Home Forums Hunting & Shooting Hunter's Campfire How like the teachers, and their union

I see a real Librarian concept escapes most people. Freedom and personal choice are the keys. This includes respect of property, rights and freedoms of others. Anarchy depends on violence and no respect of individuals,including others property.

There is much confusion and misinformation about the Librarian system. I guess what scares the bajeebbers in people is the responsibility of being a Free man and all that comes with it. Being a slave to a gubbermint, basking in the handouts given, being extorted of their labor and the need not to have to think are the ideals of those today. 99% don't even realize the dictatorship we're in now.

What system will you chose once the dictatorship is over with?

Our Republic and the failed attempt at democracy or mob rule has failed just as it has for any other society seduced into the experiment.

Not so. Anarchism is the goal of certain libertarians--namely, anarchists like me. There are many minarchist libertarians who envision what they call a "minimalist" government.


Just a bare assertion? No justification?

justification? It's not worth typing out all the types of government through out all the years of human civilization, to show that anarchy is counter productive for any gathering of humans numbering more than one.
There are times Barak, that I feel you have as your single intention, to show how silly your libertarian thoughts are. Your philosophy does not work for 99.98% of all rational persons.
A dream world must be a wonderful place to reside.

Well, that's convincing.

Barak, I dug this one up on account of some unanswered concerns.

Here's the last exchange on the thread between you and I....



First off, why would folks in Barakistan need "private judges" to rubber stamp their own particular set of laws? Indeed, do they HAVE laws, and if they do who enforces them? Since if a Barakistani broke his or her own previous laws the assumption would be that they had decided those laws no longer applied to them.

The second question I had was more disturbing. I asked if Barakistanis could go the child labor/sex trade route with their own children if they so chose and you replied vaguely "not near the sorts of places you or I would live"...

Meaning I suppose that those inclined to such practices could set up their own communities where such things as the victimization of their own children were legal? And that the rest of us would be obliged to recognise these areas?

I don't think I'll be moving to Barakistan any time soon...

Birdwatcher

I was kind of vague on purpose, because it's a fairly complex issue, and exploring it fully would mean a whole other thread; but "law" in a free society would be a free-market phenomenon, not a government phenomenon. It takes a little work to wrap one's hair around the concept. If there was a market for law in a particular domain, people would compete to make money coming up with law concerning that area. Customers--in most cases probably private judges--would buy and employ the laws that seemed best to them and that attracted the most business and made the highest profits.

Law is only necessary in a case of disagreement: if two parties agree that what one of them did to the other is either acceptable or unacceptable, and they agree about how the situation should be resolved, there's no market for a law. (Under a government, legislators will make laws anyway, because that's what they do, but nobody would choose to buy their services if the money wasn't being extorted from him by force.) And in a case where there is a disagreement, there are almost always several different possible resolutions: many unwise choices, a few wise ones, and occasionally a really, truly brilliant stroke of Solomonic genius (for example, "You decide how to cut the remaining piece of cake, and then she gets to choose the piece she wants.") That's a perfect environment for a free market: the available alternatives compete, and the best one wins, making somebody rich into the bargain.


Theoretically, in a free society, this sort of thing would be possible. However, practically it wouldn't be particularly likely, and if it did happen it wouldn't be very long-lived unless everyone concerned was satisfied with it. (And if that's the case, there's no reason for it not to continue.)

You would have no right to go into such a community and say, "What you're doing (or not doing) offends my sensibilities, therefore I claim the power to coerce you to stop (or to do it)." However, for such a thing to continue in a free society, you'd have to have people say, "I was sold into the sex trade when I was a kid, and I really think it was good for me; therefore, I'm going to stay right here in this community and sell my own children into the sex trade as well." No one would be forced to stay in a community that compelled him to do such a thing against his will, because everyone would have the power to secede at any time from anything he didn't like.

Therefore, if he remained involved, the conclusion would have to be that on some level he did like it.

Laws would be intellectual property to be sold? Well, its not like THAT policy will lead to any disagreements as to who gets what (sorry, no serious sacasm intended).



Why on earth would anyone choose to agree with a decision that went against them, save only on the strength of their prior word?(which taken as a whole is an unreliable quantity at best). Why wouldn't they just go out and find a "private judge" who would rule THEIR way?

Like you said... "No one would be forced to stay in a community that compelled him to do such a thing against his will, because everyone would have the power to secede at any time from anything he didn't like....". Maybe I'm missing something here...

Specific to the abuse of children...



There are abundant examples, historical as well as present, of children being forced into sex, privately or commercially, and then continuing that lifetyle as adults. There is no reason to believe the practice "wouldn't be very long-lived" absent outside action.

Neither in Barakistan, near as I can tell, would there be any legal recourse against those who opted to begin sexually abusing or selling or otherwise damaging their own children even though they themselves were never victims. Look to any number of cults (a couple even professing to be "Christian") where this has occurred. Another example: What could possibly stop Satanic communities from sacrificing their own?

Birdwatcher