I've seen a similar example in open markets here. It's very popular and promotes a healthy business environment. That is, of course, a microcosm.
Does a business owner have a right to say, "Don't come back?"
- Thread starter Bowser
- Start date
I've seen a similar example in open markets here. It's very popular and promotes a healthy business environment. That is, of course, a microcosm.
I didn't offer an example. To what are you referring?
Street vendors who sell their wares to the general public. They do so with little oversight. Again, this is the most basic of examples, but I think it shows how a free market can work. Yes, when dealing with large corporate interests, there should be regulations that protect public concerns; however, we don't need them involved within every business endeavor. The government's attempts to micromanage can be counterproductive to a healthy economy.
Um, did I say anything about street vendors? I'm just confused. I don't know what you are talking about. You responded to my post an said you had seen a similar example. I can only assume you meant similar to some example that I gave. But I gave no example. Your explanation confused me more than anything. I never mentioned any particulars about the place I mentioned in my post.
I was referring to a free market...
Such markets exist and prosper. It wasn't my intention to confuse you.
Don't feel bad, apparently I get confused easily. I think I am gonna take a break from the forums.
Don't stay away too long. We enjoy your company.
Bold- key word. What happens if that market is National level?
I'm not sure which example you are going to use, but most people like to use Somalia. I mean, it's so common to hear "If you like anarchy so much - move to Somalia!"
A researcher from the Department of Economics West Virginia University decided to find out if it was indeed better relative to it's neighbors and before and after a government.
Better Off Stateless: Somalia Before and After Government Collapse
This isn't the only research on Somalia. tribal comparisons within Somalia and across boarders with tribes in neighboring States show Somalians that live freely also enjoy more prosperity compared to those that are ruled (by the State or Warlords).
This isn't really all that surprising.
Who here thinks North Korea does better under Dear Leader than under no leader? We all know their government is crushing the life out of them. They don't know better though. They think their government is looking out for their best interests - just like we think ours is for us. That's the thing about being propagandized for your whole life. The government starts a war over a lie, Gulf of Tonkin, WMD in Iraq, and no one remembers, everyone just keeps playing the charades and on downward we go.
When one of the States in the US decides to try minarchism (people aren't ready for anarchy) then I'd be more than willing to live there if the weather is good
I'm guessing that by the 2030s it'll start happening. Anarchy IS our culture
How did it work in the past? We had a thriving economy that was very dependent on small business. I honestly don't know if that's possible now, considering the role of corporations in today's market. Who should we blame for their demise. Has government policies played a role? To be honest, I'm not sure.
I'm not sure which example you are going to use, but most people like to use Somalia. I mean, it's so common to hear "If you like anarchy so much - move to Somalia!"
When one of the States in the US decides to try minarchism (people aren't ready for anarchy) then I'd be more than willing to live there if the weather is good
I don't think I would want to follow the example of Somalia. Sorry, that's not where I would want to go. I'm game for an open market, but there are limits, and complete anarchy would not be my preference.
This is why I think Classical Liberal Small Government Minarchy, that is responsible for a court system, police, and military, would fit with the social culture of mainstream America.
But, this is the problem with minarchy: A minarchist society becomes immensely prosperous leading to demagoguery and growth of the State. The smaller the government starts, the more prosperous the Nation becomes, and the larger the State grows, ultimately depriving the citizens liberty 5 generations later resulting in the collapse of the Nation.
As for anarchy, this would require a very different type of human than we have now. When you think about the way the human brain develops, I think it's be safe to say such a human, while genetically not all the dissimilar to us, would be a different species. That's why I think peaceful rational parenting is really the best thing anyone could do for society.
The other problem with minarchy is that it only works in abstract. The prosperity you say is a necessary side-effect cannot be shown once the brush gets a little less broad than "The smaller the government, more prosperous the nation." In other words, it doesn't actually work. It's a utopia on par with Eden, in that both sound pretty great in theory, but neither withstand the slightest amount of scrutiny.
I'm not sure which example you are going to use, but most people like to use Somalia. I mean, it's so common to hear "If you like anarchy so much - move to Somalia!"
A researcher from the Department of Economics West Virginia University decided to find out if it was indeed better relative to it's neighbors and before and after a government.
Better Off Stateless: Somalia Before and After Government Collapse
This isn't the only research on Somalia. tribal comparisons within Somalia and across boarders with tribes in neighboring States show Somalians that live freely also enjoy more prosperity compared to those that are ruled (by the State or Warlords).
This isn't really all that surprising.
Who here thinks North Korea does better under Dear Leader than under no leader? We all know their government is crushing the life out of them. They don't know better though. They think their government is looking out for their best interests - just like we think ours is for us. That's the thing about being propagandized for your whole life. The government starts a war over a lie, Gulf of Tonkin, WMD in Iraq, and no one remembers, everyone just keeps playing the charades and on downward we go.
When one of the States in the US decides to try minarchism (people aren't ready for anarchy) then I'd be more than willing to live there if the weather is good
I don't know anything about Somalia. I have never been there. I was going to suggest Pakistan. Totally free market. They don't even put prices on items for sale. You must haggle with the vender to agree on a price. One person may pay 100 rupees for an item and the next person pays 300 rupees because the vender judges that the second person has more money. As an American, I can be certain that I was discriminated against in pricing. I am certain I probably paid triple for anything that anyone else would have paid. Until I figured that out, I am sure I was taken advantage of. After a while I just refused to haggle. I found out from others what they paid. I made an equal offer, and refused to pay more. As I turned to leave they would sometimes chase me down and agree to my terms. Other times they didn't really want my business anyway and held their ground.
Pakistan doesn't have civil law based on moral individual liberty. For example, suppose I am perceived to denigrate Mohammad by suggesting my belief he never existed as anything other than a 8th -9th century Persian literary protagonist. Is my rights going to be respected? Is my private property (my body) going to be protected? I don't think this culture exists.
It's not possible to live in a anarchic society unless everyone culturally values these ideals socially. That said, lawlessness is much better than life under an evil dictator (theocratic, secular, whatever).
This is why I think the best thing (maybe one of the only things) is to raise children peacefully and to think logically. Tell them stories that are very detailed and vivid. We'll see where we're at in 120 years.
but you are defending the right to act on bigotry. Acting on bigotry is strongly supported in Pakistan. It may not agree with your beliefs. but what if our society also didnt mesh with yours and everyone discriminated against you. would you still be championing a cause that results in you being the outcast?
As for the part that I bolded, I can't agree with you more, however, unless we make it the law and force parents to do as you suggest, it will never happen. So long as we have freedom and liberty to teach our children according to our own personal beliefs, even if they are bigotted, we will always need law to force people to behave in ways that contradict their beliefs so to maintain order.
This is a good argument against emancipation. If you'd like just to, replace the word minarchy with the words limited small central government.
Why not try that?
Why not try a federal government that doesn't have it's nose in every aspect of our lives? From who can and can not practice which professions, to the thickness of shoe leather (god knows we too dumb to know about that - yup, need another federal agency for our own good), to whether gays can marry, to the taxing the laborer OF his labor, and on it goes.
We could start by just trying to reduce the size of the federal government down to <5% GDP. That'd probably get rid of much of the oversight as there simply wouldn't be the money there to oversee everything. Actually, this is going to happen one way or another - it's an economic reality.
The early USA was a great attempt at implementing some of the ideas that have now come to be known as minarchism. I personally don't see why such a system is an 'Eden' as in too good to ever happen. We had a POTUS make a plea NOT to pay funds to a war widow of the Revolutionary War because to do so would involve stealing, which would mean using force - and the only game in town would have to be the US Army; he wasn't about to do that. And guess what? She was taken care of by *gasp* voluntarily.... by the good moral people that made up American society. No guns fired at all. No one went to prison. No one had their wages confiscated.
Not so today...... Not so today.
Today we're nothing like the liberal conservative Americans of the 1800s. Could you imagine a modern POTUS even pulling back a tiny bit? No way. We are way way WAY too dependent on central planners to manage our lives. Our role is to consume.
I really don't think we're even 'American'. To me, we're just a bunch of people forced to live with one another. Which is why I'd be perfectly content to move to minarchic States that at least monetarily leave the Union. One that got rid of income tax and all the other social 'services' we're forced to 'rely' on. Maybe we could see a migration of Americans who want to live a in a minarchic Liberal society where Law, Privet Property and Individual Liberty were cherished, into these like-minded States and the rest of Americans who want a powerful Federal Government that has no qualms taking labor from the laborer (to be spent by a bureaucrate - for the laborer's own good of course), a government who sells 30 year bonds on the labor of unborn children - they can move to those type of States.
That'd probably be the best option for everyone involved in this "Union".
Have you considered joining the Amish. They are almost exempt from every law in America. They mind their business and our government leaves them alone, usually.
Amish societies are quite peaceful and probably pretty good places to live - if you share the culture. I don't. I'm not anti-technology. If anything I'm pro-technology. I'm not religious.
Anyway, we'll see. Everything changes. The States are not likely to remain in a union forever. History suggests otherwise.
People would have the right to discriminate against me, and I'd have the right to live my life associating with people who I thought were like minded. I'm reminded of Jews who live in Muslim and Christian countries 1000 years ago. No one forced other people to do business with Jews. But, regardless of their own prejudices, at the end of the day - they understood the economic benefit and did eventually do business together to the mutual benefit of both parties.