Most of you have probably heard about this already. Peter Thiel, the founder of PayPal and one of the first investors in Facebook,
has invested one and a quarter million dollars in the Seasteading Institute company, which funds a project by one Patri Friedman, a former engineer at Google. The project is to build the perfect libertarian utopia on
(
Read more... )
Reply
What if this Libertarian Utopia was not permitted to expel individuals who did not perform to the expected standard, but had to maintain and support them like any other nation? I bet that would play havoc with their attempts to prove "superiority".
Reply
Supposedly, according to libertarian thinking, the completely unregulated free market will make for such incredibly competitive prices that any old bum could afford it. And...for those incredibly malfunctioning individuals who still couldn't afford free market prices, all needs would be covered by lottery money or charity.
...and if charity and lottery money still couldn't cover the needs of malfunctioning individuals, city upkeep, disaster prevention and all those other numerous things which makes a society, well, I guess some unwanted factors would just have to disappear from pontoon heaven, right? I'm sure they just moved elsewhere of their own free will!
Anything except uttering the dirty word. psst ...taxes
Reply
Reply
Reply
So instead of dealing with problems they would go away to be dealt with elsewhere.
Reply
Reply
The "freedom" to move exists in all democracies.
Reply
Reply
You are merely repeating yourself and ignoring what I have already said in other threads. Nope, not a bit of a problem with you "deposit" idea which would grant the freedom of travel. But again, how is that different from a mandatory insurance?
I already pointed out that your deposit idea still isn't in any way addressing how to actually maintain a society, and it is already stated that the capacity to move is fairly un-unique.
The more I read, the more I come to suspect that your issue with the system is that Ancapistan offers less opportunity to persons like yourself to define compassion for everyone and force that ( ... )
Reply
Ah, now we are getting somewhere! The answer is, it isn't any different, except in one single, crucial regard: everyone is given the opportunity to accept the requirement up front, or else reject it and go elsewhere, to somewhere charity may be presumed to be an entitlement. The difference is that the requirement is not imposed upon people who are unwilling. The difference is that in other governments of the world, when someone disagrees with the requirement of purchasing any kind of manditory insurance (disregarding the fact that socialized medicine is most certainly NOT real insurance anyway) they are punnished with fines and imprisonment. How is this a better situation, in your estimation? It isn't.
That's quite a load of assumptions about someone who simply doesn't believe in your freedom society.No, it is what is necessarilly logically implied in your argument. You are not complaining that the poor are being denied assistance; you are complaining that some people may be free ( ... )
Reply
Exactly! Which makes your "society" not a real society but a place where you have to have enough money to enter or go elsewhere. That was my exact point.
You are not complaining that the poor are being denied assistance
Sure I am! I am actually highly pondering the risk of that, and no matter how many times you say I am thinking of something else, doesn't make it true. :)
you are complaining that some people may be free to disagree with you on what it is of which charity is to consist and how it is to be effected
Absolutely not, disagreement and complaints are part of a democracy, that's why we have elections and laws and voting. I love that kind of stuff. And no matter how many times you say it's not so, doesn't make it true! :)
You're not arguing for ways in which you or anyone else could voluntarilly help; you're ( ... )
Reply
No, it is a place where you either produce more than you consume and pay your own way, or else you accept the voluntary charity given to you by others. There is no authority, either individually or collectively to take from others by force. There is no entitlement to what you did not earn, either through trade or by being given a voluntarilly offered gift.
Sure I am! I am actually highly pondering the risk of that [the poor being denied assistance]...
Fair enough. How, and why, is a voluntary society at higher risk of "denying the poor assistance"?
I have NOT been against your pontoontopa's existence, merely highly skeptical to its success.
Also fair enough. What then is the basis for the skepticism?
I don't think it has to be my particular ideas about "charity" as you put it, but I think there has to be an idea and a structure. I will venture that you haven't the faintest clue of what my particular idea would ( ... )
Reply
This doesn't address the mere fact that you have to have a certain amount of capital to be a resident in the first hand. And it doesn't address your "deposit" idea either.
why, is a voluntary society at higher risk of "denying the poor assistance"?
Because the only structure or method for any form of emergencies, be it the poor or anything else in this society, which you have provided is charity, and you are yet to explain why this charity would be so vastly superior to other charities, as to uphold the entire society.
What then is the basis for the skepticism?
See above.
As for the details, it is not essential that I know the details of your particular ideas;No, I think it is ( ... )
Reply
This merely shows that you didn't understand what I was saying at all. Your libertarian society can invoke the golden rule from here to Nova Scotia, which won't make any difference when structure will need to be implemented and people differ on the details of how.Structure can be implemented through voluntary action. When there is difference on the details then compromise can be negotiated or parallel, independent structures can be implemented. The Salvation Army and the St. Vincent dePaul Society do not have to agree on ( ... )
Reply
I am not skeptical of its efficiency because it is libertarian, I am skeptical because that is the *only* shadow of a plan that is even hinted at.
Neither security nor dispute resolution need to be accomplished by an agency arbitrarilly authorized to maintain a monopoly upon such services through the use of initiatory force.You are suggesting that when difference in opinion on implementing rules occur, compromises are negotiated or another parallel entity is formed so that two sets of rules can be used ( ... )
Reply
Leave a comment