I'd like to point out that without government we wouldn't have roads. We would have trains becaues they are vastly economically superior.
1) No crashes/drunkving.
2) They go faster.
3) They use less fuel (economy.)
4) They use less fuel (environment.)
Witness as the grand free market decides the best solution.
I'm going to refrain from discussing the economic reasons why the free market doesn't select for these for qualities you describe, and skip straight to the more basic fact that trains are not a substitute good for cars. The automobile, as a machine that individuals can own and keep and use to transport themselves freely wherever they want to go, did not replace the train - it replaced the horse and carriage. Regardless of the demand for trains, there will also be a high demand for such personal vehicles. Just like there was a high demand for horses back in the 19th Century when the railroad was having its heyday. To think otherwise is just a trainspotter's indulgent fantasy.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Vive, vale. Siquid novisti rectius istis,
candidus inperti; si nil, his utere mecum.
I'd like to point out that without government we wouldn't have roads. We would have trains becaues they are vastly economically superior.
1) No crashes/drunkving.
2) They go faster.
3) They use less fuel (economy.)
4) They use less fuel (environment.)
Witness as the grand free market decides the best solution.
I'm going to refrain from discussing the economic reasons why the free market doesn't select for these for qualities you describe, and skip straight to the more basic fact that trains are not a substitute good for cars. The automobile, as a machine that individuals can own and keep and use to transport themselves freely wherever they want to go, did not replace the train - it replaced the horse and carriage. Regardless of the demand for trains, there will also be a high demand for such personal vehicles. Just like there was a high demand for horses back in the 19th Century when the railroad was having its heyday. To think otherwise is just a trainspotter's indulgent fantasy.
Governments build roads (as per the blue pill "butt ware wood the rodes b?" argument), they give tax breaks and bailout to car companies (a la save dtroit it is a great city of greatness, and GM helps the city which is why it is so great!), and they subsidize gas because the unwashed masses measure the success of politicians in how low their gas prices are.
The "freedom of going anywhere" in a car results in urban sprawl which ruins the environment about as much as cars go.
Without government:
1) No "free roads" (obviously they are not free, simply paid for by money stolen from taxpayers)
2) Same taxes on car companies and other modes of transport so they can compete.
3) No gas subsidies, increasing the incentive for efficient modes of transportation.
Also, if people are going to have their phones (mined and assembled through slave labor) glued in hand for days, why do we even need high speed transportation?
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
I petition for a new pack structure: 1 Mythic Rare 3 Rares 5 Uncommons 7 Commons 1 Token/B. Land
But I also propose even distribution of number of cards in each rarity: Large set: 60 c, 60 u, 60 r, 60 m.
Probabilities of particular cards: Common 7/60, Uncommon 1/12, Rare 1/20, Mythic 1/60.
You have missed the point entirely. I will repeat it once, and if you still don't get it, I will deem this debate not worth my time. So pay close attention:
Cars and trains are not in direct competition.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Vive, vale. Siquid novisti rectius istis,
candidus inperti; si nil, his utere mecum.
It's also worth mentioning that Detroit crashing isn't because people don't want cars, it's because they wanted more efficient and reliable cars made available by overseas manufacturers. The free market certainly never said "we don't want cars".
Although really the "we should replace cars with trains" idea is completely baffling and absurd. Would public transit be less polluting? Sure, but you'd need a government to force it on people, otherwise they're going to buy cars.
The problem with anarchism is that it assumes that everyone is morally perfect. Without laws, the only thing stopping you from killing, raping, stealing, vandalizing, and so forth is intrinsic morality. If someone decides to ignore morality, the whole system falls apart. Or, we get a society like that of Robert A. Heinlein's The Moon is a Harsh Mistress, where the only thing that keeps people in check is fear of reprisals from other people.
Although really the "we should replace cars with trains" idea is completely baffling and absurd. Would public transit be less polluting? Sure, but you'd need a government to force it on people, otherwise they're going to buy cars.
All that needs to be done is to organise cities so that public transportation does in fact get you everywhere.
I could dispute this with you by pointing out that even cities with very good public transit systems (in America and elsewhere) still have a lot of cars. But that's tangential; I believe DirkGently's central point is simply that you'd need a government to even try to organize a city for public transit. Hence, no anarchy, Q.E.D.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Vive, vale. Siquid novisti rectius istis,
candidus inperti; si nil, his utere mecum.
Although really the "we should replace cars with trains" idea is completely baffling and absurd. Would public transit be less polluting? Sure, but you'd need a government to force it on people, otherwise they're going to buy cars.
All that needs to be done is to organise cities so that public transportation does in fact get you everywhere. US cities and their crazy suburban sprawl are designed around everyone owning a car because the US car industry lobbied the **** out of everything. If the entire city was accessible by any combination of walking, biking and taking the bus then cars just wouldn't be as necessary.
Unfortunately we dont live in a Sim City so it is not that easy to just re-organize everything. I highly doubt that poor city design had anything to do with auto lobbying and had more to do with the natural growth and progression of a major city.
Although really the "we should replace cars with trains" idea is completely baffling and absurd. Would public transit be less polluting? Sure, but you'd need a government to force it on people, otherwise they're going to buy cars.
All that needs to be done is to organise cities so that public transportation does in fact get you everywhere.
I could dispute this with you by pointing out that even cities with very good public transit systems (in America and elsewhere) still have a lot of cars. But that's tangential; I believe DirkGently's central point is simply that you'd need a government to even try to organize a city for public transit. Hence, no anarchy, Q.E.D.
Also I'd point out that I don't even have a car and things work out fine - but you can't really expect public transit to take you from any point A to any point B as quickly as a car. I have to walk 10 mins to the bus, and walk 10 mins from the bus, and the bus has to make stops which slow it down - my 30 minute commute would probably be 10 in a car. A car is certainly faster, and for people who value that speed and flexibility over the expense of owning a car, it's always going to be a viable option unless we create a network of teleporters or something.
Destroying infrastructure to make cars required was a thing
Sure but that has nothing to do with putting the Grocery store too far away from the library so it's super inconvenient to make a mass transit stop that gets people to both. Tuss specifically mentioned the layout of cities. I doubt that GM was paying other businesses to build in locations that made it extra beneficial for people to own cars.
Unfortunately we dont live in a Sim City so it is not that easy to just re-organize everything. I highly doubt that poor city design had anything to do with auto lobbying and had more to do with the natural growth and progression of a major city.
Not auto lobbying exclusively, but a lot of "natural" growth of major cities also has a lot of lobbying in the background. Zoning laws, licensing, building codes, parking requirements. That and private transportation has a sort of prestige to it in American culture, so rich people (i.e. the people with time, money, and connections to significantly influence rulemaking, if they aren't rulemakers already) generally don't want to go all in on public transportation stuff. And if they do it's stuff that doesn't crowd out private cars.
For example, trains.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Do I Contradict Myself? Very Well Then I Contradict Myself.
Destroying infrastructure to make cars required was a thing
Sure but that has nothing to do with putting the Grocery store too far away from the library so it's super inconvenient to make a mass transit stop that gets people to both. Tuss specifically mentioned the layout of cities. I doubt that GM was paying other businesses to build in locations that made it extra beneficial for people to own cars.
Doesn't have to be active. Once the cars are everywhere businesses have no need clustrr, like we saw with western expansion a round trains, because the nature of c ars allows for them to benefit from marginally cheaper land costs. This sprawl, bit by bit, exacerbated the problem making cars a necessity instead of a convenience.
To be honest the car lobby which caused the abandon of more efficient forms of interurban transportation have keynesian and syndical roots as well if not mostly.
By the 40's and 50's the car industry employed a massive amount of people in the developed countries and the car industry syndicates were incredibly strong (governaments also tended to listen more to syndicates because of the communist risk). Many people brought up better solutions for transportation but the risk of dismantling the industry that employed so much people kept the governsment fearful of such plans. It was the keynesian golden age after all, the mainstream believed that some unemployment would generate a vicious cycle of more unemployment and GDP loss.
That's one of the text books cases were the political dynamic are the left + coorporation vs. the right.
Destroying infrastructure to make cars required was a thing
And what's relevant in this thread is not that it happened, but that, in an anarcho-capitalist utopia, it would happen even worse. The government's antitrust prosecution was limp-wristed, but it was still a force opposed to the conspiracy rather than enabling it.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Vive, vale. Siquid novisti rectius istis,
candidus inperti; si nil, his utere mecum.
Who enforces the nonaggression rule in Anarcho-capitalism?
Also, can I buy the land around your house and then bankrupt you for tying to leave/go home?
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
What's the big deal? You could have played multiple Righteous Avengers for years now.
Who enforces the nonaggression rule in Anarcho-capitalism?
Also, can I buy the land around your house and then bankrupt you for tying to leave/go home?
Depends on the version of AC. In the way to naive theory, yes, that would be possible and the only remedy against it would be public opinion hating on people that would do that.
On the version of AC were a State still exist but it's privately owned, probably non as the legislation that keeps this thing from happen now days would still apply. No one would want to live in / pay a city that psychos can bankrupt you that way.
Who enforces the nonaggression rule in Anarcho-capitalism?
Also, can I buy the land around your house and then bankrupt you for tying to leave/go home?
Depends on the version of AC. In the way to naive theory, yes, that would be possible and the only remedy against it would be public opinion hating on people that would do that.
On the version of AC were a State still exist but it's privately owned, probably non as the legislation that keeps this thing from happen now days would still apply. No one would want to live in / pay a city that psychos can bankrupt you that way.
Basically a corporation, the idea seems to be to make city-states corporately owned and then inclined towards being ran by the "people" choosing which services they wish to employ. However, we must consider the mutations along the way with any institution with the transition from one power to another. Entrenched interests and business relationships must also be maintained in a society, where political capital is always there. This is one of the limitations that ethic within a civilization declines and wavers when the original beliefs drift with time and generations. The mutations that occur over time then become granite and held as the way to go.
The major problem that I have is that many of the "anarchist places" are prime targets for criminal enterprises to take over. While it seems that vigilante justice can help, it doesn't help to make those people overt. This is much akin to the problem with the Numbers Racket and other such small time criminal activities within the American society.
Equally, one of the virtues of the welfare state and the myth that the church took care of everyone and that the community was virtuous. There was a lot of political argumentation, underground work being done, and political machines that used welfare as a way to gain power over a populace. Overall, the question that I have is whether that through such decentralization that such practices would not begin to enervate our society once again on that local level.
Then we have to compete with another societal issue that you see in older cities versus the cities of immigrants. In older cities there is a problem with the "good old boys club" that requires that someone either has excellent social skills to enter work, has familial ties, or else face some sort of pseudo exile or at least difficulty to establish business to business relations. This friction is mild, but when taken into it's worst permutations it is something that is ruinous and approaches an almost Renaissance quality.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Ambition must be made to counteract ambition.
Individualities may form communities, but it is institutions alone that can create a nation.
Nothing succeeds like the appearance of success.
Here is my principle: Taxes shall be levied according to ability to pay. That is the only American principle.
s the legislation that keeps this thing from happen now days would still apply. No one would want to live in / pay a city that psychos can bankrupt you that way.
But how can they leave? I've moated them. The laws that prevent that now is because the government owns the roads. If I can buy the roads, turn them all into turnpikes, and then fence off the perimeter of my property you're essentially stuck there.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
What's the big deal? You could have played multiple Righteous Avengers for years now.
I've talked through dilemmas with An-Caps, and It's not hard at all to get them to tell you who's wright and who's wrong and who's justified to use force and who's not.
If you took all the An-Caps in the world, and gave them their own land, free of outside intervention, and came back in 100 years, I am certain that you would find that they went ahead and made a government anyway.
I'm trying to understand how a movie is like a tomato plant. Are you saying if I have a tomato plant just like yours, I am not allowed to grow tomatoes?
First, the DVD is not the fruit of my labor, the movie is. I likely bought the DVD's I used to distribute my movie from the same people you did. The DVD is the fruit of THEIR labor. Did you steal the DVD's you are using to burn said intellectual fruit?
Second, from where did you GET the movie to burn onto the DVD you own?
Where did that movie come from?
From me. From my mind, and from my labor. (and likely from the combined labor of everyone who helped me, which they likely did for pay or compensation)
And thus, like the tomato plant which I raised in my garden, I watered it, fertilized it, and gave it sunlight. The finished movie is the fruit blossomed from the plant. The DVD's I used, are simply akin to the produce truck I use to take the tomato's from my tomato plant to the market. If you use a produce truck to carry the tomato's you stole from me, this does not mean you have not stolen them.
They remain the fruit of my labor, and by taking said fruit without giving me the just compensation that fruit is worth, you have committed theft.
For even in the libertarian voluntary free market, each owns his labor, do they not? The NAP even declares that my labor is MINE, I own it, which is why slavery is unjust.
So by taking the movie without compensation, you have taken my labor without compensation.
I am pretty sure every anarchist, or anarcho-capitalist would agree that each laborer owns their labor, which is why they are allowed to sell their labor to others.
Very very few people go around stealing movies. When you steal a movie, you're depriving another person of that movie.
What's a lot more common is people making a copy of that movie.
It's a much better analogy if they make their own farm and imitate your techniques.
Very very few people go around stealing movies. When you steal a movie, you're depriving another person of that movie.
What's a lot more common is people making a copy of that movie.
It's a much better analogy if they make their own farm and imitate your techniques.
"Imitating" would be making your own movie in the same genre. Like Percy Jackson following Harry Potter.
Movie piracy is analogous to copying your techniques exactly, which you only showed them on the condition that they sign a contract with you agreeing not to do that.
And even then, you put a lot more of your own work into running a farm than you do into copying a movie, so the analogy is imperfect.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Vive, vale. Siquid novisti rectius istis,
candidus inperti; si nil, his utere mecum.
I highly recommend David Friedman's book The Machinery of Freedom to anyone who is interesting in Anarcho-Capitalism. He ditches the moral arguments against government in favor of a more consequentialist approach, which appeals to me more than the NAP does.
I highly recommend David Friedman's book The Machinery of Freedom to anyone who is interesting in Anarcho-Capitalism. He ditches the moral arguments against government in favor of a more consequentialist approach, which appeals to me more than the NAP does.
The issue comes in from the back end where we discuss aquifers, take for example the issue of Turkey. Turkey has a lot of dams in the way and holds a lot of water from other nation states, if we presume that the use of this water is "private" then each person who farms takes out a lot more water for their "own self interest" when those waters decrease the people down stream will begin to migrate. They say, "Hey you damaged my property, I want that water." Natural inclinations lead towards attacks. Friedman's argument about his book and "sharing through love" neglects parochial altruism, which is basically "you hurt my friend, I hurt you" mechanism. You see this all the time in youngsters and people who make gangs. Now let us take the Turkish example, you have a gang of farmers who band together into an army and then invade Turkey and carve it up into kingdoms. The Turks can do nothing about that, and lose access to their water. So they either move or stay and integrate with their conquerors. Those who move, tend to invade other peopled areas and either integrate peacefully or invade and conquer.
Frankly, from what I'm seeing with the work you recommend is that he's sidestepping some of the research done by people like Elinor Ostrom over the tragedy of the commons
His axiom because "people believe it is necessary" often comes at a curious question, when we have government we have more wealth and prosperity whereas without government we have anarchy and disorder and death. Without government, you had the issue of the Disease Holocaust which affected the Indian Americans upon the first landings of the explorers spreading disease by accident. The second wave came from the 300 years war against the tribes, that arguably haven't really been satisfied except over time and a more enlightened time about national identity. So we have to time into construct "Guns, Germs, and Steel" to borrow a thesis into this point about both intended and unintended consequences for such things.
If we consider game theory, we can see that it allows people to begin to make decisions through practiced decision making processes rather than trying to "reinvent the wheel." There are also just somethings that people want and cannot be bought, so rather than resort to crime we resort to the courts. Yet, a profit based court without a free press is more inclined to rule for the richer party. The old Grecian argument, "Yea I killed her, and you know what? I did do it, but you see that bridge over there. I built that, and if you like that bridge then, well, let me go. Otherwise, you're not going to see another one." You get all sorts of quirky arguments like that when you begin to make a market based approach to such things as justice. Removing money from some arguments and having a concept of "the law" over "the money" is another access point.
Now, the portion of the problem with the justice system is not a "cheaper justice system" but rather a cheaper defense prospects and more able body lawyers in the US. In Canada, there are more lawyers, yet they earn less than the US and are much more affordable. Whereas Sudan, trying to get justice requires a gun. It's really hard to argue based on realistic outcomes for how people behave without government, because when we see it.. we see some acting okay and others like feral children.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Ambition must be made to counteract ambition.
Individualities may form communities, but it is institutions alone that can create a nation.
Nothing succeeds like the appearance of success.
Here is my principle: Taxes shall be levied according to ability to pay. That is the only American principle.
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
I'm going to refrain from discussing the economic reasons why the free market doesn't select for these for qualities you describe, and skip straight to the more basic fact that trains are not a substitute good for cars. The automobile, as a machine that individuals can own and keep and use to transport themselves freely wherever they want to go, did not replace the train - it replaced the horse and carriage. Regardless of the demand for trains, there will also be a high demand for such personal vehicles. Just like there was a high demand for horses back in the 19th Century when the railroad was having its heyday. To think otherwise is just a trainspotter's indulgent fantasy.
candidus inperti; si nil, his utere mecum.
Governments build roads (as per the blue pill "butt ware wood the rodes b?" argument), they give tax breaks and bailout to car companies (a la save dtroit it is a great city of greatness, and GM helps the city which is why it is so great!), and they subsidize gas because the unwashed masses measure the success of politicians in how low their gas prices are.
The "freedom of going anywhere" in a car results in urban sprawl which ruins the environment about as much as cars go.
Without government:
1) No "free roads" (obviously they are not free, simply paid for by money stolen from taxpayers)
2) Same taxes on car companies and other modes of transport so they can compete.
3) No gas subsidies, increasing the incentive for efficient modes of transportation.
Also, if people are going to have their phones (mined and assembled through slave labor) glued in hand for days, why do we even need high speed transportation?
But I also propose even distribution of number of cards in each rarity: Large set: 60 c, 60 u, 60 r, 60 m.
Probabilities of particular cards: Common 7/60, Uncommon 1/12, Rare 1/20, Mythic 1/60.
Cars and trains are not in direct competition.
candidus inperti; si nil, his utere mecum.
Although really the "we should replace cars with trains" idea is completely baffling and absurd. Would public transit be less polluting? Sure, but you'd need a government to force it on people, otherwise they're going to buy cars.
EDH Primers
Phelddagrif - Zirilan
EDH
Thrasios+Bruse - Pang - Sasaya - Wydwen - Feather - Rona - Toshiro - Sylvia+Khorvath - Geth - QMarchesa - Firesong - Athreos - Arixmethes - Isperia - Etali - Silas+Sidar - Saskia - Virtus+Gorm - Kynaios - Naban - Aryel - Mizzix - Kazuul - Tymna+Kraum - Sidar+Tymna - Ayli - Gwendlyn - Phelddagrif 4 - Liliana - Kaervek - Phelddagrif 3 - Mairsil - Scarab - Child - Phenax - Shirei - Thada - Depala - Circu - Kytheon - GrenzoHR - Phelddagrif - Reyhan+Kraum - Toshiro - Varolz - Nin - Ojutai - Tasigur - Zedruu - Uril - Edric - Wort - Zurgo - Nahiri - Grenzo - Kozilek - Yisan - Ink-Treader - Yisan - Brago - Sidisi - Toshiro - Alexi - Sygg - Brimaz - Sek'Kuar - Marchesa - Vish Kal - Iroas - Phelddagrif - Ephara - Derevi - Glissa - Wanderer - Saffi - Melek - Xiahou Dun - Lazav - Lin Sivvi - Zirilan - Glissa
PDH - Drake - Graverobber - Izzet GM - Tallowisp - Symbiote Brawl - Feather - Ugin - Jace - Scarab - Angrath - Vraska - Kumena Oathbreaker - Wrenn&6
Storm Crow is strictly worse than Seacoast Drake.
candidus inperti; si nil, his utere mecum.
Unfortunately we dont live in a Sim City so it is not that easy to just re-organize everything. I highly doubt that poor city design had anything to do with auto lobbying and had more to do with the natural growth and progression of a major city.
Destroying infrastructure to make cars required was a thing
Also I'd point out that I don't even have a car and things work out fine - but you can't really expect public transit to take you from any point A to any point B as quickly as a car. I have to walk 10 mins to the bus, and walk 10 mins from the bus, and the bus has to make stops which slow it down - my 30 minute commute would probably be 10 in a car. A car is certainly faster, and for people who value that speed and flexibility over the expense of owning a car, it's always going to be a viable option unless we create a network of teleporters or something.
EDH Primers
Phelddagrif - Zirilan
EDH
Thrasios+Bruse - Pang - Sasaya - Wydwen - Feather - Rona - Toshiro - Sylvia+Khorvath - Geth - QMarchesa - Firesong - Athreos - Arixmethes - Isperia - Etali - Silas+Sidar - Saskia - Virtus+Gorm - Kynaios - Naban - Aryel - Mizzix - Kazuul - Tymna+Kraum - Sidar+Tymna - Ayli - Gwendlyn - Phelddagrif 4 - Liliana - Kaervek - Phelddagrif 3 - Mairsil - Scarab - Child - Phenax - Shirei - Thada - Depala - Circu - Kytheon - GrenzoHR - Phelddagrif - Reyhan+Kraum - Toshiro - Varolz - Nin - Ojutai - Tasigur - Zedruu - Uril - Edric - Wort - Zurgo - Nahiri - Grenzo - Kozilek - Yisan - Ink-Treader - Yisan - Brago - Sidisi - Toshiro - Alexi - Sygg - Brimaz - Sek'Kuar - Marchesa - Vish Kal - Iroas - Phelddagrif - Ephara - Derevi - Glissa - Wanderer - Saffi - Melek - Xiahou Dun - Lazav - Lin Sivvi - Zirilan - Glissa
PDH - Drake - Graverobber - Izzet GM - Tallowisp - Symbiote Brawl - Feather - Ugin - Jace - Scarab - Angrath - Vraska - Kumena Oathbreaker - Wrenn&6
Sure but that has nothing to do with putting the Grocery store too far away from the library so it's super inconvenient to make a mass transit stop that gets people to both. Tuss specifically mentioned the layout of cities. I doubt that GM was paying other businesses to build in locations that made it extra beneficial for people to own cars.
Not auto lobbying exclusively, but a lot of "natural" growth of major cities also has a lot of lobbying in the background. Zoning laws, licensing, building codes, parking requirements. That and private transportation has a sort of prestige to it in American culture, so rich people (i.e. the people with time, money, and connections to significantly influence rulemaking, if they aren't rulemakers already) generally don't want to go all in on public transportation stuff. And if they do it's stuff that doesn't crowd out private cars.
For example, trains.
Very Well Then I Contradict Myself.
Doesn't have to be active. Once the cars are everywhere businesses have no need clustrr, like we saw with western expansion a round trains, because the nature of c ars allows for them to benefit from marginally cheaper land costs. This sprawl, bit by bit, exacerbated the problem making cars a necessity instead of a convenience.
By the 40's and 50's the car industry employed a massive amount of people in the developed countries and the car industry syndicates were incredibly strong (governaments also tended to listen more to syndicates because of the communist risk). Many people brought up better solutions for transportation but the risk of dismantling the industry that employed so much people kept the governsment fearful of such plans. It was the keynesian golden age after all, the mainstream believed that some unemployment would generate a vicious cycle of more unemployment and GDP loss.
That's one of the text books cases were the political dynamic are the left + coorporation vs. the right.
BGU Control
R Aggro
Standard - For Fun
BG Auras
And what's relevant in this thread is not that it happened, but that, in an anarcho-capitalist utopia, it would happen even worse. The government's antitrust prosecution was limp-wristed, but it was still a force opposed to the conspiracy rather than enabling it.
candidus inperti; si nil, his utere mecum.
Also, can I buy the land around your house and then bankrupt you for tying to leave/go home?
Depends on the version of AC. In the way to naive theory, yes, that would be possible and the only remedy against it would be public opinion hating on people that would do that.
On the version of AC were a State still exist but it's privately owned, probably non as the legislation that keeps this thing from happen now days would still apply. No one would want to live in / pay a city that psychos can bankrupt you that way.
BGU Control
R Aggro
Standard - For Fun
BG Auras
Basically a corporation, the idea seems to be to make city-states corporately owned and then inclined towards being ran by the "people" choosing which services they wish to employ. However, we must consider the mutations along the way with any institution with the transition from one power to another. Entrenched interests and business relationships must also be maintained in a society, where political capital is always there. This is one of the limitations that ethic within a civilization declines and wavers when the original beliefs drift with time and generations. The mutations that occur over time then become granite and held as the way to go.
The major problem that I have is that many of the "anarchist places" are prime targets for criminal enterprises to take over. While it seems that vigilante justice can help, it doesn't help to make those people overt. This is much akin to the problem with the Numbers Racket and other such small time criminal activities within the American society.
Equally, one of the virtues of the welfare state and the myth that the church took care of everyone and that the community was virtuous. There was a lot of political argumentation, underground work being done, and political machines that used welfare as a way to gain power over a populace. Overall, the question that I have is whether that through such decentralization that such practices would not begin to enervate our society once again on that local level.
Then we have to compete with another societal issue that you see in older cities versus the cities of immigrants. In older cities there is a problem with the "good old boys club" that requires that someone either has excellent social skills to enter work, has familial ties, or else face some sort of pseudo exile or at least difficulty to establish business to business relations. This friction is mild, but when taken into it's worst permutations it is something that is ruinous and approaches an almost Renaissance quality.
Ambition must be made to counteract ambition.
Individualities may form communities, but it is institutions alone that can create a nation.
Nothing succeeds like the appearance of success.
Here is my principle: Taxes shall be levied according to ability to pay. That is the only American principle.
But how can they leave? I've moated them. The laws that prevent that now is because the government owns the roads. If I can buy the roads, turn them all into turnpikes, and then fence off the perimeter of my property you're essentially stuck there.
If you took all the An-Caps in the world, and gave them their own land, free of outside intervention, and came back in 100 years, I am certain that you would find that they went ahead and made a government anyway.
Very very few people go around stealing movies. When you steal a movie, you're depriving another person of that movie.
What's a lot more common is people making a copy of that movie.
It's a much better analogy if they make their own farm and imitate your techniques.
"Imitating" would be making your own movie in the same genre. Like Percy Jackson following Harry Potter.
Movie piracy is analogous to copying your techniques exactly, which you only showed them on the condition that they sign a contract with you agreeing not to do that.
And even then, you put a lot more of your own work into running a farm than you do into copying a movie, so the analogy is imperfect.
candidus inperti; si nil, his utere mecum.
The issue comes in from the back end where we discuss aquifers, take for example the issue of Turkey. Turkey has a lot of dams in the way and holds a lot of water from other nation states, if we presume that the use of this water is "private" then each person who farms takes out a lot more water for their "own self interest" when those waters decrease the people down stream will begin to migrate. They say, "Hey you damaged my property, I want that water." Natural inclinations lead towards attacks. Friedman's argument about his book and "sharing through love" neglects parochial altruism, which is basically "you hurt my friend, I hurt you" mechanism. You see this all the time in youngsters and people who make gangs. Now let us take the Turkish example, you have a gang of farmers who band together into an army and then invade Turkey and carve it up into kingdoms. The Turks can do nothing about that, and lose access to their water. So they either move or stay and integrate with their conquerors. Those who move, tend to invade other peopled areas and either integrate peacefully or invade and conquer.
Frankly, from what I'm seeing with the work you recommend is that he's sidestepping some of the research done by people like Elinor Ostrom over the tragedy of the commons
His axiom because "people believe it is necessary" often comes at a curious question, when we have government we have more wealth and prosperity whereas without government we have anarchy and disorder and death. Without government, you had the issue of the Disease Holocaust which affected the Indian Americans upon the first landings of the explorers spreading disease by accident. The second wave came from the 300 years war against the tribes, that arguably haven't really been satisfied except over time and a more enlightened time about national identity. So we have to time into construct "Guns, Germs, and Steel" to borrow a thesis into this point about both intended and unintended consequences for such things.
If we consider game theory, we can see that it allows people to begin to make decisions through practiced decision making processes rather than trying to "reinvent the wheel." There are also just somethings that people want and cannot be bought, so rather than resort to crime we resort to the courts. Yet, a profit based court without a free press is more inclined to rule for the richer party. The old Grecian argument, "Yea I killed her, and you know what? I did do it, but you see that bridge over there. I built that, and if you like that bridge then, well, let me go. Otherwise, you're not going to see another one." You get all sorts of quirky arguments like that when you begin to make a market based approach to such things as justice. Removing money from some arguments and having a concept of "the law" over "the money" is another access point.
Now, the portion of the problem with the justice system is not a "cheaper justice system" but rather a cheaper defense prospects and more able body lawyers in the US. In Canada, there are more lawyers, yet they earn less than the US and are much more affordable. Whereas Sudan, trying to get justice requires a gun. It's really hard to argue based on realistic outcomes for how people behave without government, because when we see it.. we see some acting okay and others like feral children.
Ambition must be made to counteract ambition.
Individualities may form communities, but it is institutions alone that can create a nation.
Nothing succeeds like the appearance of success.
Here is my principle: Taxes shall be levied according to ability to pay. That is the only American principle.