5 ms·

It's 500 people on a tiny island demonstrating that 500 people don't need a government to function as a community. They say they can just make agreements betwee

It's 500 people on a tiny island demonstrating that 500 people don't need a government to function as a community. They say they can just make agreements between themselves, which is the purpose of the government, to solve that problem at scale. If one of them needs help I'm sure the rest of them would try to help, which is what wellfare is when millions of people are involved. I'm guessing that if I go there and start a business dumping waste on the island (which would be very profitable for me, it is increasingly costly to get rid of waste in most countries because of the stringent regulations) the people there would have to learn what taxes and regulations are for.

deleted 5y ago
[deleted]
s1artibartfast 5y ago
Anarcocapitalist and Libertarian frameworks can still have methods of dealing with such problems. At best they have laws, contracts, and private police and you would be sued. At worst, they might shoot you.
- Comevius 5y ago
  I have a feeling that my waste dumping company would have a better chance at owning that private police, and the people making the laws. And the media. There would be many ways to distract and exploit the people. Creating uncertainty and a conspiratory political culture would capture most by offering a simplified, stabilized world and a sense of community. Exploiting distrustful people is the biggest industry there ever was unfortunately, including causing them to become distrustful, uncertain, isolated. It's how terrorists are made. It's how voters who vote for political extremism are made. Ironically all of this would only work at scale, 500 people on a tiny island would be harder to control, I'm guessing due to their closeness, or quality of their interactions. You could play them against other communities, but not against each other. We have a lot of brain stuff to ensure the viability of small communities. It's all built-in, taken care of. The problems only start at scale, when everyone is isolated. You have to be inventive at scale.
  - s1artibartfast 5y ago
    The media and public sentiment shouldn't have anything to do with it. The key to all this is if you have rights to where you are dumping/storing waste. If you own the land and aren't damaging others, then you get to do it. If you dump on someone else's property, they might shoot you. Then entire selling point of libertarianism is that the opinions of others are irrelevant because there it minimal government power.
    - dTal 5y ago
      >Then entire selling point of libertarianism is that the opinions of others are irrelevant Beautifully put. It should be on a t-shirt. But then, the very concept of a "right" is defined by mutual agreement. Who is to say what "rights" you do or don't have?
      - s1artibartfast 5y ago
        You need a constitution to define rights and to stick to it. It is a contract and can't be whittled down or imposed on by public opinion. If own the rights to land, you can do with it what you want. If you want to put a garbage dump next to a playground, that is their problem if you aren't physically hurting them. Libertarians absolutely believe in laws that uphold rights, and legal precedent describing how rights interact.
        saganus 5y ago
        What happens when there's no immediate "physically hurting them", but instead long-term damage that is not immediately obvious? I ask because dumping waste could potentially be "not hurting others" in an immediate sense, but still e.g. contaminating the dump area.
        s1artibartfast 5y ago
        There isn't a single position, but one is can contaminate the land forever if it doesn't affect your neighbors.
fknorangesite 5y ago
See this is where that libertarian-paradise-town in New Hampshire went wrong: if you put yourself on an island, you are less likely to be overrun by bears.
JoeAltmaier 5y ago
Yeah doesn't scale.
homonculus1 5y ago
If you piss off 500 people on an island with no police force I suspect YOU are going to learn how informal governance works!
- strikelaserclaw 5y ago
  Not if u pay a majority of them a tiny sum.

deleted 5y ago

[deleted]

s1artibartfast 5y ago

Anarcocapitalist and Libertarian frameworks can still have methods of dealing with such problems. At best they have laws, contracts, and private police and you would be sued. At worst, they might shoot you.

Comevius 5y ago
I have a feeling that my waste dumping company would have a better chance at owning that private police, and the people making the laws. And the media. There would be many ways to distract and exploit the people. Creating uncertainty and a conspiratory political culture would capture most by offering a simplified, stabilized world and a sense of community. Exploiting distrustful people is the biggest industry there ever was unfortunately, including causing them to become distrustful, uncertain, isolated. It's how terrorists are made. It's how voters who vote for political extremism are made. Ironically all of this would only work at scale, 500 people on a tiny island would be harder to control, I'm guessing due to their closeness, or quality of their interactions. You could play them against other communities, but not against each other. We have a lot of brain stuff to ensure the viability of small communities. It's all built-in, taken care of. The problems only start at scale, when everyone is isolated. You have to be inventive at scale.
- s1artibartfast 5y ago
  The media and public sentiment shouldn't have anything to do with it. The key to all this is if you have rights to where you are dumping/storing waste. If you own the land and aren't damaging others, then you get to do it. If you dump on someone else's property, they might shoot you. Then entire selling point of libertarianism is that the opinions of others are irrelevant because there it minimal government power.
  - dTal 5y ago
    >Then entire selling point of libertarianism is that the opinions of others are irrelevant Beautifully put. It should be on a t-shirt. But then, the very concept of a "right" is defined by mutual agreement. Who is to say what "rights" you do or don't have?
    - s1artibartfast 5y ago
      You need a constitution to define rights and to stick to it. It is a contract and can't be whittled down or imposed on by public opinion. If own the rights to land, you can do with it what you want. If you want to put a garbage dump next to a playground, that is their problem if you aren't physically hurting them. Libertarians absolutely believe in laws that uphold rights, and legal precedent describing how rights interact.
      - saganus 5y ago
        What happens when there's no immediate "physically hurting them", but instead long-term damage that is not immediately obvious? I ask because dumping waste could potentially be "not hurting others" in an immediate sense, but still e.g. contaminating the dump area.
        s1artibartfast 5y ago
        There isn't a single position, but one is can contaminate the land forever if it doesn't affect your neighbors.

fknorangesite 5y ago

See this is where that libertarian-paradise-town in New Hampshire went wrong: if you put yourself on an island, you are less likely to be overrun by bears.

JoeAltmaier 5y ago

Yeah doesn't scale.

homonculus1 5y ago

If you piss off 500 people on an island with no police force I suspect YOU are going to learn how informal governance works!

strikelaserclaw 5y ago
Not if u pay a majority of them a tiny sum.