| Psychotic said: Ad hierarchy: Since we're not in disagreement over this, I'll drop it, then. Ad voluntary participation in organisations: That's all fine in theory. We basically have this now, only with the state and its branches as the only involuntary one... But do you see that as something that would produce more good than evil? Even today, when they are at least regulated by the state, there are huge levels of coercion, indoctrination and downright abuse associated with these "voluntary" organizations. If they weren't, don't you see those things rising immensely? Ad abolishing the state: Again, no disagreement here. It is possible to take down the state. Theoretically. I doubt it will ever happen, all with quality of life rising and all, and I don't want it to happen, but... still perfectly possible. Ad conflict resolution: There is one huge problem in your whole proposition: it expects everybody to be reasonable and fair, which is not (and simply cannot) be the case. If I've done something wrong, I *don't* want the issue to be resolved, it's against my best interests. In your first set of options, I can simply choose option 4: None of the above. Actually, it also connects to the voluntary organizations point. Who can be this "judge"? Who can be relied upon to be impartial in a place where nobody can be prosecuted for anything or forced to do anything? And what if there's no one able to judge competently in a really complicated issue? In fact, how do you even know who is supposed to be judged in the first place? In your scenarion, both sides of the conflict are clear. What if they're not? And finally, how do you deal with people who will not be deterred by any means from doing harm? How do you deal with psychopaths, insane people, extremists? In short, your whole system stands on everyone being willing to cooperate. The second somebody isn't, it crumbles down. Ad international justice: I'm actually really glad you likened your system to the system of international justice, because I think the comparison is fitting. Does the way the world works on the international level strike you as just? The United States can literally do anything they want, because they have the strongest military and the (second) largest economy. They don't participate in many agreements where most of the international community particpate, they can't be convinced to limit pollution, to submit to the International Criminal Court, to prosecute war criminals, to stop invading sovereign countries or spying on people. They are the biggest kid in the playground and everybody has to deal with that. Where do the countries hurt by the U.S. foreign policy go to receive recompense? Does this strike you as just? I'm just really perplexed by your bringing up international relations as something that goes perfectly and in a just manner... I don't think many people would claim this. (And by the way, I'm not (very) anti-American and I'm not holding them responsible for anything - I'm merely stating facts.) |
voluntary participation in organizations:
Yes I think it will be more good than evil. Regulatory capture and limited liablility are probably the principal reasons why such organizations get away with the "huge levels of coercion, indoctrination, and downright abuse" that you talk about. In an anarchic society, they are not protected from being personally liable nor do they have state priveleges to outgun their non-compulsive competition. The rest of the population can hold them accountable for any damages they've done through cooperating against them.
abolishing the state
Cool, just want to re-emphasis that it would be a slow-process and more akin to society shedding the state than abolishing it.
conflict resolution
I don't know how people interact where you live, but where I live 99% of people want to get along with each-other and are indeed reasonable and fair. When that is the case, the other 1% can't really do too much. They are limited by the 99% cooperative people. By choosing "none of the above" how are you going to get your money? And if you are the other person, choosing "none of the above" how are you going to prevent your neighbor from using force to seek reparations or seeking others whom represent him to do so? If you choose to do nothing, his only course of action is to use force, and since you showed you aren't willing to cooperate other people will be on his side, putting you at a big disadvantage in the situation.
Anybody can be the judge. Like I said, it is a mutual agreement between the persons in conflict. They must both agree to him/her. What do you mean by "clear?" Is it not the judge's or the group of judge's responsibility to determine that?
The same way we deal with them today. If they try to harm you, you harm them back. Otherwise you ostracize them from society. With the internet and reputation databases, this wouldn't be hard to do at all. We already see things like this with Yelp, Uber, and Angie's List. Anybody who has commited such a crime, and doesn't want to pay reparations for it would easily be recognized as such by people who encounter him/her in the future (via background checks.)
It doesn't require everyone to cooperate, just most people. Most people cooperate today, and no it isn't because they are told to, but because there are social, moral, and individual pressures to do so.
international justice
Two things: It is just. Every country retains its autonomy, but progress is still made. The world is becoming a more peaceful and safer place. Sure the U.S gets away with a lot, but it also has done good. Also take note that the U.S won't be able to continue in the long-term doing what it does, even if it gets away with it for now. If the U.S only does the bad things it does in the long-term it will alienate itself from the rest of the world, and the rest of the world will choose to reciprocate with the U.S. Even with its size and stature, the U.S still cares what European states, China, Japan, etc think and is limited by them. Most of the examples you gave are effects of collectivization. The U.S doesn't do these things (climate change regulation, reduced war, etc) because there is either internal stife preventing it from doing so, or it isn't a rational entity with real costs. Individuals don't have these constraints. Individuals have full autonomy over themelves (no internal struggle) and they feel the costs of their actions.
Now imagine that instead of approximately 200 actors (countries), there are thousands, millions, or billions. The ability for any one entity to have the level of influence over others that the U.S has becomes practically nothing, they are so vastly outnumbered by everybody else.
There will always be outlaws who don't play by the rules, but that is true of any system.
