7 ms·
The heart of the matter is this question: should the community violate the consent of the individual or not? Coming at it from the utilitarian point of view (f
by wissler 13y ago
The heart of the matter is this question: should the community violate the consent of the individual or not?
Coming at it from the utilitarian point of view (for sake of argument -- I am not a utilitarian[1]), does it really need to be argued that every humane person should naturally wish to respect individual consent to the fullest extent possible? The only remaining question should be to determine to what extent this is possible. Is there a way to get the road clearing paid for without violating the consent of those who don't care if it's cleared or not?
It turns out that we can form systems whereby this is possible. For example, take a home owners association (HOA). It violates no consent to have contracts that stipulate that you must pay a yearly fee (or "tax") to join the HOA. So there you go, the snowplowing problem is solved, all without any violation of consent.
If you're creative, it turns out that you can solve all of these dilemmas, without resorting to government fiat, which of course can only be implemented by being willing to point a gun at your neighbor's head. No humane person would prefer this, ergo actually humane people would seek more creative solutions.
[1] https://leanpub.com/reasonandliberty https://leanpub.com/reasonandliberty
- briancaw2 13y agoWhat happens when that HOA needs to make a new rule? From what you described it sounds like any person on the losing end of an argument is being violated, and an HOA that has to deal with anything but some basic set of agreed upon rules will not satisfy the non-violation requirements.
- thelastuser 13y agoI cannot speak for the parent, but disagreements can be resolved by independent, third-party arbitration (which may have also been agreed upon by the HOA). This is not to be confused with a territorial monopoly on final arbitration, viz. a government court.
- briancaw2 13y agohttp://31.media.tumblr.com/tumblr_m43fenS4rJ1rqfhi2o1_250.gif http://31.media.tumblr.com/tumblr_m43fenS4rJ1rqfhi2o1_250.gi...
- wissler 13y agoHOA's can be formed based on a premise that democratic procedures govern the creation/modification of new rules.
- briancaw2 13y agoWasn't your original idea something that democratic procedures violate people? Is difference that in an HOA you agree to the procedures, instead of being born into them?
- wissler 13y agoThis is actually a very deep question. To oversimplify, yes, the difference is that you've consented to the rules. Imagine you and your friends decide to order a pizza and agree to vote on the toppings. That's fine. But it's not fine for a friend to force you to pay for the pizza when you didn't agree to do so.
- mpyne 13y agoIs it OK for you, a neighbor, and your friend to agree on the toppings of the pizza and then for your neighbor and yourself to "vote in" different toppings for every succeeding pizza? Your friend consented to the first pizza, but he didn't consent to any pizza after, except insofar as you can say that his remaining a member of the pizza-owners' association represents actual consent.
- wissler 13y agoI don't see the point of your question. What you consent to is what you consent to. You can consent to just one pizza or you can consent to a succession, it's up to you.
- dev_jim 13y agoThis is a good example of why very few libertarians exist in NYC. Fantasy solutions like a thousand different HOA's to plow the streets just don't make much sense when you think about 8 million people spread across hundreds of square miles.
- wissler 13y agoThe HOA is just an example of how creative solutions can be found, it is not an answer to every problem. Did you really expect me to provide a full theory with all solutions to all problems in this post? Your tacit premise is: "Since you didn't show me how to solve every problem, then your general solution is false." This is like blaming calculus for not having worked out all possible calculus problems.
- dev_jim 13y agoAs with most libertarians when you point out fundamental flaws in their reasoning, they deflect the conversation and try to talk about an ideal as opposed to anything based in reality.
- wissler 13y agoWell first of all you didn't point any fundamental flaw in reasoning; you engaged in it yourself. Second of all this is just pure ad hominem. On top of that you've failed to respond to the point at hand, i.e. my underscoring of your fallacious mode of reasoning, namely that you can't rationally reject a general method on the grounds that the method didn't spell out all applications for you.
- calibraxis 13y agoWe should beware definitions of "socialism" which come from those who hate it, as well as those seeking power by claiming to champion it. (Much like "democracy", which actually isn't about voting in your managers every few years then going home.) A main part of historical socialism is control over production by the producers themselves. Not by "bosses", whose commands producers must obey. Collectivism vs individualism is a false dichotomy. We can easily imagine that a healthier society cooperates to increase the freedom of its individuals. Simply talk with mainstream anarchists (anarcho-syndicalists and so on). They typically call themselves socialists, organize collective action like strikes and radical unions, etc. Certainly, anarchists aren't known for supporting the state. :) (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anarcho-syndicalism http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anarcho-syndicalism)