(June 29, 2013 at 10:00 pm)paulpablo Wrote: Slavery isn't a system it's basically someone is more powerful than someone else so therefore they take the freedom of someone else.

So you are saying that's not what governments do?

(June 29, 2013 at 10:00 pm)paulpablo Wrote: I'm not saying that there is no better system than the government. But since you're using examples from history of systems which haven't worked has a country ever been successful and thriving with a good health care system and economy while in a state of anarchy?

There hasn't been a country free from initiation of violence. Since very few people in the world are rational thinkers. Good people just have to submit to the violence and live successful private lives, and try not to receive too many blows to the head from the primitive.

(June 29, 2013 at 10:00 pm)paulpablo Wrote: Anarchy isn't an abuse of power, but humans have been known to abuse whatever power or strength they have when no laws are in place to stop them.

The definition of Anarchy is rules, but no rulers.

(June 29, 2013 at 10:01 pm)Tartarus Sauce Wrote: Unfortunately, a large-scale society running without an overseeing institution handling all the logistics seems irrational too. :/

If having an entity exempt from rules and morality that claims to be in society's best interest overseeing society is a principle for you, who will oversee the overseers?

so far from what you've said, i've gathered that your society completely depends upon all individuals being rational and nonviolent beings. In other words: your society depends on everyone not committing crimes, because if anyone does, there is no effective enforcement.

What is preventing people from hiring security? The same thing that's preventing people from doing that today: money.

You're also underestimating every criminal's ability to shoot, and overestimating bystanders' abilities to shoot.

And I don't know why anyone would want to live in a society like that. Where you are expected to kill people to defend yourself, or watch out for agressors in case you need to kill someone in defence of someone else.

(June 29, 2013 at 10:22 pm)pineapplebunnybounce Wrote: so far from what you've said, i've gathered that your society completely depends upon all individuals being rational and nonviolent beings. In other words: your society depends on everyone not committing crimes, because if anyone does, there is no effective enforcement.

What is preventing people from hiring security? The same thing that's preventing people from doing that today: money.

You're also underestimating every criminal's ability to shoot, and overestimating bystanders' abilities to shoot.

And I don't know why anyone would want to live in a society like that. Where you are expected to kill people to defend yourself, or watch out for agressors in case you need to kill someone in defence of someone else.

Well, hold on- what's protecting you from aggressors now? If people voted and cheered the government to confiscate your possessions and put you in a cage - who is going to protect you?

The country i live in right now doesn't allow people to vote on who gets to go to jail. Let alone cheer for it.

However in YOUR society, if people wanted me in jail and cheered for it, they can just hire people to throw me in one.

(June 29, 2013 at 10:17 pm)Koolay Wrote: If having an entity exempt from rules and morality that claims to be in society's best interest overseeing society is a principle for you, who will oversee the overseers?

I'm pessimistic of humanity's capacity to be able to run large-scale societies without falling to the traps of discriminatory group division and corruption of power, government or not.

Hence why I said we should break off and form mini-socities on islands.....not that such a thing would realistically happen of course.

I do actually agree that a society can exist and function without a government. Without someone in charge, however, maybe. Even a society without a government and without someone in charge can theoretically work. The problem with our society is that people are not comfortable with doing anything unless they gain something from doing it. Eliminate the idea that someone must trade something for something else and that the only way to trade is through earning a wage, then society can understand that doing things for the betterment of society is more for unity rather than proving one is better than another.

Everything should be free. Plain and simple. Realistically, it could work. In our society, forget it. In a perfect society, perfect being the operative word, people would willingly work and provide not just for themselves. They would provide for the betterment of the community, the entire world.

(June 29, 2013 at 10:32 pm)pineapplebunnybounce Wrote: The country i live in right now doesn't allow people to vote on who gets to go to jail. Let alone cheer for it.

However in YOUR society, if people wanted me in jail and cheered for it, they can just hire people to throw me in one.

Really? which country? I want to go there. From everything I have experienced of democracy is basically a majority of people outsourcing violence to guys in blue costume against minorities.

'My' society is not correct. It is the only society, as definition of society is a voluntary gathering of people, not people held in by imaginary lines and violence.

(June 29, 2013 at 10:34 pm)Tartarus Sauce Wrote:

(June 29, 2013 at 10:17 pm)Koolay Wrote: If having an entity exempt from rules and morality that claims to be in society's best interest overseeing society is a principle for you, who will oversee the overseers?

I'm pessimistic of humanity's capacity to be able to run large-scale societies without falling to the traps of discriminatory group division and corruption of power, government or not.

Hence why I said we should break off and form mini-socities on islands.....not that such a thing would realistically happen of course.

How was your childhood?

(June 29, 2013 at 11:27 pm)Maelstrom Wrote: I do actually agree that a society can exist and function without a government. Without someone in charge, however, no. Even a society without a government and without someone in charge can theoretically work. The problem with our society is that people are not comfortable with doing anything unless they gain something from doing it. Eliminate the idea that someone must trade something for something else and that the only way to trade is through earning a wage, then society can understand that doing things for the betterment of society is more for unity rather than proving one is better than another.

Everything should be free. Plain and simple. Realistically, it could work. In our society, forget it. In a perfect society, perfect being the operative word, people would willingly work and provide not just for themselves. They would provide for the betterment of the community, the entire world.

Not really sure what your argument is? This isn't really the place to talk about our random fantasies.

(June 29, 2013 at 8:10 pm)Koolay Wrote: Pretty simple, society organising without the initiation of force or violence.

But..., that is a government. And I'm pretty sure most governments did form that way, in the beginning at least. The question is how to keep them from corruption out once it has formed.

Once it is organized, the leaders are always going to have biases. That is what a constitution is for. A democratic/socialist government with limitations is the best way to go.

I'm not entirely sure what you are advocating for here, since anarchy just will not work realistically since some sort of government will always form, some way or another. Ever having some sort of leadership is the beginning of a government. Anarchism is just idealistic nonsense.

(June 30, 2013 at 1:03 am)BrotherNeto Wrote:

(June 29, 2013 at 8:10 pm)Koolay Wrote: Pretty simple, society organising without the initiation of force or violence.

But..., that is a government.

If you can't see the government as an initiator of violence, either you are completely retarded or you have an emotional reason for doing so. Either way, I don't want to read on or interact with you any more.

(June 29, 2013 at 8:24 pm)Koolay Wrote: Small tangent:
From my understanding of the profile of murderers, that behaviour comes about from traumatic experiences in childhood and being brutalised, ignored and abused by their parents and other people.

This is actually NOT the profile of murderers. Murderers come from all walks of life, from all backgrounds, from all kinds of variables.

Your alternative is naive and based on a very poor understanding of human nature.

---

(June 30, 2013 at 1:06 am)Koolay Wrote:

(June 30, 2013 at 1:03 am)BrotherNeto Wrote: But..., that is a government.

If you can't see the government as an initiator of violence, either you are completely retarded or you have an emotional reason for doing so. Either way, I don't want to read on or interact with you any more.

Oh yes, I can see you're going to be just a WONDERFUL contributor to this site. I can see you're going to contribute some real gems of intellectual discourse- I'm sorry I couldn't keep that up with a straight face.