3 ms·

> There's no real need to physically restrain them from the road because they don't have easy access to the road And if they go there anyway? What, are you go

by stale2002 6y ago

> There's no real need to physically restrain them from the road because they don't have easy access to the road And if they go there anyway? What, are you going to setup a giant wall around society? That's the point. You cant actually stop someone from being in society without using force. > you aren't part of the society, you have no home, and no access to food Sure they could have access to those things. There could be other people who choose to sell them a house or sell them food, in exchange for their labor, or other goods. What are you going to do? Stop these other people from selling them food? You'd have to use force to do that. There would absolutely would be many people who would be perfectly fine selling them food or housing, in exchange for goods or labor. Or maybe even charity! That exists. > They will either leave, join society No, actually. The other possibility is that they refuse to leave, and other people continue to do business with them. Likely through engaging in trade with them for their labor. You are not going to succeed with some sort of embargo against them, unless you plan on using force yourself. > We're not building roads to random strangers houses They don't need you to connect roads to their house. firstly, because roads are already connected, all over the world. And 2nd, they could just find someone who already has a house that is connected, and rent from them, by exchanging labor or goods that they have acquired. Or maybe some people would perfectly be fine with letting them stay for free! Charity exists and is common in the world right now. I see no reason why it would stop. What, are you going to send out "community" embargo squads, that follow people around, find where they live, and find who is hiding the secret tax evaders or something, so that you can enforce your embargo on both of them? It would be exceeding impractical to enforce some sort of society wide embargo against people who refuse to pay taxes, because you are not only going to have to embargo the tax evaders, but you are also going to to have to embargo the people who refuse to follow your embargo. And then, what? You exile those people to? Who already have a house, and are already in the city, or connected to the roads, and are living in society, and the like? Ridiculous. You can't do that effectively, without using forces, lol Or even beyond that, there could be a critical mass of people who refuse to leave society, and also interact with each other. IE, they still use your roads, but also trade with each other. And the trade between them is enough for them to sustain themselves (especially since they already get the benefit of the roads and stuff, but don't have to pay for it!) .

boomboomsubban 6y ago
>There would absolutely would be many people who would be perfectly fine selling them food or housing, in exchange for goods or labor. Or maybe even charity! That exists. Really? You think that of a society that everyone together created the rules for, built for their own well being, and that they are voluntary a part of would be full of people willing to throw that all away to help someone who already spit in their face? I think you're wrong. This isn't helping the disadvantaged, this is helping those wishing to exploit you. Why would the current concept of "charity" exist? It's current use is primarily for the rich to buy PR. If a member of the community is in need, the community will help them, they don't need people who's job it is to sweet talk others out of their money. >What, are you going to send out "community" embargo squads, that follow people around, find where they live, and find who is hiding the secret tax evaders or something, so that you can enforce your embargo on both of them We aren't discussing tax evasion, we are discussing people who openly refuse to be part if society. As they have openly done so, everyone in the community will know or will be told.
- stale2002 6y ago
  > would be full of people willing to throw that all away People do things for their own benefit, and for the benefit of others, all the time. For example, is everyone going to disown their friends and family, all for some nebulous concept of society? No, I don't think so. I think that many people's friends and family will be perfectly willing to continue to interact with someone who disagrees with the current state of society. I certainly wouldn't disown any of my family members, for the mere fact of them engaging in some nebulous action of "rejecting society". Family matters to a lot of people. You are not going to be able to convince all of a person's friends and family to disown them. Some people will still help out those friends and family > This isn't helping the disadvantaged I mean, you are straight up saying that you don't think these people should be able to have access to food. I think that there are many people who would say that they are disadvantaged. You are not going to be able to convince everyone. Even if something like 10% of the population is willing to help out people who don't agree with your concept of society, that is more than enough to make sure that these people are still able to survive. > this is helping those wishing to exploit you. When it comes to friends and family, this just isn't a dealbreaker. Family members look out for other family members all the time, even when those family members are engaging in bad actions against them! This is very common! Family is very important to a lot of people. As well as friends, to a less extent. I could not imagine any of my friends of family members disowning someone, because they don't agree with this definition of what society should be. Instead, people care more about their close relatives, and friends, than these high level concepts, a lot of the time. > Why would the current concept of *charity" exist? Because some people want it to? Even a small percentage of people disagreeing with you, is enough to make this work. If your whole idea of society hinges on basically everyone in your society engaging in embargoes, that sounds pretty doomed to failure. Some people are going to disagree with you, and that is enough. > If a member of the community is in need, the community will help them Ok, but that argument works in my favor. There would absolutely be people who would consider these societal outcasts to be "people in need". And then this community of people, who disagree with you, would help them. > we are discussing people who openly refuse to be part if society But you have to target the people who disagree with you as well. Are you going to hunt down all the people who actually don't agree with you, and instead are perfectly fine with selling goods and services to them? Or are you going to hunt down the friends and family members of these societal outcasts, for their action of helping out their freaking family member? Not everyone is going to commit their life and soul to your cause. Many people would simply not care, and would instead be perfectly willing to trade housing and food for labor that these "reject society" people are offering. Even more so, there is a monetary incentive to engage in trade with those individuals. People could make a bunch of money by trading goods and services with the societal rejects. Are you going to embargo these individuals as well? That's a lot of people you'd have to embargo, if you are doing it against the people trading goods with them, for profit, as well as any of their friends and family who refuse to go along with your embargo. > everyone in the community will know or will be told. Finally, this statement is ridiculous. I live in a city, with a 500 thousand people in it. I could run into any of them, walking in the street, at any time. Am I going to have to check someone's societal ID or something, before selling them something, or hiring them, or renting out a room in my apartment? What does that even mean? Will you track me down, and embargo me as well, if I don't care about them rejecting society, and rent them a bedroom in my apartment anyway?

boomboomsubban 6y ago

>There would absolutely would be many people who would be perfectly fine selling them food or housing, in exchange for goods or labor. Or maybe even charity! That exists. Really? You think that of a society that everyone together created the rules for, built for their own well being, and that they are voluntary a part of would be full of people willing to throw that all away to help someone who already spit in their face? I think you're wrong. This isn't helping the disadvantaged, this is helping those wishing to exploit you. Why would the current concept of "charity" exist? It's current use is primarily for the rich to buy PR. If a member of the community is in need, the community will help them, they don't need people who's job it is to sweet talk others out of their money. >What, are you going to send out "community" embargo squads, that follow people around, find where they live, and find who is hiding the secret tax evaders or something, so that you can enforce your embargo on both of them We aren't discussing tax evasion, we are discussing people who openly refuse to be part if society. As they have openly done so, everyone in the community will know or will be told.

stale2002 6y ago
> would be full of people willing to throw that all away People do things for their own benefit, and for the benefit of others, all the time. For example, is everyone going to disown their friends and family, all for some nebulous concept of society? No, I don't think so. I think that many people's friends and family will be perfectly willing to continue to interact with someone who disagrees with the current state of society. I certainly wouldn't disown any of my family members, for the mere fact of them engaging in some nebulous action of "rejecting society". Family matters to a lot of people. You are not going to be able to convince all of a person's friends and family to disown them. Some people will still help out those friends and family > This isn't helping the disadvantaged I mean, you are straight up saying that you don't think these people should be able to have access to food. I think that there are many people who would say that they are disadvantaged. You are not going to be able to convince everyone. Even if something like 10% of the population is willing to help out people who don't agree with your concept of society, that is more than enough to make sure that these people are still able to survive. > this is helping those wishing to exploit you. When it comes to friends and family, this just isn't a dealbreaker. Family members look out for other family members all the time, even when those family members are engaging in bad actions against them! This is very common! Family is very important to a lot of people. As well as friends, to a less extent. I could not imagine any of my friends of family members disowning someone, because they don't agree with this definition of what society should be. Instead, people care more about their close relatives, and friends, than these high level concepts, a lot of the time. > Why would the current concept of *charity" exist? Because some people want it to? Even a small percentage of people disagreeing with you, is enough to make this work. If your whole idea of society hinges on basically everyone in your society engaging in embargoes, that sounds pretty doomed to failure. Some people are going to disagree with you, and that is enough. > If a member of the community is in need, the community will help them Ok, but that argument works in my favor. There would absolutely be people who would consider these societal outcasts to be "people in need". And then this community of people, who disagree with you, would help them. > we are discussing people who openly refuse to be part if society But you have to target the people who disagree with you as well. Are you going to hunt down all the people who actually don't agree with you, and instead are perfectly fine with selling goods and services to them? Or are you going to hunt down the friends and family members of these societal outcasts, for their action of helping out their freaking family member? Not everyone is going to commit their life and soul to your cause. Many people would simply not care, and would instead be perfectly willing to trade housing and food for labor that these "reject society" people are offering. Even more so, there is a monetary incentive to engage in trade with those individuals. People could make a bunch of money by trading goods and services with the societal rejects. Are you going to embargo these individuals as well? That's a lot of people you'd have to embargo, if you are doing it against the people trading goods with them, for profit, as well as any of their friends and family who refuse to go along with your embargo. > everyone in the community will know or will be told. Finally, this statement is ridiculous. I live in a city, with a 500 thousand people in it. I could run into any of them, walking in the street, at any time. Am I going to have to check someone's societal ID or something, before selling them something, or hiring them, or renting out a room in my apartment? What does that even mean? Will you track me down, and embargo me as well, if I don't care about them rejecting society, and rent them a bedroom in my apartment anyway?