Anonymous B replied with this 2 years ago, 9 minutes later, 18 minutes after the original post[^][v]#1,280,877
@previous (A)
My customers would have more money, services would have to be funded voluntarily, and funding the drug war and imperialist ventures would be next to impossible.
Anonymous A (OP) replied with this 2 years ago, 7 minutes later, 30 minutes after the original post[^][v]#1,280,889
@previous (B)
If no one paid taxes, we would not have money for infrastructure and services, unless people volunteered, and we know humans are too selfish for that.
Anonymous B replied with this 2 years ago, 35 seconds later, 1 hour after the original post[^][v]#1,280,903
@1,280,897 (A) > police
Private security already exists, and unlike the police, actually show up.
Cops employed by the state use their firearms too much, private security knows they need to deescalate to maintain their contract (which is not forcefully mandated by the government).
Anonymous A (OP) replied with this 2 years ago, 1 minute later, 1 hour after the original post[^][v]#1,280,910
@previous (B)
Their ONLY goal is "to increase shareholders' profit." They do not CARE about the services. ANYTHING they can do to make money is what they want. Again, why do you TRUST them over a government, which is not profit-driven?
> Their ONLY goal is "to increase shareholders' profit." They do not CARE about the services.
I don't care about their motivations, I care about their result.
If they want money, and the only way to get money is to convince me to buy their services, they will try to be better than the competition.
> Again, why do you TRUST them over a government, which is not profit-driven?
Governments are profit driven. They can make profits faster, with no need to convince you the service is good. Infrastructure is falling apart in some countries, but no one can choose to move their money to a different provider.
Anonymous C replied with this 2 years ago, 3 minutes later, 1 hour after the original post[^][v]#1,280,913
@previous (B) > If they want money, and the only way to get money is to convince me to buy their services
The only way? A gun to your head can also be pretty convincing...
Anonymous C replied with this 2 years ago, 1 minute later, 1 hour after the original post[^][v]#1,280,925
@previous (B)
Because I'm assuming you don't agree with the last two sentences of my post. If you do agree with them, then what is it you are even saying?
Anonymous C replied with this 2 years ago, 5 minutes later, 1 hour after the original post[^][v]#1,280,934
@previous (B) > If we were in a state of anarchy then Americans wouldn't have to fund the drug war, and Brits could choose their medical provider.
Why? Because that would be prohibited in an anarchist system -- for one "private security force" from taking over? How? What would that even mean?
> If you mean we have more freedom than in the preceding feudal societies
Not what I mean.
Anonymous C double-posted this 2 years ago, 5 minutes later, 1 hour after the original post[^][v]#1,280,936
Also, consider the power of jury nullification in all Western democracies. Is this not anarchy in a certain sense? No law need be respected if there's at least 1 out of 12 to consistently throw a mis-trial.
Don't you think most problems we face today might not be with the form of government at all? The core and most fundamental problems are cultural. No form of government or lack thereof will end up well if the population has no respect for their own autonomy. People are literally getting upset that facebook isn't telling them what is and isn't real frequently enough.
> >If we were in a state of anarchy then Americans wouldn't have to fund the drug war, and Brits could choose their medical provider. > Why? Because that would be prohibited in an anarchist system -- for one "private security force" from taking over? How? What would that even mean?
No, a system without that monopoly is the definition of what I'm talking about. If one took over and forced you to use them, it would stop being a free society.
> Also, consider the power of jury nullification in all Western democracies. Is this not anarchy in a certain sense? No law need be respected if there's at least 1 out of 12 to consistently throw a mis-trial.
Only theoretically. It's possible that you break a law, and it isn't enforced, but in general these laws are enforced.
> > Don't you think most problems we face today might not be with the form of government at all? The core and most fundamental problems are cultural. No form of government or lack thereof will end up well if the population has no respect for their own autonomy. People are literally getting upset that facebook isn't telling them what is and isn't real frequently enough.
Politics are part of culture. Typically when societies form censors and mediate information, it's because of government mandates. If you have the choice of multiple companies, censorship is much harder to implement.
Anonymous C replied with this 2 years ago, 9 seconds later, 2 hours after the original post[^][v]#1,280,944
@1,280,942 (B)
Fine. Fair enough definition. What makes you think this would be a stable state? This is where historical examples would be useful.
The closest I'm aware of is pre-modern Iceland. I personally wouldn't say that that was an overwhelming success in terms of personal liberty. It wasn't a disaster, but I don't think it was a success either.
> > Also, consider the power of jury nullification in all Western democracies. Is this not anarchy in a certain sense? No law need be respected if there's at least 1 out of 12 to consistently throw a mis-trial. > > Only theoretically. It's possible that you break a law, and it isn't enforced, but in general these laws are enforced.
Only theoretically? Who cares? If people consistently refused to cooperate as jurors and participate in enforcing bullshit laws, it wouldn't matter if you were arrested and tried because nothing would come of it. They'd eventually stop wasting their own time. In some places they have, although jury nullification culture has never been as strong as it should be anywhere as far as I'm concerned.
If people are so uncommitted and weak willed that they can't just not vote to convict someone, how in the world are they going to deal with all the guard rails being ripped off suddenly? In theory, I think it could work. But not with the current sad state of the global West.
> > > > > Don't you think most problems we face today might not be with the form of government at all? The core and most fundamental problems are cultural. No form of government or lack thereof will end up well if the population has no respect for their own autonomy. People are literally getting upset that facebook isn't telling them what is and isn't real frequently enough. > > Politics are part of culture. Typically when societies form censors and mediate information, it's because of government mandates. If you have the choice of multiple companies, censorship is much harder to implement.
We're talking about 2 things at once here now. > Politics are part of culture.
Sure, but whatever you want to call it, the public doesn't want more freedom. This is problem number zero that needs to be fixed.
Point 2: yes, that's right about censorship being harder to implement, although they're doing a damn good job today agreeing across all major platforms. Kind of beside the point of problem number zero though.
> Did pre-modern iceland have private security firms, privatized healthcare, and turnpikes?
If you know of an example of what you're envisioning happening historically in a non-transient way, tell me. I gave the closest example I know of. Don't argue against that example. I'm asking you for the example. If you don't know of one, then we can agree. There probably hasn't been anything close to what you're suggesting that has persisted. We can then pick the discussion up from there and see where it leads.
Anonymous C replied with this 2 years ago, 1 minute later, 2 hours after the original post[^][v]#1,280,954
@previous (B)
Do you believe the US is moving away or closer to what you're imagining? If moving away, when, roughly, do you believe it was most like what you're imagining?
Anonymous C replied with this 2 years ago, 5 minutes later, 2 hours after the original post[^][v]#1,280,958
@previous (B)
That's a surprising answer. In the past 120 years, you believe health care has gotten closer to your dream? In that time period the US went from allowing anyone to buy virtually any medication without a prescription, to putting everything under lock & key. The medical education system became consolidated, health insurance companies began massive lobbying efforts, and the pharmaceutical industry found ways to patent and restrict compounds pulled from the earth.
> That's a surprising answer. In the past 120 years, you believe health care has gotten closer to your dream? In that time period the US went from allowing anyone to buy virtually any medication without a prescription, to putting everything under lock & key.
You could buy most medications in a big city easily if you know some people, and for autistics there are dark web markets.
You can't buy heroin at Walgreen's unless you pay the fees at a pain clinic, but in practice there's always a doctor willing to write a script.
> The medical education system became consolidated, health insurance companies began massive lobbying efforts, and the pharmaceutical industry found ways to patent and restrict compounds pulled from the earth.