A libertarian seasteading project
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... )
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 definition upon them. If you really wanted to help the poor or those otherwise beset with unfortunate circumstances, then you would be free, in a voluntary society, to use your own resources and to associate with others of like mind in order to do so. Your objection seems to be that in a voluntary society you would be less capable of forcing those who are unwilling to agree with you to do as you say and be benevolent in ways you desire but cannot make happen through persuasion alone. It seems to be the desire, not to help those who need help, but to force others to help in ways you see fit.
Did that feel good to get out? :) That's quite a load of assumptions about someone who simply doesn't believe in your freedom society. Anyone who is skeptical about complete privatization in a society wants to force and make violence on other peoples' freedom eh? Well, let's be mutual about the assumptions and have me imprint that the more I read of your avoidance of any practical answers and defaulting to ideological emo-accusations, the more I suspect that your grasp on all the details it takes to create and maintain a real society actually escapes you.
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 to disagree with you on what it is of which charity is to consist and how it is to be effected. Examine your arguments carefully. Are you actually arguing methods by which those who are beset by ill-circumstances may be helped? No, you're not. If I'm wrong, point out where you made that argument. You're not arguing for ways in which you or anyone else could voluntarilly help; you're arguing that it is necessary to conscript people who do not agree with you. This is not about helping the poor; this is about a preoccupation with imposing "duties" upon others and punishing them if they do not agree. It would be different if I were arguing that people should not assist each other or provide aid to others beset by ill circumstances and you were disagreeing with that position, but that is not the discussion we are having here. I'm agreeing that people should (and do) help each other. We're not discussing whether people should be clothed or fed or helped when unemployed or what kind of charity should be available, whether it should consist of food or money or medical care provided without charge. No, the concern raised by your argument is that there may be those who escape obligations you hope to, or feel entitled to, impose if charity were provided solely upon a voluntary basis. You are arguing that society cannot be maintained unless it is by coercing those who disagree with your particular ideas about charity. It is about taxation, confiscation of resources, involuntarilly enforced associations, not helping people. More onerously, in a democracy, where supposedly the majority is able to vote what it wants, in theory, you're implying that it is the minority who dissent who must be coerced for your vision of justice to be served. If the majority already agree with you over the need and methods of aid and charity then there would be no need for laws to coerce them to act according to their beliefs. Your concern is over not being able to coerce the dissenting minority who may have ideas that differ from yours, since presumably, in supporting democratic government as the social organization, you're willing to accede to the will of the majority, as expressed in the voting booth.
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 arguing that it is necessary to conscript people who do not agree with you.
I don't need to argue for methods, I think there already are methods in place that work, albeit they can certainly be improved and discussions on various angles and processes and details will always be necessary. I am skeptical to the success of a society that chooses to not engage in those methods and you are calling me various things for it. Note: I have NOT been against your pontoontopa's existence, merely highly skeptical to its success. And you have not given me one single practical example of the opposite. The only thing you have given is a way to send off people who lose health or fortune and raving on about voluntary charity, which at best is a hypothesis, not a plan. (do you even see the difference here?)
You are arguing that society cannot be maintained unless it is by coercing those who disagree with your particular ideas about charity.
At least here you are half right, although why it took you such long ramblings to get to it is a mystery. 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 be, but, as I've said, many structures can uphold a society.
If the majority already agree with you over the need and methods of aid and charity then there would be no need for laws to coerce them to act according to their beliefs. Your concern is over not being able to coerce the dissenting minority who may have ideas that differ from yours, since presumably, in supporting democratic government as the social organization, you're willing to accede to the will of the majority, as expressed in the voting booth.
Again, you are assuming, for the eleventh time and wrongly, that I am against a libertarian society of pontoons. I am not, I am just not believing in its success.
And what is most disappointing in your whole rant up there about the pontoon society is that you think a society is static, that people and structures aren't organic. In your perfect hotel-pontoon society, people are in agreement and sign papers upon arrival, and then nothing changes. A real society is organic and creates structures according to all those different ideas and needs that arise alongside its existence. So the argument of "everybody agreeing from the beginning and no need for laws of coercing the minority" is amusing, but only in a renaissance utopia sort of way, without any form of anchorage in reality.
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 be, but, as I've said, many structures can uphold a society.
The basis for helping people who need assistance doesn't have to be your particular ideas? Then you will concede that ideas and structure can and will result from voluntary cooperation. Yes? As for the details, it is not essential that I know the details of your particular ideas; I only need know that you are in favor of imposing them by force. Only an irrational person would endorse the idea of forcing upon people, and presumably himself, ideas which he personally opposes. One edorses force when one fears that persuasion is "not enough." Your presumption appears to be that forcing "a plan" onto people is necessary, which implies that they will not or can not voluntarilly cooperate to create and implement plans if left to their own initiative.
As for your last paragraph, you are still hung up on one proposed solution to one perceived problem that you yourself introduced. The point is not that nothing changes but that nothing is imposed by initiating force against people who have otherwise not harmed anyone. My point is not that things cannot evolve or change but that they evolve and change through explicitly voluntary processes. The basis of libertarian philosophy is that nobody posesses the authority, either individually or collectively, to violate the Golden Rule.
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 essential that you know the details of YOUR ideas. Generic voluntary charity to solve everything isn't even an idea.
Only an irrational person would endorse the idea of forcing upon people, and presumably himself, ideas which he personally opposes. One edorses force when one fears that persuasion is "not enough." Your presumption appears to be that forcing "a plan" onto people is necessary, which implies that they will not or can not voluntarilly cooperate to create and implement plans if left to their own initiative.
Who is forcing a plan on anyone? Are we not discussing what structures can uphold a society? Where is the force and fear here? That I disagree with you? Or are you saying that because humanity differs in opinion, in any society, even one with a very homogeneous ideology, the resolution to solve these differences by, say for instance democracy, is forceful and coercive? I mean, I'm assuming here, that your society will harbor more than ten people.
As for your last paragraph, you are still hung up on one proposed solution to one perceived problem that you yourself introduced. The point is not that nothing changes but that nothing is imposed by initiating force against people who have otherwise not harmed anyone. My point is not that things cannot evolve or change but that they evolve and change through explicitly voluntary processes. The basis of libertarian philosophy is that nobody posesses the authority, either individually or collectively, to violate the Golden Rule.
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.
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 the details of how charitable action is to be implemented for each of them to implement charity in their own fashion. Actual disputes can be resolved in a market system of competiing dispute resolution agencies. 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.
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.
Are you aware that this already exists in many incarnations basically in every place of the world. But when it comes to a larger society and structure it is highly impractical to the point of impossibility for certain larger transactions. Also, I am amused that "compromises" is so vaguely formed. Usually voting is a compromise. You have an idea, people differ on how it is to be carried out, so they vote on option 1, 2, 3, etc etc.
If no one should do anything against anyone's will, then your atom-splitting idea, where a new entity arises with other rules as soon as there is a disagreement, is really the only viable one.
Reply
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.
Precisely.
Are you aware that this already exists in many incarnations basically in every place of the world[?]
Yes. I see you at least acknowledge this reality. Good.
when it comes to a larger society and structure it is highly impractical to the point of impossibility for certain larger transactions.
Now who is making vague assertions which she is not supporting with either facts or logic?
Also, I am amused that "compromises" is so vaguely formed.
You cannot predict the terms of a compromise before any such terms have been negotiated, nay, before even the disputes arise. Are you so fearful of human disagreement that you reach for a fuhrer to dictate unity?
Democracy and compromise are procedural mechanisms only; they are not ends in themselves and do not automatically guarantee respect for rights. Two wolves and a sheep voting on what to have for dinner does not a just system make, despite the holy rituals of "democracy" being observed to the letter.
If no one should do anything against anyone's will...
That is not what I said. I said that nobody has the authority to violate another's rights. Nobody has a right to initate force against someone who has not themselves previously caused or threatened harm. What it is to which this boils down is that nobody is able to presume a forcible monopoly on the provision of any good or service, which includes security or dispute resolution. Since we seem to be attempting to get to the bottom of what I am espousing here, and obviously not getting the idea across to you (I am presuming that you are not being deliberately obtuse and purposely misrepresenting my claims) then perhaps you would be better enlightened on the concepts by reading the Wikipedia article on Non-aggression Principle.
Reply
No, what I *know* happens is usually a joint committee of publicly chosen representatives from various places who take such decisions through motions which are to full public display (in the form of records of various kinds). Several steps are set in motion so that it can be scrutinized and objected to if necessary.
Now who is making vague assertions which she is not supporting with either facts or logic?
If every time a disagreement happened in a society, the opposing sides would split the entity into different fractions to have it their own way, that society would be divided into regions where different laws would rule. There are absolutely rational grounds for suspecting this would create an unbearably cumbersome reality at best and a chaotic one at worst, and probably one of the main reasons for democracy being the system to strive for in most modern countries. As I said, to *you* this may sound like a success, at least beforehand, but many would deem this a failure, simply based on what they define with "society". And the result is to be seen. My theory is that your libertarian society will default into some form of democracy.
You cannot predict the terms of a compromise before any such terms have been negotiated, nay, before even the disputes arise. Are you so fearful of human disagreement that you reach for a fuhrer to dictate unity?
It is precisely such lack of planning for future law disagreement and how agreements should be drawn that leave societies at a standstill and where abuse happens. Normal people call it precaution and planning, you call it fear. Terms are never set in stone, there is always room for change and discussion, but a structure is *exactly* the effort to predict a structure for future needs.
Democracy and compromise are procedural mechanisms only; they are not ends in themselves and do not automatically guarantee respect for rights. Two wolves and a sheep voting on what to have for dinner does not a just system make, despite the holy rituals of "democracy" being observed to the letter.
Democracy is a necessary burden. Other things have been tried, even your type of society, and it didn't last. Luckily there are many shapes that democracy can take, and many focal points for change and movement within the system.
That is not what I said. I said that nobody has the authority to violate another's rights. Nobody has a right to initate force against someone who has not themselves previously caused or threatened harm. What it is to which this boils down is that nobody is able to presume a forcible monopoly on the provision of any good or service, which includes security or dispute resolution. Since we seem to be attempting to get to the bottom of what I am espousing here, and obviously not getting the idea across to you (I am presuming that you are not being deliberately obtuse and purposely misrepresenting my claims) then perhaps you would be better enlightened on the concepts by reading the Wikipedia article on Non-aggression Principle.
oh please, I am neither being obtuse nor deliberately so, you have been yapping on about no force having the right to regulate another (as long as no one gets hurt) in every answer, and not understood that what I and other critics are saying that we believe is that somebody *will* get hurt, and then your lack of plans and "flexible" system will not be able to deal with it, within your golden rule.
I am well aware that *you* don't believe this, and that you are likely to write me walls of text about you not believing it and how it is not so, but quit insulting anyone's intelligence, what you are preaching is hardly rocket science.
Reply
Leave a comment