posted by dsk on December 9th, 2011 at 5:43PM
>Would you personally subscribe to, and pay for, an org that violently kidnaps people from other orgs because they copied your movie?
YES. WE SEE IT ALL THE TIME.
Look at examples of orgs in present systems, such as unions. A union will fuckin fight for it's members till the end. They will use their clout, their size and their power to full benefit for their members. Example, public sector union members could make 50-200% more money for the same service as their private market colleagues, and the union will still fight with everything they got to steal EVEN MORE from taxpayers. Even if it means unlimited amount of debt on taxpayers. Teacher unions will protect even the most incompetent and guilty members. Their only loyalty is to their members, just like the orgs under your Anarchy, except under Anarchy they also have security forces under their disposal to wield against weaklings (they don't under present system because the State forbids it).
This isn't strictly a union problem. There's countless examples of similar behaviours.
>The question is, given the choice, is that how *you* would personally want to resolve this particular conflict?
I'm realistic. I think people would want their org to represent them and fight for them and get them a favorable ruling. And I think they would look the other way in face of ethical infractions - because you know ... who really knows what really happened (*wink*)
>First of all, that's what democracy is -- except it's not by virtue of the strength of any individual, but sheer numbers.
That's why we're fucked. Minarchism is the least evil because it attempts, via strong constitution, to limit the power of the majority. To neuter it and lock it to very specific domains.
//
I'm ignoring copyright questions because it's defocusing and has nothing to do with Anarchy structural problems.
YES. WE SEE IT ALL THE TIME.
Look at examples of orgs in present systems, such as unions. A union will fuckin fight for it's members till the end. They will use their clout, their size and their power to full benefit for their members. Example, public sector union members could make 50-200% more money for the same service as their private market colleagues, and the union will still fight with everything they got to steal EVEN MORE from taxpayers. Even if it means unlimited amount of debt on taxpayers. Teacher unions will protect even the most incompetent and guilty members. Their only loyalty is to their members, just like the orgs under your Anarchy, except under Anarchy they also have security forces under their disposal to wield against weaklings (they don't under present system because the State forbids it).
This isn't strictly a union problem. There's countless examples of similar behaviours.
>The question is, given the choice, is that how *you* would personally want to resolve this particular conflict?
I'm realistic. I think people would want their org to represent them and fight for them and get them a favorable ruling. And I think they would look the other way in face of ethical infractions - because you know ... who really knows what really happened (*wink*)
>First of all, that's what democracy is -- except it's not by virtue of the strength of any individual, but sheer numbers.
That's why we're fucked. Minarchism is the least evil because it attempts, via strong constitution, to limit the power of the majority. To neuter it and lock it to very specific domains.
//
I'm ignoring copyright questions because it's defocusing and has nothing to do with Anarchy structural problems.
|
posted by dennisn on December 9th, 2011 at 6:15PM
Okay. So you personally prefer violent conflict resolution, and I guess you are willing to pay for the kidnapping, and I guess the food and accomodation for the anti-copyright people too? Oh, how long would you cage them for, by the way? (You'll notice I'm specifically asking *you* -- you can only reliably speak for yourself, not for "we" or any other group.) (The next question, of course, is what you *speculate* the majority would vote upon -- would they also agree with violent-kidnapping as the solution, or something else? Don't you think these things should be put to a vote?)
Your union-example is absurd. The most powerful ones are in bed with the state -- it's actually *the inherent problem of statism* -- as soon as you provide centralized institutionalized ready-to-go violence, all the dirty corrupt scumbags (teacher union leaders, whoever..) begin crawling out of their dirty woodwork to take advantage of it -- statism is a criminal's paradise. Except you don't see that, because they're disguised under white collars. How easily you're fooled. If nothing else, anarchy would make life more difficult for these scumbags -- they wouldn't automatically have complete control over an entire population -- they'd have to somehow use free-market methods to infiltrate each insurance/organization separately. (You still don't quite seem to understand how majorities work. The US had the strongest and most clear constitution in the world. Look how well they kept their majority in check. (Clue: a magic piece of paper is completely useless in the face of a majority.) In fact, if we're going to rely on history (we really shouldn't), minarchy is your best and fastest road to big-state-monstrosity. Just look at the US. Where did the American experiment go wrong? Do you think their states should have federated, or remained sovereign? Answer: the solution is clearly not (simply) minarchy -- that was tried -- it failed. The problem is clearly much more difficult and deeper -- there needs to be a culture (majority) that rejects violence. The degree to which this is the case determines whether the resulting system will resemble state-socialism, minarchism, or voluntaryism -- in increasing order of respect for other people's disagreements.)
|
