Autolykos
This seems to be in the direction of clarifying my second source of confusion above. But I fail to see how direct democracy will lead people to develop an appreciate of local control, let alone individual self-reliance and self-determination. A direct democracy still involves majority rule and a one-size-fits-all approach to decision-making.
Besides shifting the costs of government services directly upon those whose activities necessitate them, thereby disincentivizing the use of government itself, making reliance upon it personally costly and potentially risky (as in court and police costs for frivolous suits and false arrests), my system also leaves open the door for local voting precincts, or any small political unit, to reserve the right to determine many of their own laws and ordinances by their own direct voting. In other words, if enough precincts refuse to participate in a national initiative on an issue like the legalization of abortion, then any precinct may, upon ratification, decide any new issue for itself. Furthermore, upon ratification, any precinct may elect to begin to dismantle the old, existing laws, as they apply to that precinct; so long as this would not violate the new Constitution. This is a system designed to dismantled the old one, the current one–when the people learn to appreciate the freedom of self-determination–of designing each and every community the way it wishes. It isn’t ancap; because votes still decide issues; but it has a lot of potential to teach the People why freedom is always preferable to government control.
I think a better approach would be to abandon the notion of legislation entirely
And then what? That would leave wide open the distinct probability that force would decide all issues–primarily force of numbers, or force of might. That might not violate the letter of the NAP; but it seems to violate the spirit of it.
And none of us is a priori obligated to provide you or anyone else with any transitional plan. Criticism can certainly be valid even if no alternative is offered.
I’m free to criticize all of you for not offering an alternative–and yet I am offering one of my own. I’m also gathering in your challenges, taking them seriously, and refuting them when I can. It would be nice if this exchange were always mutual.
I was addressing your contention that people make “inefficient”, “wasteful”, and “bad” decisions all the time. You seemed to be equating such things with committing aggression, i.e. the initiatory intrusion, or threat of intrusion, upon another’s person and/or property
I was suggesting that the capacity to commit aggression would be far greater, and far more prevalent, and far less controllable, were private individuals, with all of their random poor decisions, in possession of the weaponry upon which the government currently enjoys a monopoly. In effect, you would quite possibly add to the general level, or the numerical odds, of aggression by privatizing all weaponry, if for no other reason than as a natural result of accident/stupidity, followed by retaliation, ad infinitum. In such a case you would see less freedom than you currently enjoy–or freedom in name only.
I do think that private industry will do better with roads than the government. By your reasoning thus far, leaving food distribution in the hands of private industry should be an unmitigated disaster.
They might make and repair the roads more efficiently; but I don’t see any orderly, unwasteful way that travel and trade could in any way be guaranteed–or even maintained–without a governing authority. By the way, would all existing roads be sold off; such that the next day, someone else owned the road outside your house–and someone else the road linked to it–ad infinitum again. It’s absurd to anyone not hell-bent on defending pure private markets.
That’s why I’m interested in more than just maximizing the speed and efficiency for the economic development of Earth’s natural assets
I have no idea what you actually mean by this.
Pure capitalism theoretically ensures the most efficient, productive distribution and use of natural resources. And if that is the only moral value, and it is unleashed worldwide, it will most efficiently use up all of the world’s resources. Add to that formula the complete privatization of all the Earth’s land, as all of you seem to support, and every bit of it will be economically exploited, none left undeveloped, except the private property of those still holding out–an ever-shrinking few. I like that states stalemate one another’s development and exploitation of the world’s resources; and I like that America protects some of its best natural lands, e.g. Yellowstone and the national forests. I don’t wish to turn the globe into the DeathStar (from Star Wars.)
Now then, when I say that I care about the whole world, of course I’m referring to the whole human world - because I’m a human and not some other species of animal.
Never owned a pet, Autolykos? No need for an ecosystem, or a food chain?
Your use of “etc.” implies that this list is not exhaustive. An enumeration is typically taken to be an exhaustive list. Please provide one or I will conclude that you are unable to do so.
Please respond to the many already listed, or I might conclude that you are unable to do so. My investment in an exhaustive list is in direct proportion to my expectation of your investment in directly addressing it.
you seem to have a cognitive blindspot when it comes to this utopian notion of "[acting] in the public interests, partial to none
I understand that there is plenty of abuse in a government system. (I got a $154 ticket the other day from a cop who told me that I should have lied to him about wearing my seatbelt, so that he could write me a point-free ticket for that, instead of one for running a stop sign.) But at least that cop has a superior officer, and the department has internal affairs, and then there’s the FBI–a system of checks and balances and a set of written, impartial laws that serve to ensure stability and accountability. If I have a blindspot, it is that I can’t see where a purely private society would establish a stable system of justice, and with it, a functional, authoritative check on the excesses of private individuals.
A private firm can certainly stop trading with another country (or other organization) that it believes is engaging in unfair trade practices. Yet that doesn’t seem to be enough for you. You want there to be certainty that no one will ever engage in unfair trade practices after a given point in time
When China drives steel manufacturers out of business here, by selling their steel for less than its worth–just to eliminate their competition–it makes no difference to them if one firm doesn’t buy their steel. But if the government slaps a tariff on their steel, that makes a huge difference to them: if forces them to be just. Unless the whole world goes ancap all at once, there will all sorts of vulnerabilities for the one that does go ancap, economic, military, and otherwise. That’s why a transitional plan is so crucial–and the lack of one, so disappointing.
If so, then you’re implying that courts of law have a higher claim over (part of) people’s property than people themselves do. I fail to see how I personally can consider this higher claim to be legitimate, since it arises only by fiat
Under my system those who force issues before a court pay directly for that service, just as though the court were a private enterprise–only the judges are paid from a public pool of revenue, not from private litigants. No more general taxation, only pay-per-use/serve.
Please explain why you think that organizations which enjoy imputed monopolies over legitimate coercion - i.e. governments - can (let alone should or must) be trusted to have such weapons.
Experience has born out the relative trustworthiness of liberal democracies in refraining from a use of destructive force against their own populations. Rare exceptions like Waco only prove the rule. Governments have a vested interest in preserving the lives and the earning power of the People. Businesses are focused upon eliminating the competition: those who are not their customers are not their concern. With respect to weaponry and justice, this concerns me.
If people are willing to take fiat money in exchange for fancy cars and mansions, that’s their problem.
It becomes your problem too, when you can’t buy anything anymore. Vegetable garden anyone? Barter economy? Gold coins again?