[quote]El Sonido wrote:
pittbulll wrote:
Varqanir wrote:
pushharder wrote:
OK, so since “hopefully for the last time anarchy isn’t for everyone” and “incapable, irresponsible, indecent people probably need government, and plenty of it,” what are you going to do with these folks?
What am I going to do with them? I’m not going to do a thing with them, except hopefully not live by them.
And when one of your folks becomes irresponsible and/or indecent, what do you do with him? Do you have a non-existent government remove him, put him on a Con Air flight and fly him to the Land of the Governed? How does this work?
Depends on who he is, or what he’s done. If he’s just irresponsible, then I suppose we’d laugh at him. If he’s indecent, then it would depend on the degree of indecency. If he’s walking around with his dingaling hanging out of his pants, then I suppose we’d laugh at him and tell him to zip up his goddamn pants.
If he’s touching little girls on their private parts, then I suppose we’d horse-whip him and run him out of town.
And if he’s raping women and killing people, then I suppose I or someone else would shoot the sumbitch.
Why? What would you do?
What would you do with property disputes or contract disputes or entities such as steel mills that pollute water or air? And let�¢??s say your community will put up because they get the benefit, with it but mine won�¢??t, will we have war?
If you check out the links I posted on the previous page.
We could have ‘Dispute Resolution Organisations’ (DROs) which would act essentially as a form of privately owned and run insurance firms.
Each individual, household, business, organisation would be registered with one of these DROs whose purpose it would be to provide defense, contract enforcement, compensation and so on.
Each party would enter into contracts and agreements voluntarily with each person involved fully aware of the terms of the contract.
If any party were to violate the terms of the contract then the DRO would take appropriate action based upon the pre-agreed terms of the contract, be it forcefully extracting compensation for the other parties involved or submitting the offending party’s name to a fully open and accessable (perhaps via the internet), non-intrusive database for other DRO’s and individuals to view.
To eliminate the need for the use of force upon the breaking or violation of such a contract, the parties involved could place an agreed-upon amount of funds and/or assets into a third-party holding account which would be regulated either by the DRO or by some bank associated with the DRO.
And there would be far less incentive for corruption because of the transparency of the whole ‘system’. If either party were to act in a corrupt fashion - perhaps the third-party holders siphoning off some of the funds - this would of course be discovered and that organisation would then be blacklisted for all to see. So it would be upto the individuals and parties whether or not they choose to do business with, I suppose you could call them ‘blacklistees’.
If the steel mill you mentioned is polluting the local environment.
Well, the company that runs the steel mill would most likely have needed to receive some form of financing originally and without legitimate DRO-backing, it would be highly unlikely that any financeer would wish to partake in such high-risk business. Especially considering their own DRO would probably have terms in their contract about participation in business with non-DRO-backed parties and individuals.
Of course there are an endless number of situations you could apply to this and also there will be cries of ‘But the DROs will just become quasi-government entities that will rule over the masses with their private armies!’ - I’m really REALLY not doing any of these ideas justice so I suggest you check out the early podcasts at http://www.freedomainradio.com because I’m just regurgitating Stefan Molyneux’s ideas primarily.[/quote]
It seems the DRO would kind of be the law enforcement of the settlement. I personally think that a private for profit organization that enforces agreements and contracts would become corrupt by profit.
As a stretch I could see anarchy working in a very limited populated area, but the logistics of it all are half baked.
The dogma that surrounds this type of thread is astonishing, like â??Nature organizes it selfâ?? that sounds nice enough, but how it would work is the person that is the most devious, intelligent, strong would eventually own everything. There is no way that (might) would not prevail