3 ms·

"It's not a perfect example, but it does hint at the possibility of people coming together to solve a communal problem using communal funding, and individuals h

"It's not a perfect example, but it does hint at the possibility of people coming together to solve a communal problem using communal funding, and individuals having the option to leave if they don't like it and don't want to consent." Not unlike the way that (for example) local road maintenance in a particular city is typically funded by citizens of that city, who always have the option to leave should they tire of paying the taxes the fund said maintenance.

zo1 10y ago
>"Not unlike the way that (for example) local road maintenance in a particular city is typically funded by citizens of that city, who always have the option to leave should they tire of paying the taxes the fund said maintenance." The state is completely different in this regard. There is no meaningful piece of land on earth where you could settle and be free from a state. Even if it's arid desert and no one would contemplate living there, if you were to start a thriving community there and the residents start making money or break the outer-state's laws, they will impose on you. You really have no option when it comes to settling and making your own community. Or on other planets for that matter: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Outer_Space_Treaty https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Outer_Space_Treaty
- usefulcat 10y ago
  True, but does it matter? Because in such a hypothetical stateless land, you also have no courts, and therefore no way to enforce agreements other than via direct threat of violence. So it would be difficult to have members of said hypothetical community agree to contribute to a (for example) road maintenance fund.
  - meanduck 10y ago
    > So it would be difficult to have members of said hypothetical community agree to contribute to a (for example) road maintenance fund. One reason why I want to give up part of my land and pay for road to be developed is that it will increase value of the land. That reason would suffice for 99% cases. Also its safe to assume that Humans are also cooperative and neighourly bunch.
    - usefulcat 10y ago
      I think you're missing my point, which has to do not with the desirability of entering into such an agreement, but rather with how to enforce such an agreement in the absence of any sort of state.
      - meanduck 10y ago
        You wont be able to enforce every arbitrary agreement. The constitutional courts will only rule on limited matters such as physical aggressions. And (for example) for Oracle to enforce non-compete, It will have to come in agreement with big corps such as Google/Amazon/Facebook/etc. This will work for most cases. But former-employee of Oracle will be able to work at Joyent. In conclusion, You have to get help from others to enforce an agreement not enforced by Govt. Also note, constitution ~= what everyone consents on. That is, 1. It will be short & sweet. Everyone will be able to understand it. No suprises. 2. It will never have surveillance measures.

zo1 10y ago

>"Not unlike the way that (for example) local road maintenance in a particular city is typically funded by citizens of that city, who always have the option to leave should they tire of paying the taxes the fund said maintenance." The state is completely different in this regard. There is no meaningful piece of land on earth where you could settle and be free from a state. Even if it's arid desert and no one would contemplate living there, if you were to start a thriving community there and the residents start making money or break the outer-state's laws, they will impose on you. You really have no option when it comes to settling and making your own community. Or on other planets for that matter: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Outer_Space_Treaty https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Outer_Space_Treaty

usefulcat 10y ago
True, but does it matter? Because in such a hypothetical stateless land, you also have no courts, and therefore no way to enforce agreements other than via direct threat of violence. So it would be difficult to have members of said hypothetical community agree to contribute to a (for example) road maintenance fund.
- meanduck 10y ago
  > So it would be difficult to have members of said hypothetical community agree to contribute to a (for example) road maintenance fund. One reason why I want to give up part of my land and pay for road to be developed is that it will increase value of the land. That reason would suffice for 99% cases. Also its safe to assume that Humans are also cooperative and neighourly bunch.
  - usefulcat 10y ago
    I think you're missing my point, which has to do not with the desirability of entering into such an agreement, but rather with how to enforce such an agreement in the absence of any sort of state.
    - meanduck 10y ago
      You wont be able to enforce every arbitrary agreement. The constitutional courts will only rule on limited matters such as physical aggressions. And (for example) for Oracle to enforce non-compete, It will have to come in agreement with big corps such as Google/Amazon/Facebook/etc. This will work for most cases. But former-employee of Oracle will be able to work at Joyent. In conclusion, You have to get help from others to enforce an agreement not enforced by Govt. Also note, constitution ~= what everyone consents on. That is, 1. It will be short & sweet. Everyone will be able to understand it. No suprises. 2. It will never have surveillance measures.