Without Government...

unsung said:

Go Beavers said:

unsung said:

Go Beavers said:

unsung said:

oftenreading said:

unsung said:

rgambs said:

benjs said:

unsung said:

Ha, I am looking for a successful society that exists without the threat of force of which you and others, to my knowledge, haven't provided. If your system works so well then make it voluntary. That is what I want, the elimination of the State. Of course people will organize, but it doesn't mean that they will start killing because you aren't paying your fees. That is what we have now.

I'm not sure how what we have today is a society where the people "kill because you aren't paying your fees". Of course we have looming threat of consequence for prescribed actions, but that's specifically to provide a basic level of security so that a society can be perpetuated. If a society doesn't have these threats of consequences, what prevents a person from doing what is best for him or herself, instead of the collective? If I am contemplating seizing your house simply because your house is nicer, I want it, and I can - then why won't I? And if I can align myself with more people who simply don't care like myself, then my group, a small sliver of society, will simply keep seizing more and more power (via what ever currency - land, resources, liquid or non-liquid assets - has value). We will coordinate to offer each other mutually beneficial arrangements to disproportionately take, and within long - what you will have is the same wealth inequality today. As I said before, it's because the catalyst for these inequalities is not government - it is humans themselves.

As for the proposal for a voluntary government - that doesn't work either. If I have the choice of being beholden to the rules of the collective (and not the mandate), why would I opt into checks and balances when they don't align with decisions that will benefit exclusively me? And how will a society be expected to work when I've sworn not to murder you for your land, yet my neighbour hasn't? And why do you figure that people won't start killing because they don't pay their fees (and I assume by those you mean taxes)? And who will pay for the infrastructure when no one pays their fees, and an individual never procures enough funds to maintain the infrastructure which they themselves use? How about education - should each person receive a radically different education on the same topics because they're not regulated? Which surgeon will you go to - Doctor Hibbert who received a Bachelor Degree at "Yale Regulated University", or Doctor Nick who received one at "Ben's Pretty Cool Place to Learn"? What if all you can afford is Doctor Nick? These are just a few things that immediately jump to mind, but I know there are more.

I can't fathom how you can expect a society to organize without conditioning its citizens by providing no consequences for 'bad' actions. This historically has always (again, as far as I know) accompanied the convergence of a society to a governed state, for the simple reason that it is the most effective way to mandate that a populace behave in ways best for the basic safety and security demands of the populace over the individual.

An excellent post, but you are wasting your time, Unsung doesn't debate with bootlicking statists.

Why would I? Clearly you'll never turn your back on your God.

Your society exists because of the people in it, some people do need to be ruled.

Mine can't exist because of your voters.

Currently these mall riots are the rage, those wouldn't happen in my society but they are a plague in yours. These people can't function with civility, nor can they be negotiated with.

That makes it a little clearer. There are only certain people you want in your society. The others, those who can't function with civility or be negotiated with, are excluded. Maybe through threat of force.

Forcing diversity doesn't work, people coordinate according to their own belief systems.

Is that a continuation of your claim that liberals are trying to destroy the white race? And you can, in a sense, force diversity. E.g. when employers make explicit policies that say you can't discriminate based on race, gender, sexual orientation, the environment changes and therefore beliefs change.

You keep bringing that up as if it isn't true.

It's not true. But if I'm wrong, then make a case for it being true.

I have previously linked Joe Biden's infamous speech, and here is another.

http://www.philly.com/philly/news/Drexel-officials-Professor-George-Ciccariello-Mahers-White-Genocide-tweet-was-utterly-reprehensible.html?mobi=true

Funny how he backpedaled when called out on it. These are the clowns educating the youth.

So a professor's tweet is your proof?

unsung said:

Amazingly enough we can VOLUNTARILY create associations with other groups in order to accomplish all of this.

Compound? And you wonder why I don't have much of a desire to discuss this with some of you. Your minds work in such a narrow band that you simply refuse to believe that any other way of life, except this current pathetic system could possibly exist.

But I want to keep on my line here for a moment, going with this route of my "apparently totally self sufficient house" as if that is a bad thing.

A self-sufficient house is a great concept, but what you've described is a house greatly dependent on other societies: ones which manufacture and service septic, propane tanks, your battery system, solar panels (unless you happen to have the intellectual property, process, and raw material to build said items yourself). In this scenario, what are the obtrusive elements of government which you avoid?

unsung said:

benjs said:

unsung said:

Amazingly enough we can VOLUNTARILY create associations with other groups in order to accomplish all of this.

Compound? And you wonder why I don't have much of a desire to discuss this with some of you. Your minds work in such a narrow band that you simply refuse to believe that any other way of life, except this current pathetic system could possibly exist.

But I want to keep on my line here for a moment, going with this route of my "apparently totally self sufficient house" as if that is a bad thing.

A self-sufficient house is a great concept, but what you've described is a house greatly dependent on other societies: ones which manufacture and service septic, propane tanks, your battery system, solar panels (unless you happen to have the intellectual property, process, and raw material to build said items yourself). In this scenario, what are the obtrusive elements of government which you avoid?

Ever hear of bartering?

Let's ratchet back again, in the context of current arrangements, in this scenario that I have presented...

What if I stop paying property taxes?

If you stop paying property taxes then the government of the land on which your house resides reserves the right to penalize you as per the rules set by society-elected officials. Those dues are owed for the services which the government procures on behalf of its populace: providing all members of the free market with the infrastructure to access each other, access to educated medical professionals (and their access to a proper and regulated education). You reaped the benefits of these services from the day you joined America, and the terms of that entrance were the perpetual taxations applied to the citizens. If you're trying to make a point on that topic, I'm not sure I'm understanding it.

As for bartering - the reason that currencies exist in all modern societies is because people crave universally liquid and non-spoilable assets: something which allows occupations to compare the compensation per effort and make informed career choices; something which doesn't go bad (retains worth) even if unrefrigerated; something which is practical in a free market saturated with a wide variety of products (and thus encourages that wide variety). In your society, do you envision that it could proceed beyond the point of a resource-finite agrarian nation? How could you find and entice enough people to join your society to compete with the intellectual advancements seen in our large collectives today, and what would dissuade them from what we see today? Going back to your first point - if you give people the choice of taxes and the services gained by them: infrastructure, regulated markets, modern enforced legal and protective services, proportional representation through government, currency - and on the other hand - ask them to procure these products and services themselves, which do you feel is more palatable and long-term tenable for a person or family? These government services don't come with quality assurances, and we've seen that the quality lacks in many services: but I'd argue that the abandonment of government is not a reasonable alternative.

To the point that we've never seen a society like yours, and thus don't know if it would work, I will argue the alternative. Time and time again, we've seen societies like yours. Shortly thereafter, people begin to understand the benefit of the collective, and that the collective requires a government, and lo and behold, a society is right back at a governed state. This is a natural convergence because the perceived gain is greater as a collective, and the smartest will always do what's possible to seize or maintain power positions - which means a small governing body claiming to represent the masses, and ultimately serving themselves.

unsung said:

So you never really own anything. That is your system. Congrats.

So in your system you get to feel victimized by taxes?

unsung said:

HughFreakingDillon said:

unsung said:

HughFreakingDillon said:

benjs said:

unsung said:

benjs said:

unsung said:

rgambs said:

benjs said:

unsung said:

Ha, I am looking for a successful society that exists without the threat of force of which you and others, to my knowledge, haven't provided. If your system works so well then make it voluntary. That is what I want, the elimination of the State. Of course people will organize, but it doesn't mean that they will start killing because you aren't paying your fees. That is what we have now.

I'm not sure how what we have today is a society where the people "kill because you aren't paying your fees". Of course we have looming threat of consequence for prescribed actions, but that's specifically to provide a basic level of security so that a society can be perpetuated. If a society doesn't have these threats of consequences, what prevents a person from doing what is best for him or herself, instead of the collective? If I am contemplating seizing your house simply because your house is nicer, I want it, and I can - then why won't I? And if I can align myself with more people who simply don't care like myself, then my group, a small sliver of society, will simply keep seizing more and more power (via what ever currency - land, resources, liquid or non-liquid assets - has value). We will coordinate to offer each other mutually beneficial arrangements to disproportionately take, and within long - what you will have is the same wealth inequality today. As I said before, it's because the catalyst for these inequalities is not government - it is humans themselves.

As for the proposal for a voluntary government - that doesn't work either. If I have the choice of being beholden to the rules of the collective (and not the mandate), why would I opt into checks and balances when they don't align with decisions that will benefit exclusively me? And how will a society be expected to work when I've sworn not to murder you for your land, yet my neighbour hasn't? And why do you figure that people won't start killing because they don't pay their fees (and I assume by those you mean taxes)? And who will pay for the infrastructure when no one pays their fees, and an individual never procures enough funds to maintain the infrastructure which they themselves use? How about education - should each person receive a radically different education on the same topics because they're not regulated? Which surgeon will you go to - Doctor Hibbert who received a Bachelor Degree at "Yale Regulated University", or Doctor Nick who received one at "Ben's Pretty Cool Place to Learn"? What if all you can afford is Doctor Nick? These are just a few things that immediately jump to mind, but I know there are more.

I can't fathom how you can expect a society to organize without conditioning its citizens by providing no consequences for 'bad' actions. This historically has always (again, as far as I know) accompanied the convergence of a society to a governed state, for the simple reason that it is the most effective way to mandate that a populace behave in ways best for the basic safety and security demands of the populace over the individual.

An excellent post, but you are wasting your time, Unsung doesn't debate with bootlicking statists.

Why would I? Clearly you'll never turn your back on your God.

Your society exists because of the people in it, some people do need to be ruled.

Mine can't exist because of your voters.

Currently these mall riots are the rage, those wouldn't happen in my society but they are a plague in yours. These people can't function with civility, nor can they be negotiated with.

I thought I laid out several reasonable scenarios above for why your proposed society can't exist (and it's not because of "our voters"). In spite of the mathematics, science, and empirical evidence showing that acting in favour of the collective over one's self has a greater risk * reward upside potential over time, our fundamental flaws like greed and hedonism have time and time again shown the lengths that humans will go to, to obtain marginal personal gain fraught with risk, over slightly less collective gain with significantly less risk. This is not about my society versus your society - this is about human characteristics which will not change over time, regardless of the organization of a group.

No, certain behaviors can't be negotiated with however a group of like minded will all work together to ensure that their lives are not reduced to requiring a ruling class to extort them.

Those that are excluded are free to start their own society in another location. They can go riot there all they want.

Again - no matter how like-minded you suspect people are, history shows time and time again that a person who can attain power unjustly without ramifications will consistently put their own needs above those of the collective, and do so. If you'd like to exclude people who don't exhibit that behaviour (i.e. introduce ramifications akin to the ones you loathe from government), then your society's population has decreased to zero. These traits which make an ungoverned society untenable are as intrinsic to humans as our ability to breathe and think, and don't come with an off switch (save for a lobotomy).

Edit: Your society's population can exist with a population of one - where the interests of the collective equal the interests of one's self.

unsung thinks he's rick grimes. but there's always going to be a negan.

You guys keep telling me how my society can't work and here I see your society and how it is falling apart.

You guys keep telling me that people can't be trusted, then go and get people to rule over you as if they are the exceptions. Your system is exactly what you are telling me what mine would turn into and I sit here and find it unacceptable to not attempt it given how far gone this current system is.

last I checked, you aren't a sovereign nation unto yourself. you are part of "your society", whether you like it or not.

they don't rule over us. they aren't kings and queens. they are elected representatives that are chosen based on their policy that allign most with the voters. are some on the take? of course they are. but it's the best we've got at the moment. insert unsung's "you are so naive" comment about how our government "really" works. yeah, I know how it "really" works. we all do. it's flawed. but it still functions. your system would die on the vine. or, more likely, would just simply go back to the way it is now.

your utopia of self-rule and everybody is nice to each other (and of course, your "try to take my shit and I'm tougher than you" stance) is simply fantasy. that worked in the land before societies and civilizations. hunter gatherers. but even in those small groups, as in primates still today, there is a system of order and heirarchy. a system of "everyone is equal and has an equal voice" is simply not feasible. that would mean everyone would have to get along, everyone would have to agree, and if they didn't, no one ever got butthurt over it and no one ever tried to rise up against the factions of the group that control everything.

your society only works if every single person on the planet lives alone and interacts with no one else.

Your society only exists through the use, or threat, of force. I have never said that people wouldn't form groups, in fact the opposite.

So let's say I save up enough dollars, post income tax, to buy some property. On said property I use more of my saved dollars to build a house. This house functions completely isolated from city services. I have a well and septic, propane tank, or fire place, and since I have a highly technical background I have purchased a battery system that is charged through your beloved green energy (solar) and have my own power, even a surplus. I have played your game with your rules and secured all necessary permits (government permission slips) to do what I want on my property without creating negative issues for my neighbors.

Do you have a problem with that?

why would anyone have an issue with that? but I also don't see the relevance of it. plenty of people do just as what you described.

unsung said:

Amazingly enough we can VOLUNTARILY create associations with other groups in order to accomplish all of this.

Compound? And you wonder why I don't have much of a desire to discuss this with some of you. Your minds work in such a narrow band that you simply refuse to believe that any other way of life, except this current pathetic system could possibly exist.

But I want to keep on my line here for a moment, going with this route of my "apparently totally self sufficient house" as if that is a bad thing.

So you're objecting to the use of my word "compound"? Why? You seem to be describing your totally self-sufficient house, which by its very nature would require quite an infrastructure. If you are self-sufficient you will need to grow and produce food, clothing, etc. That requires quite a bit of space beyond one single house; thus, my use of the word compound. It's not like it's a dirty word or something.

unsung, you still haven't addressed my point that over time, all ungoverned societies have organically matured to become governed societies. How do you intend to break this consistent trend? A society of one is a perfect democracy, but a society of greater than one has been exclusively proven to become an imperfect something-ocracy over time.

unsung said:

Go Beavers said:

Can you find a more valid source instead of zerohedge?

Typical liberal tactic. Can't argue the story so try to discredit the source.

Typical conservative tactic, spreading false information as fact along with citing no valid sources to prove the point. Then complaining when someone questions the source.