Voluntaryism

[Optimus_Prime_]

Originally Posted by SuBe

It should be understood that those people that abuse animals do so because they were abused as children. The Parents or someone in their community abused them first. The way they act toward animals, or other people for that matter is solely based on interactions they have had as children with adults. Children mimic and replicate the actions of adults until it becomes a portion of their personality. The words and actions of adults become ingrained into children, it becomes their inner voice as adults.

If children are raised peacefully, with respect to the Non-Aggression Principle, their would be no Animal Abuse or violence in the culture.

Voluntaryism is not a system that can be adopted and enforced. It is a system with no system. It is a philosophy on how we must live our lives if we want peace and happiness and respect for human life.

How would you prevent people from beating their children?

Do you monitor them 24/7?

[SuBe]

Originally Posted by MessiahDecoy123

So what would be the changes to our society with such a system in place other than having no taxes?

No Government. No Coercion. Living life truly free.

[MessiahDecoy123]

Originally Posted by SuBe

Voluntaryism is also known as Anarcho-Capitalism where it is understood that the property is an extension of the actions of an individual and no different than a portion of the individual. You spend time and energy acquiring food that is disseminated by your body to feed and fuel and grow your cells. Just like you spend time and energy to acquire wealth to pay for that food. It's an extension of your Life and Liberty. And to remove a portion of your property by force is akin to removing a portion of your body. You can give your body Voluntarily, but if taken by force it is evil.

In this argument, the only evil in the world would be the Initiation of Force. Every action must be voluntary and without coercion. This would lead to happiness].

Scandinavian countries have some of the highest tax rates in the world yet are often considered the happiest people on Earth.

Seems to me that the tax burden is just a scapegoat for American's lack of contentment.

[Optimus_Prime_]

Originally Posted by SuBe

No Government. No Coercion. Living life truly free.

That could still mean wanting to live life killing people. Taking their things, and looting their property, erecting armies and trying to take over large portions of land.

[SuBe]

Originally Posted by Optimus_Prime_

How would you prevent people from beating their children?

Do you monitor them 24/7?

No. It has to be done through education, through our relationships with other people. Just like it is looked down on, taboo, for men to beat their wives, where only 50 years ago it was accepted and ingrained into our culture; people would have to realize that it is unacceptable to use aggression toward children. It is not an overnight solution.

In a truly free world, your "insurance" rates would be dependent on how your raise your children because your children will eventually go out into the world and if you produce a child that is harmful to society, it negatively affects everyone else around them. Therefore it would be in the best interest of Parents to raise children peacefully.

[SuBe]

Originally Posted by Optimus_Prime_

That could still mean wanting to live life killing people. Taking their things, and looting their property, erecting armies and trying to take over large portions of land.

Sure, but since there are no Gun Laws, you could be shot and killed as soon as you try to harm someone else. "Erecting armies" still takes people to become your soldiers, which means you will have to pay them somehow, which means you have to get your capital some how. In a free society, you wouldn't be able to invest your capital and become "Cobra Command" without watchdogs and the press getting involved and therefore you would lose credibility and funding as people's reputation would be on the line.

[Optimus_Prime_]

Originally Posted by SuBe

No. It has to be done through education, through our relationships with other people. Just like it is looked down on, taboo, for men to beat their wives, where only 50 years ago it was accepted and ingrained into our culture; people would have to realize that it is unacceptable to use aggression toward children. It is not an overnight solution.

Okay, you and I agree it's not right to abuse children, but it's not as though this is some belief that just existed, or much like the "wives as property". Tell that to John Adams, he didn't treat his wife that way, nor did Lincoln. Also the fact is, while we see it as taboo, these things exist. 4 million incidents of rape go unreported, and about 8 million incidents of domestic violence are estimated to go unreported. So people just stopped doing it out in the open. That's still going to be a huge problem. Especially now with no Government to prosecute. People still have private lives and know how to keep secrets.

In a truly free world, your "insurance" rates would be dependent on how your raise your children because your children will eventually go out into the world and if you produce a child that is harmful to society, it negatively affects everyone else around them. Therefore it would be in the best interest of Parents to raise children peacefully.

This is naive.

I lie to my insurance agent all the freakin' time. I lie to my health insurance people everyday of the week that ends in "y", and sometimes my doctor even does this for me.

This would still go on. People would abuse that system very easily since it would be their word against the insurance company.

[SuBe]

Originally Posted by MessiahDecoy123

Scandinavian countries have some of the highest tax rates in the world yet are often considered the happiest people on Earth.

Seems to me that the tax burden is just a scapegoat for American's lack of contentment.

They might be considered "happy", but people loved the housing market in the US until that Bubble Burst. People loved the Dotcoms before that Bubble Burst. You can't live on borrowed money forever without undesirable effects down the road. Just because their bubble hasn't burst yet, doesn't mean it won't.

[Optimus_Prime_]

Originally Posted by SuBe

Sure, but since there are no Gun Laws, you could be shot and killed as soon as you try to harm someone else.

Guns didn't take out Saddam.

"Erecting armies" still takes people to become your soldiers, which means you will have to pay them somehow, which means you have to get your capital some how. In a free society, you wouldn't be able to invest your capital and become "Cobra Command" without watchdogs and the press getting involved and therefore you would lose credibility and funding as people's reputation would be on the line.

How so? It happens all the time. You could have money in foreign territory, you could have access to things very few others do, there's tons of things in addition to the spoils of war you can use to coerce an army.

The problem with what you posited, much like resource based economies, is it assumes humans are lemmings, and don't have the will to rebel, or that someone won't find your society disgusting on the basis of "well how could they? it's great". The problem is this is putting the cart before the horse. This whole theory is pretty tautological.

[SuBe]

[QUOTE=Optimus_Prime_;25011037]Okay, you and I agree it's not right to abuse children, but it's not as though this is some belief that just existed, or much like the "wives as property". Tell that to John Adams, he didn't treat his wife that way, nor did Lincoln. Also the fact is, while we see it as taboo, these things exist. 4 million incidents of rape go unreported, and about 8 million incidents of domestic violence are estimated to go unreported. So people just stopped doing it out in the open. That's still going to be a huge problem. Especially now with no Government to prosecute. People still have private lives and know how to keep secrets.[\QUOTE] I'm not saying that it doesn't happen, but it doesn't happen as much as before. It's a dwindling concept. It doesn't have a place in society, like it used to.

This is naive.

I lie to my insurance agent all the freakin' time. I lie to my health insurance people everyday of the week that ends in "y", and sometimes my doctor even does this for me.

This would still go on. People would abuse that system very easily since it would be their word against the insurance company.

That's because you are still thinking of the future through the lense of today. Yes, you could still lie, but that is fraud and in a Free Society, there is no Government to fall back on to avert risk. These people accept lies now because it may be beneficial to do so, but in a Free Society, Fraud can and would be investigated.

[SuBe]

Originally Posted by Optimus_Prime_

Guns didn't take out Saddam.

So he just walked out with no guns being pointed at him at all? Really?

How so? It happens all the time. You could have money in foreign territory, you could have access to things very few others do, there's tons of things in addition to the spoils of war you can use to coerce an army.

Imagine you wanted to take over a plot of land. You see a self sustaining farm, with everything you need to survive and next to that is a untamed forest. Which would you take over? The Farm where all you have to do is take control, or the forest that you would have to conquer?

The same goes for a Free Society. There are protections to reduce violence against you and your family. You could hire our for even more protection.

[Optimus_Prime_]

Originally Posted by SuBe

I'm not saying that it doesn't happen, but it doesn't happen as much as before. It's a dwindling concept. It doesn't have a place in society, like it used to.

How so? The figures I just gave you revealed that it's not. Those statistics dealt with "unreported", in other words it's a conservative low estimate showing that rape and spousal abuse have simply gone underground. Yes, the threat of prosecution diminished the problem, but it's pretty clear people will still do it regardless.

Originally Posted by SuBe

That's because you are still thinking of the future through the lense of today. Yes, you could still lie, but that is fraud and in a Free Society, there is no Government to fall back on to avert risk. These people accept lies now because it may be beneficial to do so, but in a Free Society, Fraud can and would be investigated.

Fraud is investigated now

You're throwing a lot of words around without considering what they mean.

[Optimus_Prime_]

Originally Posted by SuBe

So he just walked out with no guns being pointed at him at all? Really?

He had an army for protection, but guns were and are all over the place in Iraq. He never had any gun control of any kind.

Originally Posted by SuBe

Imagine you wanted to take over a plot of land. You see a self sustaining farm, with everything you need to survive and next to that is a untamed forest. Which would you take over? The Farm where all you have to do is take control, or the forest that you would have to conquer?

I want both. I'll take both. Maybe I have the force to take both.

Originally Posted by SuBe

The same goes for a Free Society. There are protections to reduce violence against you and your family. You could hire our for even more protection.

What protections? You haven't explained.

How? What body would certify me a bodyguard?

[SuBe]

Originally Posted by Optimus_Prime_

The problem with what you posited, much like resource based economies, is it assumes humans are lemmings, and don't have the will to rebel, or that someone won't find your society disgusting on the basis of "well how could they? it's great". The problem is this is putting the cart before the horse. This whole theory is pretty tautological.

I am not considering "Humans as lemmings" as you state. The Current system now, with top down, Centralized Government is. With Voluntaryism, there is no hierarchy. There are no people with inflated egos passing laws to direct humanity. How is this NOT treating people as "lemmings"?

[Optimus_Prime_]

Originally Posted by SuBe

I am not considering "Humans as lemmings" as you state. The Current system now, with top down, Centralized Government is. With Voluntaryism, there is no hierarchy. There are no people with inflated egos passing laws to direct humanity. How is this NOT treating people as "lemmings"?

How do you know? Hierarchies can still form regardless of whether the nature of your form of governance supports them or not. Humans (actually apes in general) form hierarchies in government-less situations all the time.

[SuBe]

Originally Posted by Optimus_Prime_

He had an army for protection, but guns were and are all over the place in Iraq. He never had any gun control of any kind.

I want both. I'll take both. Maybe I have the force to take both.

What protections? You haven't explained.

How? What body would certify me a bodyguard?

Just because you "want both" doesn't mean that there won't be people there to protect themselves and organizations who's job it is to protect their clients.

Private Organizations would/could certify individuals, companies, etc it they that is the field they wish to go into.

[SuBe]

Originally Posted by Optimus_Prime_

How do you know? Hierarchies can still form regardless of whether the nature of your form of governance supports them or not. Humans (actually apes in general) form hierarchies in government-less situations all the time.

I put more credit in people than I do in Apes. All I would ask for is that there is no Monopoly on Force, as there is today in Government.

[Optimus_Prime_]

Originally Posted by SuBe

Just because you "want both" doesn't mean that there won't be people there to protect themselves and organizations who's job it is to protect their clients.

Doesn't mean they'll be successful either. Alexander the Great had a lot of people against him and a fat lot of good it did those people.

Private Organizations would/could certify individuals, companies, etc it they that is the field they wish to go into.

What private organizations? What if they are bad and incompetent?

[Optimus_Prime_]

Originally Posted by SuBe

I put more credit in people than I do in Apes.

We are Apes. You also outright ignored what was said right after that.

All I would ask for is that there is no Monopoly on Force, as there is today in Government.

Then you have the Articles of Confederation which failed spectacularly.

[SuBe]

Originally Posted by Optimus_Prime_

We are Apes. You also outright ignored what was said right after that.
Then you have the Articles of Confederation which failed spectacularly.

Not my intention, sorry.

Yes, there would be hierarchies of some some forms. You would/could still have a boss. The Bridge Club would still have a president. But there wouldn't be a group of men and women that has the legal monopoly on the use of Force. Every individual would be able to protect themselves against any use of force.

[Optimus_Prime_]

Originally Posted by SuBe

Not my intention, sorry.

Yes, there would be hierarchies of some some forms. You would/could still have a boss. The Bridge Club would still have a president. But there wouldn't be a group of men and women that has the legal monopoly on the use of Force. Every individual would be able to protect themselves against any use of force.

You keep saying that, but still haven't proved it. I wasn't talking about Bridge Club either.

Governments have been overthrown before by hierarchies that sprung up without anyone's knowledge. It's presumptuous what you keep asserting here as it has happened and continues to happen.

I was just watching Lawrence of Arabia, for example, a true story of a man who led a rag-tag army to take out a much stronger force. That's a good example.

[SuBe]

Originally Posted by Optimus_Prime_

Doesn't mean they'll be successful either. Alexander the Great had a lot of people against him and a fat lot of good it did those people.
What private organizations? What if they are bad and incompetent?

That's because Alexander the Great and the people against him were still working within the framework of some form of Government. On one was free, they were just passed from one Master to another.

Any Private Organization that accredit them. I could start "SuBe's Blue Ribbon Award of Security" and if the market wants to give my organization any credence, it would. Don't you read review online for electronics or anything before you make a purchase? Don't you read reviews to movies and videogames before your purchase? What would be the difference in looking up to see if some organization reviewed them before you hire them?

If any private organization is incompetent, go with another. I don't know why I would have to explain the Free Market here. Competition still would exist in the a Free Society.

[SuBe]

Originally Posted by Optimus_Prime_

You keep saying that, but still haven't proved it. I wasn't talking about Bridge Club either.

Governments have been overthrown before by hierarchies that sprung up without anyone's knowledge. It's presumptuous what you keep asserting here as it has happened and continues to happen.

Again, that's because you are still looking at this within the framework of Governments. Just changing who is running it. Just changing their rules inside of the Government. But, it is still based on Violations of the Non-Aggression Principle.

[Optimus_Prime_]

Originally Posted by SuBe

That's because Alexander the Great and the people against him were still working within the framework of some form of Government. On one was free, they were just passed from one Master to another.

That's a gross over-simplification.

Originally Posted by SuBe

Any Private Organization that accredit them. I could start "SuBe's Blue Ribbon Award of Security" and if the market wants to give my organization any credence, it would. Don't you read review online for electronics or anything before you make a purchase?

Not necessarily. Ever hear of brand loyalty?

Don't you read reviews to movies and videogames before your purchase?

Highly, highly subjective. Some people can't be convinced that Rue De Jean is better than McDonalds, spend their lives eating sh** food because they develop a taste for it.

What would be the difference in looking up to see if some organization reviewed them before you hire them?

What's to say the review is accurate or that the review ensures I get good service?

If any private organization is incompetent, go with another.

Not always an option.

I don't know why I would have to explain the Free Market here. Competition still would exist in the a Free Society.

You don't, but you do need to explain the sweeping assumptions you keep making.

[SuBe]

Originally Posted by Optimus_Prime_

Not necessarily. Ever hear of brand loyalty?

People are brand loyal for a reason. What's wrong with that?

Highly, highly subjective. Some people can't be convinced that Rue De Jean is better than McDonalds, spend their lives eating sh** food because they develop a taste for it.

What's wrong with eating **** every now and then. There is a reason there are Fords, Toyotas, and Bentleys. There are difference levels of peoples desires and priorities.

What's to say the review is accurate or that the review ensures I get good service?

Nothing. Caveat emptor, Buyer Beware. Risk is a part of life, be careful who you endorse with your dollars.

Not always an option.

Then start your own. There are always options.

You don't, but you do need to explain the sweeping assumptions you keep making.

I shouldn't have to explain why 1+1=2 to talk about Advanced Calculus. No Offense intended, but think things through a little.