15 ms·

"This is the logical and likely necessary progression. And it really does require some leadership." You can't just tout your opinion as "logical". We live in th

by zo1 13y ago

"This is the logical and likely necessary progression. And it really does require some leadership." You can't just tout your opinion as "logical". We live in the real world, where people have their own opinions and wants/desires. Just because it's "logical" according to you for society to move in a specific direction using a specific political system, doesn't mean that everyone will agree with it, nor that it is logical for them to do so. It's odd how all these political schemes always work in "absolutes", and never allowing anyone to take themselves out of it voluntarily. Hint: If someone doesn't like the political system, then you're acting immorally and violently by forcing them to abide by it.

nmrm 13y ago
> If someone doesn't like the political system, then you're acting immorally and violently by forcing them to abide by it. Do you really mean this? It seems completely unrealistic, and is just the flip side of the parent's comment. I don't know of a single political system in the entire world which allows residents to opt out of its legal system, and nor should they. Maybe you mean something rather specific by political system and I just don't understand what you're saying?
- etherael 13y ago
  Anarchocapitalism is a proposed system matching the description offered (polycentric law). Of course if you opt out of every law other people might not want anything to do with you (freedom of choice works both ways), and your life might end up pretty bad, but more likely in practice opting out of all the existing laws except the obvious ones most people won't have a problem with.
  - nmrm 13y ago
    > Anarchocapitalism... in practice opting out of all the existing laws except the obvious ones most people won't have a problem with. This sounds, if anything, less realistic than the OP's proposal. It's also completely vacuous... which ones are obvious? The process of finding a sufficiently acceptable set is called politics.
    - etherael 13y ago
      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polycentric_law http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polycentric_law There is historical precedent. We may be submerged in the fabric of the monolithic state with supreme political power, but it is not the only way. Obvious ones are ones that you personally would feel uncomfortable dealing with someone not bound by. For me those would be assault, murder, theft, fraud, and things of this level. Do I care if you have a moral objection to compulsorily funding the war machine of the state? Most certainly not. How about if you smoke proscribed plant matter? No problem, once again. The vast majority of laws are useless. Also, politics has nothing to do with finding an acceptable set of laws. Politics (from Greek: πολιτικός politikos, meaning "of, for, or relating to citizens") is the practice and theory of influencing other people on a civic or individual level. Making laws is one method of exerting influence, but it will do just as well for the state to resort to plain old thuggery. The point is to maintain and increase their power.
      - nmrm 13y ago
        >There is historical precedent. Of what? The Wikipedia article only indicates that there's a historical precedent of people talking about the idea, not its actual implementation at scale. There is a one sentence mention of ethnic self-rule in Roman times, but it's complete hogwash. We've done exactly the same in the modern era by not doing the whole conquering other ethnic group's land and colonizing it thing. > The vast majority of laws are useless. I agree, but prefer this inefficiency to something which makes exploitation easy. > politics has nothing to do with finding an acceptable set of laws. Politics is the practice and theory of influencing other people on a civic or individual level. These statements are incompatible in democratic societies; in fact, that's the chief innovation of democracy.
        etherael 13y ago
        > Of what? The Wikipedia article only indicates that there's a historical precedent of people talking about the idea, not its actual implementation at scale. Medieval Iceland, Ireland, Somalian xeer, various merchant law throughout history. I assumed you would actually research things yourself before jumping to incorrect conclusions. No such luck I suppose. > I agree, but prefer this inefficiency to something which makes exploitation easy. Worse than a false dichotomy, this is ignorant of the fact that many of the modern laws we have are what make exploitation easy. > These statements are incompatible in democratic societies; in fact, that's the chief innovation of democracy. And yet, they're true. It is almost as if democracy were not an adequate hedge against the intrinsic exploitation of political authority. Reading your responses, you come across a lot like someone utterly convinced that the present dominant paradigm is the one true path and anyone who thinks different is just throwing poorly thought out ideas around. Keeping in mind how comprehensively the political paradigm under which we currently are enslaved is proving to be not just ineffective, but an instrument of our oppression, you might want to have a long hard think about your biases. If there is one thing you can say for the anarchocapitalists, it is that there is no shortage of literature and discussion about every conceivable edge case which could ever be imagined already discussed in great detail, largely because the reaction you've displayed here is extremely common. Before dismissing it after extremely shallow consideration, actually try doing your own research.

by zo1 13y ago

nmrm 13y ago

> If someone doesn't like the political system, then you're acting immorally and violently by forcing them to abide by it. Do you really mean this? It seems completely unrealistic, and is just the flip side of the parent's comment. I don't know of a single political system in the entire world which allows residents to opt out of its legal system, and nor should they. Maybe you mean something rather specific by political system and I just don't understand what you're saying?

etherael 13y ago
Anarchocapitalism is a proposed system matching the description offered (polycentric law). Of course if you opt out of every law other people might not want anything to do with you (freedom of choice works both ways), and your life might end up pretty bad, but more likely in practice opting out of all the existing laws except the obvious ones most people won't have a problem with.
- nmrm 13y ago
  > Anarchocapitalism... in practice opting out of all the existing laws except the obvious ones most people won't have a problem with. This sounds, if anything, less realistic than the OP's proposal. It's also completely vacuous... which ones are obvious? The process of finding a sufficiently acceptable set is called politics.
  - etherael 13y ago
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polycentric_law http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polycentric_law There is historical precedent. We may be submerged in the fabric of the monolithic state with supreme political power, but it is not the only way. Obvious ones are ones that you personally would feel uncomfortable dealing with someone not bound by. For me those would be assault, murder, theft, fraud, and things of this level. Do I care if you have a moral objection to compulsorily funding the war machine of the state? Most certainly not. How about if you smoke proscribed plant matter? No problem, once again. The vast majority of laws are useless. Also, politics has nothing to do with finding an acceptable set of laws. Politics (from Greek: πολιτικός politikos, meaning "of, for, or relating to citizens") is the practice and theory of influencing other people on a civic or individual level. Making laws is one method of exerting influence, but it will do just as well for the state to resort to plain old thuggery. The point is to maintain and increase their power.
    - nmrm 13y ago
      >There is historical precedent. Of what? The Wikipedia article only indicates that there's a historical precedent of people talking about the idea, not its actual implementation at scale. There is a one sentence mention of ethnic self-rule in Roman times, but it's complete hogwash. We've done exactly the same in the modern era by not doing the whole conquering other ethnic group's land and colonizing it thing. > The vast majority of laws are useless. I agree, but prefer this inefficiency to something which makes exploitation easy. > politics has nothing to do with finding an acceptable set of laws. Politics is the practice and theory of influencing other people on a civic or individual level. These statements are incompatible in democratic societies; in fact, that's the chief innovation of democracy.
      - etherael 13y ago
        > Of what? The Wikipedia article only indicates that there's a historical precedent of people talking about the idea, not its actual implementation at scale. Medieval Iceland, Ireland, Somalian xeer, various merchant law throughout history. I assumed you would actually research things yourself before jumping to incorrect conclusions. No such luck I suppose. > I agree, but prefer this inefficiency to something which makes exploitation easy. Worse than a false dichotomy, this is ignorant of the fact that many of the modern laws we have are what make exploitation easy. > These statements are incompatible in democratic societies; in fact, that's the chief innovation of democracy. And yet, they're true. It is almost as if democracy were not an adequate hedge against the intrinsic exploitation of political authority. Reading your responses, you come across a lot like someone utterly convinced that the present dominant paradigm is the one true path and anyone who thinks different is just throwing poorly thought out ideas around. Keeping in mind how comprehensively the political paradigm under which we currently are enslaved is proving to be not just ineffective, but an instrument of our oppression, you might want to have a long hard think about your biases. If there is one thing you can say for the anarchocapitalists, it is that there is no shortage of literature and discussion about every conceivable edge case which could ever be imagined already discussed in great detail, largely because the reaction you've displayed here is extremely common. Before dismissing it after extremely shallow consideration, actually try doing your own research.