Big FREEDOM! Stuff > The Philosophy of Freedom/Libertarianism/Doctrine of free will
Help me understand a Voluntarist society
Magnaniman:
--- Quote from: badfish on July 13, 2016, 12:27:06 AM ---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).
--- End quote ---
I think this is the crux of your minarchist belief. The entirety of your points of contention are based upon the assumption that justice and protection are things that can only be given to you and you're entirely focused on ways in which others will provide them for you.
There is an issue of inconsistency with that way of thinking because it also presupposes that some must, necessarily, be granted power that others do not have. This is completely at odds with the idea of "rights" because it immediately bestows additional rights on some, which directly results in them being taken from others. When rights are not applied equally to all, then their entire legitimacy can be challenged on the grounds that they are oppressive.
When the rights that you recognize are violated, you gloss over what should actually be done about it, outsourcing problem-solving to others that will take care of the problem "fairly." Instead, focus upon what those people would actually do. Then, instead of imagining that it's other people doing it, imagine that it's you doing it. That's anarchy. If you just outsource the creation of solutions to the problems you see, refusing to trying to solve them yourself, then you have no rational basis upon which to frame any sort of disagreement about the methods used to solve those problems.
--- Quote from: badfish on July 13, 2016, 12:27:06 AM ---[M]y 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.
--- End quote ---
When authority is not spread equally amongst all people, "doing wrong" is a concept that is entirely subject to the whims of those with the most authority. By surrendering your own power to dictate your own morality and act upon it, you necessarily enable government to trample upon others, harming them and their property. The less they do this, the better, but, as long as there are positions of power, the problem will persist.
badfish:
There is so much to reply to here, and I will when I get home later. I wanted to quickly say something though...
First, I want to be clear that when I talk about society functioning, that is not opposed to "not functioning". In my view, society is always functioning until the day that it is wiped out. If I ask how society will function I am looking for examples of how it functions.
Now, It seems like everybody is ignoring the main question or point that I am trying to make. Let's forget about everything else for a moment. If somebody could tell me how the society that they advocate for would function given the scenario below it would give me some great insight into what you advocate for.
Background:
Let's say all of your hard work in advocating for change has paid off. We have abolished government and voluntarism is here. It has been several years at this point and the new society is well established, for the most part.
Plot:
A teenage girl is running on a trail near her home in your home town. While she is running a man comes out from behind some bushes and proceeds to beat and rape her. An hour later you are running on the same trail, and find her laying there, barely conscious, with her clothes torn to shreds. She tells you what happened and gives you a description of the man. From her detailed description you determine that, without a doubt, it was your neighbor Paul.
Please finish the story.
badfish:
--- Quote from: bob-rob on July 15, 2016, 12:37:07 PM ---
Short answer from me: I'm not sure what the official response would be if all government has been abolished or otherwise disappears. I can give some examples that might be relevant.
--- End quote ---
Thank you for the reply, however I would argue that historical examples are only part of what we should consider. I think we would all agree that whether you are a minimalist or anarchist, that there is a lack of precedence in history supporting either society on a large scale, however that does not mean that we should not advocate for the type of society that we see best fitting. I believe that we have a responsibility as activists to theorize, speculate, and hypothesize possible outcomes of the inevitable circumstances that will arise in any society, given the nature of man-kind, even if you believe that the society you advocate for will therein ultimately result in fewer circumstances of concern.
Our founding fathers had the right idea when they created a Republic, however they were unable to come to an agreement on many key factors that would have prevented it from becoming what it is today. Outside the secret deliberations in Independence Hall in 1787 a women asked "What have you given us?" Franklin replied, "A republic... If you can keep it." He knew that the Constitution of the United States of America was not perfect. In his final speech before the Constitutional Convention he stated that, "...when you assemble a number of men to have the advantage of their joint wisdom, you inevitably assemble with those men, all their prejudices, their passions, their errors of opinion, their local interests, and their selfish views." It is this history. The history that they do not teach us in school, that we can learn from most when trying to make the world a better place.
We have allowed our government to go from an imperfect Republic, to a Democracy, to an Oligarchy. Some of the founding fathers warned that a Democracy would eventually lead to an Oligarchy, and they were right. We need to strip everything away except for a simple set of rights. This new Bill of Rights should be the law of the land that governs all aspects of the population. The amount of money that it would take to fund such a government would be so little that it could easily be funded by voluntary donations. Justice is the only reason government should exist. Everything else can be done fairly by the private sector. If you think you can change my mind of this please start by finishing my hypothetical scenario. I really would love to change my mind on this, as I don't want to give power to any central authority. I do think we can get very close to a voluntary society with a strict republic government that is ruled by basic human rights laws rather than our current sad state of a republic that has been run over by the democratic process so many times that it doesn't even resemble a republic anymore.
badfish:
--- Quote from: Magnaniman on July 13, 2016, 02:20:32 PM ---
--- Quote from: badfish on July 13, 2016, 12:27:06 AM ---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).
--- End quote ---
I think this is the crux of your minarchist belief. The entirety of your points of contention are based upon the assumption that justice and protection are things that can only be given to you and you're entirely focused on ways in which others will provide them for you.
--- End quote ---
I don't agree with this at all. When I say the free market could provide this I did not mean that it should be a free service provided by the market. That's not what free market is. I hope you understand that, but your comment makes me think you don't because you say that my points of contention are based upon the assumption that justice and protection are things that can only be given to me, and I'm entirely focused on ways in which others will provide them to me. That last sentence didn't make any sense to me either. I am here trying to get information on other ways that it could work and you say I'm entirely focused on ways in which other people could provide them to me? That couldn't be further from the truth. If I were entirely focused on that why would I come here trying to get answers? It seems like you feel that each person should individually protect themselves and go out and get their own justice. It doesn't matter if they are a 90 years old lady in a wheel chair or a 15 year old girl on a jogging trail, they are on their own. No help from others, no free market services, no government services, etc. Is this what you are trying to say? Could you clear up what you actually advocate for in terms of justice and protection? I apologize, I'm just a little confused. That's why I wanted people to put it in terms of a real-life scenario so it would be clear what they advocate for.
--- Quote from: Magnaniman on July 13, 2016, 02:20:32 PM ---There is an issue of inconsistency with that way of thinking because it also presupposes that some must, necessarily, be granted power that others do not have. This is completely at odds with the idea of "rights" because it immediately bestows additional rights on some, which directly results in them being taken from others. When rights are not applied equally to all, then their entire legitimacy can be challenged on the grounds that they are oppressive.
--- End quote ---
You could say this about any form of justice. I brought this up myself in my original post. Even if power is spread equally among citizens what gives one citizen the right to go to another and say, "You violated my rights, so now I'm going to violate yours." If the people are in charge of seeking their own justice without a centralized system using due process then I can see quite a few issues arising from that. I'm looking for answers to those problems.
--- Quote from: Magnaniman on July 13, 2016, 02:20:32 PM ---When the rights that you recognize are violated, you gloss over what should actually be done about it, outsourcing problem-solving to others that will take care of the problem "fairly." Instead, focus upon what those people would actually do. Then, instead of imagining that it's other people doing it, imagine that it's you doing it. That's anarchy. If you just outsource the creation of solutions to the problems you see, refusing to trying to solve them yourself, then you have no rational basis upon which to frame any sort of disagreement about the methods used to solve those problems.
--- End quote ---
Again, here it sounds like you are saying that in your voluntarist society that the free market would not step up to provide protection and justice services. That goes against every argument that I have heard so far coming from an anarchism / voluntarism point of view. Are you really saying that people should just go out and get their own justice? What if they are not able to? Should women go out and confront the man that raped them? Please explain.
--- Quote from: Magnaniman on July 13, 2016, 02:20:32 PM ---When authority is not spread equally amongst all people, "doing wrong" is a concept that is entirely subject to the whims of those with the most authority. By surrendering your own power to dictate your own morality and act upon it, you necessarily enable government to trample upon others, harming them and their property. The less they do this, the better, but, as long as there are positions of power, the problem will persist.
--- End quote ---
I understand what you are saying here, but I still haven't heard a viable solution. If you could finish the jogging teen story using this logic I think it would provide me with some great insight into what you believe and advocate for. Maybe I'm missing something.
Thanks for the reply. Looking forward to finishing the discussion once we clear up where each others point of view is at.
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 ---
I'm looking forward to hearing your views on the matter. I will start with answering your question:
--- Quote from: roarde on July 12, 2016, 05:49:08 PM ---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.
--- End quote ---
I believe that prison serves two purposes. Getting violent criminals (rapist, murderers, etc.) off the street, and it serves as a deterrent for people not to commit a crime in fear of spending many years or the rest of their life behind bars. It is supposed to rehabilitate as well, but many times it just turns people into career criminals.
Now there are a lot of things that prisons do wrong in today's world, but I would argue under the minimalist society that I advocate for prisons would have a much better chance at getting it right. We would not have non-violent drug users entering prison because of a choice they made that didn't hurt anybody else, and coming out 5 years later as a career criminal because now they have a record and can no longer get a good job and live the american dream. I am for prison work programs that put inmates to work, and I would love to see their work actually pay for their incarceration, with anything left over going to the families of their victims.
I want to be clear that I am not for imprisonment for all crimes. I only think it needs to be done for violent criminals. All other crimes should be handled with financial restitution to the victims. What do you think should happen to people who commit violent crimes in the society that you advocate for?
Looking forward to hearing your response!
Thanks again.
Tom
Navigation
[0] Message Index
[#] Next page
[*] Previous page
Go to full version