect a Bernie Sanders or Hillary Clinton next election cycle (a huge step in the wrong direction). I hope I don't get bashed over this as I truly am just trying to make sense of things here. I am on your side! I promise!
badfish:
Anybody? Does Adam read the forums or is there an email address that he uses? I would love to get his opinion on some things. The more I think about it the more questions I seem to have. Like, what about prison? I realize we could have private prisons (we basically do now), but who would be the one that decides somebody is guilty and ultimately takes away somebodies rights by putting them into prison? In my opinion one of the biggest problems we have with private prisons now is that they can basically lobby for laws to keep and/or put more people in jail so they make more money. If there was no oversight or accountability this could get even worse.
An example of the closest thing to a voluntary society that I see working is as follows. I'm just making this up as I go, so I'm sure there are some flaws here, but this is the type of detailed explanation I would like to see somebody give when talking about a voluntary society. By the way I am extremely open minded, so feel free to comment on anything and if it makes sense I will most likely change my mind about it (after I give it some thought of course. I'm open minded, not gullible).
Laws: The only laws in effect would have to do with violating another persons rights. The rights would need to be very clear and based upon the lines of complete freedom as long as you do not infringe upon somebody else's rights. There are different types of laws that need to be created to protect peoples rights. They can be categorized into four different categories (CRI, PRI, BRI, SRI - with and without intent).
1. Corporal Rights Infringement (CRI)
A. With Intent (violent crimes, murder, rape, kidnapping, etc.)
B. Without Intent (manslaughter, bodily harm due to negligence, etc.)
2. Property Rights Infringement (PRI)
A. With Intent (vandalism, theft, etc.)
B. Without Intent (property damage due to negligence)
3. Buyer Rights Infringement (BRI)
A. With Intent (False advertising by seller, intentional breach of contract by seller, etc.)
B. Without Intent (a service or product that causes harm to the buyer due to negligence)
4. Seller Rights Infringement (SRI)
A. With Intent (Intentional breach of contract by consumer)
B. Without Intent (short term breach of contract without intent)
There would need to be a court system setup to handle these cases. The court system would be paid for by those who violate rights. If you violate a right that constitutes a prison sentence, then part of your sentence will be working to literally pay off your debt to society. Other rights infringements may only result in a fine. I know some people might not like this, but I believe if you commit murder you should not just sit in a cell and think about what you did. You should be put to work and pay monetary restitution to society and those who you harmed. We do need to get better at making sure people are actually guilty before sentencing though.
Roads and Highways: Roads and highways would be paid for by businesses and residents. Businesses could agree upon a percentage of their sales going towards the roads around their business that allow consumers to get to their stores. Residents would pay for the roads in their neighborhood as they are the only ones who use them, and without them their property values would go down. Other roads and highways could be paid for by electronic wireless toll systems (automatic payments as you pass by). If you don't want to contribute to the road then you don't have to use it.
Military: Our Military (or states militias) would be funded per cause. The more support the people have for the cause the more money they will get. For the most part people would opt for us to stay out of other countries affairs when it comes down to a choice of whether or not to fund it. In times of emergencies when our country is under attack a temporary tax may be in order to fund our defense and counter attack. War time leaders can be elected in times of war, however regular re-elections would need to take place to prevent the leaders from keeping the war going to stay in power.
Government: Any changes to the system would not be done by elected officials. In today's day in age we have the technology for everybody to voice their opinion and vote for what they want. The whole government representative thing was setup because it was impossible to do it any other way. That and they didn't think the people were smart enough to make these decisions. I believe if everybody independently researches issues that they would be more than capable of voting for things on their own. There would need to be a check in place that prevents people from voting laws in that violate the basis of, "complete freedom as long as you do not infringe upon somebody else's rights".
I will stop here for now. Looking forward to hearing other ways of making a voluntary society actually work. I realize there are parts of this that aren't voluntary, however I don't see ways around them at the moment.
roarde:
Hi, badfish. Learning to explain better the things we do understand, and to explore more the ones we don't, are why this part of the forum is here. Responses are slow in coming at present because the forum itself is too new to have attracted a large number of potential repliers. People are reading this and are interested, but you've offered so much to comment on and think about that going through it will take some time. Myself, I find it a bit intimidating -- in the good way --, but only at first. Thanks for asking these questions.
As for Adam, I'm not in touch with him myself but a look at his YouTube channel shows him to be presently busy dealing with harassment by people who think they've been appointed to tell him how, where, and whether to house himself and his loved one; and to be heavily compensated by him for their unwanted intrusions. In short, he's dealing with local permits, zoning, so on. I have seen him participate on the forum regularly when he's not as constrained.
My own time is limited. I can't begin to answer all or even to raise the obvious next questions. But I can restart the discussion with: "prison".
We've had prisons for a very long time now, so I ask you simply to provide -- either to yourself, or "out loud" here -- examples of the demonstrated positive good that comes from having prisons, or for that matter punishment per se of any kind.
I realize that my query seems to do nothing towards providing the voluntaryist explanation and apology you ask for. Thing is, it appears some disassembly of your questions is needed to get at specific, real-world premises that will help answer them. I hope this will be taken on over time by more people here.
A State that has assumed sovereignty over an area and its inhabitants is one form of government. An individual, organization, or firm that has been privately hired (no matter by how many or few) to control or to exact a penalty from someone else is still a government. It should also be said that one's own restraint from doing that which is harmful or unethical is a species of government. In this sense, it can rightly be said that the freed market itself will be a form of government; one with rules that are natural instead of artificially constructed, and with rewards and penalties that, also naturally, follow.
The debate between minarchists and anarchists is whether merely most or entirely all of the problems of coercive government are caused by trying to replace natural laws and effects. An anarchist is a minarchist who believes "min" equates to "zero". One who identifies directly as a minarchist usually assumes a small positive, rather than zero, value. The truth will only be demonstrated by trying the experiment of reducing the permission of force until the correct value is finally reached. I'm convinced zero is the magic measure, but do have remaining questions about the ethical and practical amount of time that should be used to get there. I'm similarly convinced that any delay whatsoever in pushing the experiment forward is unwarranted and dangerous to the point of being deadly. Theory that can aid in choosing the right path of experimentation is always good, so please keep asking the questions and offering thoughts. But as your personal situation and ethics allow present trial of ideas, rather do that.
badfish:
--- Quote from: bob-rob on July 12, 2016, 05:34:47 PM ---
I guess an introductory question that I have for you is this: what is the goal of your inquiry: to find a system that best ensures the OUTCOME that leaves you healthy, wealthy, and happy, or are you looking for a principled way to live so that you can avoid trampling others in your quest for comfort?
--- End quote ---
Well, I would say the goal of my inquiry is more along the lines of your first statement, however my justifications for advocating for less government is always to get government to stop trampling on others that have not done anything wrong. Let people live their lives, provided they do not harm other persons or property.
--- Quote from: bob-rob on July 12, 2016, 05:34:47 PM --- 1) You assume that rights exist.
2) You assume that you have an accurate and reliable mechanism for determining what "rights" are.
--- End quote ---
Technically, rights only exist if they are created by government or society. I do believe that society needs to set forth and make clear what our rights are in order to function though (as I stated in my hypothetical society I started to create). They could go something like this:
I hold these truths to be self-evident, that all people are created equal, that they are endowed at the point of fetus viability (even if by artificial means) with certain unalienable rights, that among these are Life, Freedom, Property, and the Pursuit of Happiness, provided that they do not physically infringe upon the same of another.
Again, if you can explain how society could function without setting rights please do. That's what I'm looking for here.
--- Quote from: bob-rob on July 12, 2016, 05:34:47 PM --- 3) You assume that you are (pretty much) living a principled life according to objective principles that describe how people "should act" (whatever that means), and are interested in finding ways to force other people to conform to your (allegedly principled) views.
--- End quote ---
I'm not advocating for the hypothetical society that I wrote about. I was simply trying to give an example of the type of answer I would like to see from somebody who does advocate for a voluntary society. How do they see the world working given the scenarios that I laid out? Since the most voluntary society I can see functioning (in my head) is not actually 100% voluntary, I challenge others to come up with other ideas that allow for more freedom and no government as many people advocate for. I am very interested in hearing from somebody who advocates for anarchism explain how society would function. Make sense?
--- Quote from: bob-rob on July 12, 2016, 05:34:47 PM --- 4) You believe that you are justified in supporting the state in their use of force to stop people who are doing things that you dislike (and that YOU label as a violation as a right).
--- End quote ---
If the right that is being violated physically harms myself or my property, yes. I do believe that society will always demand justice. Society needs to set forth a simple set of rights. Again, I see where you are going but I would like to hear a real world scenario / example play out in a voluntary society of certain fairly common things that are bound to happen given the human nature of some people.
--- Quote from: bob-rob on July 12, 2016, 05:34:47 PM ---5) [this is an tentative inference from other things you said] You believe that there is a principled basis for coercively taking money from the public to fund the police.
--- End quote ---
Not exactly. I think people would pay for this service in a free market, however I have trouble seeing how it would work in a free market. Honestly if we abolished laws that infringe upon personal freedom and the police only focused on violent crimes law enforcement would not be very hard to fund privately at all.
--- Quote from: bob-rob on July 12, 2016, 05:34:47 PM --- 6) You believe that there is a principled basis for using the force of the state to "defend rights."
--- End quote ---
I do believe people will demand justice and protection. I feel that the free market could provide this, but I don't see how the free market could do this fairly (not that the government does now, but they could).
--- Quote from: bob-rob on July 12, 2016, 05:34:47 PM ---7) You want to live according to rational principles.
--- End quote ---
Yes. Today's laws bother me very much. I see the drug war as the biggest problem that we face in society.
--- Quote from: bob-rob on July 12, 2016, 05:34:47 PM --- 8) You associate unprincipled living with some kind of savagery or disorder or a substantial threat that it would result in savagery.
--- End quote ---
No. People can live however they want as long as they don't bother me.
--- Quote from: bob-rob on July 12, 2016, 05:34:47 PM --- 9) You believe that your own actions are driven by your accurate perceptions of principles that really do exist in the universe, as opposed to principles that you just back-filled to suit your preferences (there is little evidence for this in research on psychology after you back out mere social influence/peer pressure--we can debate this but it is a complicated discussion).
--- End quote ---
I do not believe that I back-fill my principles to suit my preferences. My principles are very simple. Let people do what they want as long as they do not physically harm other persons or property.
--- Quote from: bob-rob on July 12, 2016, 05:34:47 PM ---10) The best or correct way to deal with legal infractions is punishment (there are places that use alternate responses).
--- End quote ---
If the response is not punishment, then what is it? Reward? I don't see any other types of responses to legal infractions.
--- Quote from: bob-rob on July 12, 2016, 05:34:47 PM ---11) You would reject the hypothesis that you are just acting on your unprincipled, subjective view of how society should run so that your unprincipled, subjective preferences are preserved.
--- End quote ---
I think you are digging too deep into my hypothetical society. Again, I don't even advocate for it. I'm just trying to get into a discussion on different ways society could run. I need to understand something 100% before I can advocate for it.
--- Quote from: bob-rob on July 12, 2016, 05:34:47 PM ---12) You are very focused on OUTCOMES of social systems and finding OUTCOMES that satisfy your subjective preferences.
--- End quote ---
I am looking for hypothetical answers to the outcome of a change in society, yes. When you are advocating for something people will always throw scenarios at you and wonder how it will work. If we can't answer these questions we might as well not advocate for it, as nobody will buy into it.
badfish:
--- Quote from: roarde on July 12, 2016, 05:49:08 PM ---Hi, badfish. Learning to explain better the things we do understand, and to explore more the ones we don't, are why this part of the forum is here. Responses are slow in coming at present because the forum itself is too new to have attracted a large number of potential repliers. People are reading this and are interested, but you've offered so much to comment on and think about that going through it will take some time. Myself, I find it a bit intimidating -- in the good way --, but only at first. Thanks for asking these questions.
As for Adam, I'm not in touch with him myself but a look at his YouTube channel shows him to be presently busy dealing with harassment by people who think they've been appointed to tell him how, where, and whether to house himself and his loved one; and to be heavily compensated by him for their unwanted intrusions. In short, he's dealing with local permits, zoning, so on. I have seen him participate on the forum regularly when he's not as constrained.
My own time is limited. I can't begin to answer all or even to raise the obvious next questions. But I can restart the discussion with: "prison".
We've had prisons for a very long time now, so I ask you simply to provide -- either to yourself, or "out loud" here -- examples of the demonstrated positive good that comes from having prisons, or for that matter punishment per se of any kind.
I realize that my query seems to do nothing towards providing the voluntaryist explanation and apology you ask for. Thing is, it appears some disassembly of your questions is needed to get at specific, real-world premises that will help answer them. I hope this will be taken on over time by more people here.
A State that has assumed sovereignty over an area and its inhabitants is one form of government. An individual, organization, or firm that has been privately hired (no matter by how many or few) to control or to exact a penalty from someone else is still a government. It should also be said that one's own restraint from doing that which is harmful or unethical is a species of government. In this sense, it can rightly be said that the freed market itself will be a form of government; one with rules that are natural instead of artificially constructed, and with rewards and penalties that, also naturally, follow.
The debate between minarchists and anarchists is whether merely most or entirely all of the problems of coercive government are caused by trying to replace natural laws and effects. An anarchist is a minarchist who believes "min" equates to "zero". One who identifies directly as a minarchist usually assumes a small positive, rather than zero, value. The truth will only be demonstrated by trying the experiment of reducing the permission of force until the correct value is finally reached. I'm convinced zero is the magic measure, but do have remaining questions about the ethical and practical amount of time that should be used to get there. I'm similarly convinced that any delay whatsoever in pushing the experiment forward is unwarranted and dangerous to the point of being deadly. Theory that can aid in choosing the right path of experimentation is always good, so please keep asking the questions and offering thoughts. But as your personal situation and ethics allow present trial of ideas, rather do that.
--- End quote ---
Thanks for the reply. I would like to hear more about specific examples or scenarios when you get time. I feel like that is always what will come up in a conversation. I would like to dive deeper into this, but I need to work tomorrow so I need to go to bed for now.
Navigation
[0] Message Index
[#] Next page
Go to full version