Building the Ideal

Economics Political Theory
1

I know I am probably looked on as a glutton for punishment at this point, with all the conversations involving a wide variety of topics…

But I like the clarification that I am getting on these points, it helps me formulate better the ideas I have and the economics of such (which is my weak point)…

What I am posting this for is really the extrapolation of the economic stance of freedom, into a society…

We will take an individual to start with and will try to expand it to larger groups with your interaction (help)…

The questions I would like ot seek answers for is:

  1. What level of government, if any at all, suits a purpose to a community of individuals?
  2. If there is one, how does it operate?
  3. If there is not, how does the market solve the issues a community faces?

I will thank you all for your input, and try to keep on top of replies…

2

1 & 2 are completely subjective and would require someone being able to plan or predict the future. “Suits a purpose” is not very specific.

How is this community arranged socially? Entrance, leave, participation etc. Then, what are their needs? Is it possible to have a communal need that is not first an individual need? Is a communal need just a combination of most or all individual needs? Is there any advantage to bundling needs in this manner? Are there any downsides?

  1. That’s what we talk about here all of the time. There is an increasing amount of scholarship on this as time goes on. Still, no concept is worthwhile without a market test. Or at least that is what I believe from a free market perspective.

The thread title might be misleading. What is ideal for you might not be ideal for me, and likewise. Universal ideals seem to be more likely as a coincidence than a persistent condition.

3

As you already know, for me no government would be what I wish. But then I still have to figure out how this voluntary government system works. It may be more realistically feasible. I am anxious to read the replies…[;)]

4

If it is flexible, then it should be able to adapt easily.

5

Adapt or die.

6

gulp

7

Hehehe…

8

You may want to read this by Roderick Long. URL = http://www.lewrockwell.com/long/long11.html

9

Those questions are merely the result of the conversation, I am looking toward a goal, we need to begin the conversation first, before we can get to the points of the questions…

lets say…

We have a group of individuals, and we will make this as fantastic as possible, they unanimously agree to be free, they agree amongst themselves that no one is permitted to “aggress” anyone else, and in the case that someone does, they may not evade estoppel…

This community must be large enough to constitute a town, that is, large enough to be self sufficient, now I understand that each individual can be self sufficient, but we are working on a group of individuals and seeing where logically we can go…

The only way in is to own property inside the community, the only way out is to sell said property, and participation beyond that is purely voluntary

Well…

Is this community going to only deal with itself in bartering commodities, or will it interact with the markets outside itself? If so, how does it deal with money from without? Or external markets wanting to do business within the community?

How is the common defense provided, since this is a community and will have a real boundary to where the community ends and the rest of the world begins?

All valid questions, I answer yes to the first two. Bundling some needs is advantageous as it sets a standard, the need provided by the NAP is advantageous to bundle as it sets the standard that all people in the community (which can be expanded to all people) have equal rights against aggression, others, not so much, this is a point of the discussion, to find where the ideal lies.

I do not see this tatic as feasable as there is no place left on earth to have such a test, though I would surely agree to be part of such an experiment if there was a place to have it.

Well I want to know what your ideal is from you, and other individual’s ideals from them, so I believe that it is a correct title.

I will be honest, I am a proactive person, and always looking for a way in which I can turn ideas into reality, but before I can achieve a goal, I must know where the goal lies. No, I am not proposing my ideal community will be yours, or anyone’s ideal, nor am I proposing that I will find mindful way to enact all people’s ideal societies, what I am proposing is to explore where the ideals are and possibly (slim chance) derive an acceptable combination, therefore have a goal…

10

This is 100% acceptable, it is either a winner or a loser, that is all there is…

11

Exchange the same way Japan does with the US, or Korea does with Canada.

Are there barbarians and tanks waiting just outside town? If all of the property is individually owned, then security and defense also would be on an individual level. That doesn’t mean there won’t be cooperation, but not everyone in town will be expected to participate (because it is voluntary).

But not necessary.

It’s very tough to deal with ideals, because everyone has different needs and wants, they all have different means with which to pursue their ideals.

I can understand the desire to want to take action, to develop plans, but freedom doesn’t rely on a plan. In fact, one could argue that freedom only exists in the absence of master plans.

12

Thanks for the link [:)]

13

By this do you mean just trade goods?

I do not know, there could be barbarians in tanks, it is not for the immediate need of defense but the contingency should such a need arise…

Of course I would not think compulsory service should be adopted, let it be voluntary…

Never asked if it was necessary, you asked if it was advantageous, which it is… in some cases…

It is tough, but to get the foundation of what it is that is the core of your society we can logically extrapolate all other parameters to see if it is agreeable in enough aspects to be considered viable…

If it is not, maybe a combination is…

One could argue if you are a slave one day you will be the master, it does not necessarily make it true, one thing I can say is, knowledge is a great thing, but without the will to put that knowledge to use, it is as impotent as a poor man with E.D…

The problem with that argument is that freedom usually comes about from under the thumb of tyranny, action is usually requisite, the oppressed do not sit around and talk about how one day they hope their oppressors get tired if the power and allow them to be free and freedom is realized, it more often than not requires action, and to insure that oppression is not replacing oppression, one must be mindful of where one is going…

14

Your thoughts?

15

Freedom does not need a plan, but apparently it needs understanding…

It is not a matter of developing plans, but to define the concept, which includes to establish where my liberty ends and where yours starts in order to avoid misunderstandings.

16

No. The same way international exchange is handled now between different economic sectors with different currencies and languages. No need to reinvent the wheel.

It has to be voluntary if you are in a free society. Which means you might organize a militia training session on Saturday at 9:30 AM, and no one shows up. Or I might organize one at the same time with free coffee and donuts, and everyone shows up to my training session, but not to militia-ize, but to scam some free food.

In a free market, you have to be able to sell your ideas. You can’t start with a premise and then expect people to conform to it. For example, the premise of an organized community defense. Maybe only a couple folks want that. Maybe none.

It’s not “my society”. It’s just people choosing to interact without violence at their own discretion. Nothing more, nothing less. If we can extrapolate all parameters, we could plan a society, which would mean we would bypass free choice, which is the opposite of a free society.

If you’re coming around to non-aggression, the tough part is understanding “who will do what” in a free society. The answer for me was this.

The government is inherently immoral. So from a moral standpoint, I am set. But on a practical level, the government takes care of the poor, handles defense, provides a body of law. How can we do that in a free society? Note, this is different than trying to establish ideals, this is asking if anarchy can do what government does.

I eventually realized, everything the government does (that we need, so skip the stealing and violence) can be done privately. There is nothing particularly SPECIAL about the government that lets it do anything morally just that individuals could not do on their own. In fact, because it has no competition, it’s quite easy to imagine that markets in defense, law, etc would be MUCH cheaper MUCH more efficient, and MUCH more productive.

Action without understanding is ultimately wasted. Understanding has to come first, or whatever is built will not be maintained.

People have been acting for ages and getting nowhere. I think it’s because they wanted to go back to Constitutions, or get their guy in power, or to reform. What we’re talking about is much more radical, and the prospects for it happening quickly are contingent upon mass education, which is a form of action.

You may see it as sitting around and talking, but I don’t. We’re precisely in this pickle because people chose to act emotionally and not think rationally. More of the same will not yield a different result. This is a battle of ideas, not political structures or physical force.

17

I should tell you that this is about understanding first, I am not going out tomorrow and building the LS community, when I said your society I meant your ideal as opposed to anothers, since you are the only one talking here, I would like to pursue this line of thought, someone else appears then I will talk to them independently, I am not going to say “but LS said”…

So how does this community derive a currency to deal with external markets? Is it done by free market, and if so, how would the potential for change effect the external market?

But you can start with a premise and sell it, and if you fail, you fail. I am not in contention with this at all. If not everyone decides to “defend the community” that is fine, nay, expected. What I want to know is if the market will produce defense contractors, bidding to defend individual’s property, or will the solution more likely be voluntary action of the individuals to do this? I am asking for your opinion, and further asking you to back it up with factual analysis, you cannot be “wrong”. This is purely a politically theoretical discussion…

No, we are not saying you live near our society so be in it or feel our wrath, we are building the ideal, in your eyes, and seeing where it logically puts us, if we were to “real world” test this, I would think the answer is quite natural, if you own the land, large enough piece, to constitute a town and sell it with the understanding that no nations laws are applicable here, meaning there is no benefit from a “state”, and to live here you are rejecting any “state” benefit, you are giving the free choice to be involved or not…

That is the other hand of the statement I made…

Well how does one propose to educate people in the direction of “freedom” when you have drastic differences in opinion (I saw the “gay debate”)?

18

Voluntary exchange. I’m not sure I understand the question. How people trade now between the US and Japan, it might look something like that. It’s one possible approach.

Who else would do it? I don’t understand the potential for change bit.

We don’t know. We cannot know. We only know that where there is a demand for something in the market, and thus a potential to profit, someone will try to satisfy that demand.

I don’t have an ideal except freedom. I don’t care what society looks like as long as there is as little aggression as is possible. I do like science fiction, so hopefully someone produces that. But if they don’t, then maybe I broaden my horizon and take in something different.

The debate on homosexuality, Giles is not preaching aggression, he’s making the point about his market preferences, and his belief that the market will punish the behaviour he does not prefer through competition and profit/loss. We may differ on outcomes, but we don’t differ on the need for a market, or the moral and pragmatic justifications for non-aggression.

For me, it is all about non-aggression, which requires voluntary exchange, which leads to free markets. That’s my freedom message. Non-aggression.

19

Maybe I am not understanding what you mean by how the people trade between the US and Japan…

Potential for change, this means that if the free market derives the currency, there would be competition in the optimal case, with this competition there will be changes in the prevailing currency (one used most) and others that are still in use, how would this effect the external market, theoretically of course, in turn how can the free market deal with the influx of foreign currency, as the local market will be seeing a lot of it if you community produces and sells to the external market?

Well, I would like to go deeper than we have freedom through non aggression and ideal society just erupts…

What I am looking for is how this ideal deals with issues delegated to communities in current societies, I knew before posting this that your particular ideal is Archano-Capitalist with the NAP foundation, but how does the free market deal with these things?

Are they individual responsibility and the ideal is that people will see the profit in helping each other, or is it more along the lines of contracted assistance?

20

I don’t understand your question. How does the free market deal with non-coercion? Is that what you’re asking? If so, then I’d say it would flourish. War and thuggary isn’t about voluntary exchange. Markets get bombed in conflicts and nobody has much time to tend the fields, which leads to hunger so applying creativity to a piece of wood for let’s say, furniture, would probably be the last thing on anybody’s mind.