8footspider, oppression isn't exclusive to non-democracies. Plenty of democracies have had laws oppressing against certain races or religions on the books. I think libertarianism is pretty silly, but the western exceptionalism thing about democracy is dumb. There are plenty of vicious democracratically elected leaders in the world, the us/uk/etc are just their allies. Mubarak is a fantastic example you should be very familiar with, democratically elected and a close ally of the US. Israel, while pretty close to my heart, is another good example of an educated, voting state that continues to exacerbate violence against a certain class of people.
So, saying one side of the argument has abuse of citizens and the other doesn't is unfair -- western states have police brutality and executions for treason and all that shit too, they just try to keep it a lot more civil and historically have abused the power a lot less.
Being taxed to pay for social programs is not the same as being starved to death by Al Shabab, imo.
Right, there is a spectrum in violent organizations from warlords, to the mob, to governments, and they often don't really have that much in common.
Libertarians, like most ideological groups, like big and simple ideas, and so they lump all organizations that use violence together in the same pot. They are motivated by moral ideas, so it makes a better philosophy or religion than it does a practical political organization. In reality, what does or does not constitute violence is kind of a grey area. For example, if there is a claim that one person has accidentally damaged another's property, like in the case of contaminated ground water, does that mean that the accused has committed a violent act? If not, a libertarian can't compel a person to appear for mediation/judging. If everyone who is accused of anything counts as having acted in a violent way, then you are authorizing the use of violence against a person who may actually be innocent.
If you want to do something practical, it makes a lot more sense to move near like-minded people than to try to change the minds of all of your neighbors.
If you want to do something practical, it makes a lot more sense to move near like-minded people than to try to change the minds of all of your neighbors.
Which brings us full circle to the idea of man-made islands as sovereign states.
I have a copy of The High Frontier by Gerard K O'Neil that lays out a plan for space colonization (UC Gundam space colonies are basically based off of his ideas). There's a lot of information out there and hypothetical ideas about how space colonies could, or couldn't, work (http://settlement.arc.nasa.gov/CoEvolutionBook/).
The consensus about multiculturalism and, even more-so, divergent political ideologies on board a space colony is that they wouldn't work.
The Libertarian counter to this argument is that "the aggressive and better equipped taking from and harming those who lack the resources to defend themselves" is exactly what the government does. The "protection" they provide, is about the same as the protection the mob provides.
Obviously you're not a Libertarian. No offense pal, but you're putting words into people's mouths. Essentially demonizing a group of people. Do you really think that this is what I want? Are you so sure that you understand the Libertarian platform that you would paint me in such a way? Or is it maybe possible that you just do not understand the platform?
This is the exact same thing as any time a Democrat talks about welfare, and he gets called a Marxist Socialist Communist by Fox News and co.
Again, no offense, but please just for the sake of civility, let's not put words in people's mouths.
Bigjohn, I'm curious about what you're describing. One primary reason for government is security - laws, police, armies, etc, all with the intent of keeping the citizenry safe from each other and outside elements. If your philosophy does away with government, where does your security come from? It seems to me that without some form of government, you get law of the jungle real quick, with the aggressive and better equipped taking from and harming those who lack the resources to defend themselves. Am I misunderstanding that?
I appreciate you asking a question instead of being dismissive. Really appreciate it actually.
But I really don't believe Polycount is the place to tout political ideologies. And I really don't want to get into political arguments over the internet. That said, those questions are complex, and there are centuries of Libertarian writing on the subject. When starting out, the best thing to do is to look up articles from Libertarian thinkers about the subject. Rothbard himself has many articles outside of his books on various issues. On security there's Society Without a State. There's also a book called The Myth of National Defense, which is actually what turned me into Libertarianism in the first place. I was so sick and tired of government's perpetual wars that I was looking for alternatives, and found that one. Completely crushes the myth that we need a government in order to have "national defense".
Libertarianism sounds a lot like a corporate tyranny to me, John.
Again, I don't wish to argue ideology, but merely set the record straight. And this one is a common one.
But actually, there can be no corporations in a Libertarian society. To make a long story short, corporations are a government fabrication. No government, no corporations.
The definition of a corporation:
"A corporation is a legal entity that is created under the laws of a state designed to establish the entity as a separate legal entity having its own privileges and liabilities distinct from those of its members"
Meaning, if they fuck up, they can't be sued. The fictional entity known as the corporation will be sued. In a theoretical Libertarian society, if BP spills that oil in the gulf, it's the CEOs and owners who get sued, not the fictional entity known as BP.
Are you so sure that you understand the Libertarian platform [...]
Again, no offense, but please just for the sake of civility, let's not put words in people's mouths.
Yup, I understand it perfectly, but then I would after hanging out with Lew Rockwell after getting a scholarship to Mises University two years in a row. It was interesting to hear Rothbard's wife chat about Ayn Rand and Alan Greenspan -- sadly Murray Rothbard passed a way a few years before I went.
No offense, but maybe you just don't know many libertarians?
You're right that I'm not a libertarian, but it's not because I disagree with their fundamental ideals -- rather, I think that they don't have compelling answers to important issues.
Yup, I understand it perfectly, but then I would after hanging out with Lew Rockwell after getting a scholarship to Mises University two years in a row. It was interesting to hear Rothbard's wife chat about Ayn Rand and Alan Greenspan -- sadly Murray Rothbard passed a way a few years before I went.
Then you would know that "survival of the fitness" is not part of libertarian ideology.
No offense, but maybe you just don't know many libertarians?
Pretty much everyone I hang out with are libertarians. The Libertarian ideal evolved in recent years, it's no longer the same as when Rothbard and those started the Libertarian Party back in the day. We pretty much reject that party as an oxymoron.
You're right that I'm not a libertarian, but it's not because I disagree with their fundamental ideals -- rather, I think that they don't have compelling answers to important issues.
I was always under the impression that most of the Libertarian ideal stemmed from the views of Thomas Jefferson, Ben Franklin, et al? The idea of a smaller, centralized government and, in the case of the US, stronger state government. Since when did Anarchy come into play? Hell, when has Anarchy EVER been shown to work on a large scale?
But I think I'll avoid visiting. I don't like needles. Not sure I'd be able to handle injecting my own plasmids.
I was always under the impression that most of the Libertarian ideal stemmed from the views of Thomas Jefferson, Ben Franklin, et al? The idea of a smaller, centralized government and, in the case of the US, stronger state government. Since when did Anarchy come into play? Hell, when has Anarchy EVER been shown to work on a large scale?
It is kind of confusing, since there are a bunch of different factions that are all kind of the same from a mainstream perspective. Libertarians respect Thomas Jefferson because he said things like:
"A wise and frugal government, which shall leave men free to regulate their own pursuits of industry and improvement, and shall not take from the mouth of labor the bread it has earned - this is the sum of good government. "
and
"No free man shall ever be de-barred the use of arms.
The strongest reason for the people to retain their right to keep and bear arms is as a last resort to protect themselves against tyranny in government."
and
"Every citizen should be a soldier. This was the case with the Greeks and Romans, and must be that of every free state."
The intellectual framework of modern Libertarianism is based around free market economics, which argues that free markets are most likely to produce the best long term outcomes. A fully free market economy is called "anarcho-capitalist"; because governments depend on forcing you at gunpoint to pay taxes for "services" you may not use or want, they can't exist in a fully free market.
The word "anarchy" means "chaos" to a lot of people, but actually the word comes from the greek "an"+"archos" meaning "without a ruler." A lot of these folks feel that most of the chaos, death and destruction is originated from rulers, so they think there would actually be less chaos under anarcho-capitalism.
Along with socialism, it is one of the only real post-industrial revolution philosophies. In practice, if it existed, it would depend on using a lot of newer social institutions -- credit agency type bodies, or institutions like Underwriters Laboratories (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Underwriters_Laboratories) -- in order to operate. These would replace all government offices, like the FDA, FCC, etc etc. Since this kind of independent certification companies didn't exist for most of history, it is no surprise there hasn't been a system like this in the past.
On Bioshock: They got so much totally wrong in Bioshock that it does not really have anything to do with Rand's objectivism. Fontain is a smuggler? Smuggling what? The only possible contraband would be slaves, but even those are probably okay if they signed an indentured servitude contract. Why do they have a fiat currency? In fact, the story makes almost no mention of any real market -- Ryan owns everything. It is more like fascism.
The Libertarian counter to this argument is that "the aggressive and better equipped taking from and harming those who lack the resources to defend themselves" is exactly what the government does. The "protection" they provide, is about the same as the protection the mob provides.
This is the part I was commenting on. It sounds like you were saying that Libertarians believe that the aggressive and the better equipped will take from their "lessers". But reading back I may have misunderstood. It sounds like you may have been trying to say that those people who are aggressive and better equipped (mobs and such) are really no different than the government?
Which would indeed be closer to what we believe in.
But that's still not quite it. Because it's not like we're saying that in a Libertarian society, it's fine fine to have mafias and mobs because that's no different than government. No, it's never fine. I mean, the most bread&butter principle is the Non Aggression Principle... so how does the aggressive and better equipped harming the weaker fits into that? The weaker are included in the NAP.
It does sound like I'm misunderstanding you though. My apologies if so.
The part about fitness is a typo on my part. My bad.
And yeah, your last post describing Anarcho-Capitalism is much more spot on. Although I feel like I have to mention, there are lots of different Anarchos out there these days. There are Anarcho-Socialists, Anarcho-Communists, etc. I still remain in the Anarcho-Capitalism camp. I said it earlier, but I love the quote so much that I think it'll be good to repeat. But Tolkein said it best:
My political opinions lean more and more to Anarchy (philosophically understood, meaning the abolition of control not whiskered men with bombs) or to unconstitutional Monarchy.
Right. I compared the government to the mob (to express their viewpoint), because everyone understands that organized crime is bad, and nobody wants it.
Right. I compared the government to the mob (to express their viewpoint), because everyone understands that organized crime is bad, and nobody wants it.
I apologize then, I misunderstood.
Looking back at it then, I do believe you're doing a good job representing what it's all about.
Thanks! It's no problem. I don't mind talking about this stuff because there is a lot of misunderstanding on the topic these days; especially with the Tea Party trying to co-opt that particular movement. Pretty awesome how well Ron Paul did in Iowa -- I think it would be a glorious trainwreck if he ever made it to president. I kind of want to see it.
on topic:
About these sealands, and how I mentioned earlier in the thread the idea of moving to find like-minded people. The only people who would need to move to a place like these micronations are people who can't find a place where they fit in anywhere else on earth, ie, total weirdos. It is no surprise to me that mr. gay christian billionaire chess champ wants a place like that.
Most normal people could probably find a country that they like from the existing ones-- if you are willing to go through an adjustment phase.
The only people who would need to move to a place like these micronations are people who can't find a place where they fit in anywhere else on earth, ie, total weirdos.
While I basically agree, I wonder if it doesn't have less to do with the existential search for a people and place to belong to, and more to do with circumventing or doing away with norms, mores, and accepted codes of ethics.
i.e. human augmentation, stem cell research, human cloning and genetic modification, things that are either illegal, taboo, or considered unethical.
While I basically agree, I wonder if it doesn't have less to do with the existential search for a people and place to belong to, and more to do with circumventing or doing away with norms, mores, and accepted codes of ethics.
i.e. human augmentation, stem cell research, human cloning and genetic modification, things that are either illegal, taboo, or considered unethical.
Right, so we should make our own Polycount platform out at sea! Can make all sorts of games that we want. Will probably not make sense to other "regular" people, but hey, it'll be awesome.
So I am reading a bit more about this, and they are talking about floating the first of these off the bay in San Francisco-- it is kind of an interesting application since the cost of land is so high there, and getting around is already a pain. There is a good chance that taking a boat would not seriously increase your commute time. Maybe even cut it down, depending on how far out they are.
There should be a test people have to take before they're allowed to vote to prove that they have an understanding of not only how their government works, but the current issues at hand.
This is of course reliant upon the government being truthfully transparent with how they work, and with the issues at hand.
For it to work - at some point, you have to have someone (or a group of someones) who decide what's accurate and truthful, and what's not.
And being able to actually prove that to people isn't as simple as proving something like say..."fire will burn you if you touch it". Not with as many people in the world (or country) as there are today.
I need to read up on some libertarianism, cause I know dick about it. That in mind, I'm not trying to argue or call you an idiot or anything, but trying to figure out how people would accomplish things as groups.
You're 100 percent right about corporations being legal fictions with more laws than people, but it sounds to me like people would revert back to tribes, which is in ways, corporations. I mean, how else would one define a group of people that exist together to work towards a common goal?
But that's just my take on it.
I think you're thinking of a company. Or just any business really. There's nothing wrong with business and companies. Hell, there would be nothing wrong with corporations if they weren't granted all these special rights, and protected by limited liability laws. Of course, then they would no longer be corporations. But that's the point
But actually, there can be no corporations in a Libertarian society. To make a long story short, corporations are a government fabrication. No government, no corporations.
The definition of a corporation:
"A corporation is a legal entity that is created under the laws of a state designed to establish the entity as a separate legal entity having its own privileges and liabilities distinct from those of its members"
Meaning, if they fuck up, they can't be sued. The fictional entity known as the corporation will be sued. In a theoretical Libertarian society, if BP spills that oil in the gulf, it's the CEOs and owners who get sued, not the fictional entity known as BP.
Just want to point this out -
In your utopic libertarian society in which no corporations exist because there is no state that could give them power, there'd also be no way to sue because there is no state to set laws, judge innocence, or enforce the verdict. In other words, no the owners would not get sued. And short of personal violence, there'd be no way to punish those CEOs (or anyone else). Atleast not without beginning to build up entities and groups to deal with such things, at which point you are right back where you started, with a state of some sort. :P
In your utopic libertarian society in which no corporations exist because there is no state that could give them power, there'd also be no way to sue because there is no state to set laws, judge innocence, or enforce the verdict. In other words, no the owners would not get sued. And short of personal violence, there'd be no way to punish those CEOs (or anyone else). Atleast not without beginning to build up entities and groups to deal with such things, at which point you are right back where you started, with a state of some sort. :P
Kinda right and kinda wrong at the same time. Staying within my premise of not arguing or toting ideologies here, I'll try to not explain it. But I will add information where it's missing. And that is the definition of the state. Personally I go by Rothbard's definition:
I define the state as that institution which possesses one or both (almost always both) of the following properties: (1) it acquires its income by the physical coercion known as "taxation"; and (2) it asserts and usually obtains a coerced monopoly of the provision of defense service (police and courts) over a given territorial area. An institution not possessing either of these properties is not and cannot be, in accordance with my definition, a state.
Which basically means, if it can't tax, and it can't initiate aggression against people, it ain't a state.
So you're quite right that entities and groups would pop up that would deal with those issues. And all power to them. As long as they can't tax, and they won't initiate aggression against people, we've made great progress. When institutions start initiating violence against people, then they become a state. And in that case, so what? Worst case scenario, assuming it all fails, we're right back to where we are. Under the rule of the state. Best case, we're all free people. I see no harm in trying it.
A little more on-topic:
I was talking about this with a friend of mine, and we both agreed that it would be awesome to have a game where nothing goes wrong. Seems like most games, like say Bioshock, start out with a certain premise, "And then things go wrong"... for no good reason really. Just to have some action and someone to shoot.
But then looking back at the older games I used to play as a kid, most of them didn't have shooting at all. All the point&click games, like say Sam&Max, Full Throttle, Simon the Sorcerer, etc. I'd love for them to make a comeback.
Do you guys think a deep story-driven shooting-free game is possible this day and age? Could Bioshock have worked even without any superpower-junkies to fight against?
Replies
So, saying one side of the argument has abuse of citizens and the other doesn't is unfair -- western states have police brutality and executions for treason and all that shit too, they just try to keep it a lot more civil and historically have abused the power a lot less.
Right, there is a spectrum in violent organizations from warlords, to the mob, to governments, and they often don't really have that much in common.
Libertarians, like most ideological groups, like big and simple ideas, and so they lump all organizations that use violence together in the same pot. They are motivated by moral ideas, so it makes a better philosophy or religion than it does a practical political organization. In reality, what does or does not constitute violence is kind of a grey area. For example, if there is a claim that one person has accidentally damaged another's property, like in the case of contaminated ground water, does that mean that the accused has committed a violent act? If not, a libertarian can't compel a person to appear for mediation/judging. If everyone who is accused of anything counts as having acted in a violent way, then you are authorizing the use of violence against a person who may actually be innocent.
If you want to do something practical, it makes a lot more sense to move near like-minded people than to try to change the minds of all of your neighbors.
Which brings us full circle to the idea of man-made islands as sovereign states.
I have a copy of The High Frontier by Gerard K O'Neil that lays out a plan for space colonization (UC Gundam space colonies are basically based off of his ideas). There's a lot of information out there and hypothetical ideas about how space colonies could, or couldn't, work (http://settlement.arc.nasa.gov/CoEvolutionBook/).
The consensus about multiculturalism and, even more-so, divergent political ideologies on board a space colony is that they wouldn't work.
Obviously you're not a Libertarian. No offense pal, but you're putting words into people's mouths. Essentially demonizing a group of people. Do you really think that this is what I want? Are you so sure that you understand the Libertarian platform that you would paint me in such a way? Or is it maybe possible that you just do not understand the platform?
This is the exact same thing as any time a Democrat talks about welfare, and he gets called a Marxist Socialist Communist by Fox News and co.
Again, no offense, but please just for the sake of civility, let's not put words in people's mouths.
I appreciate you asking a question instead of being dismissive. Really appreciate it actually.
But I really don't believe Polycount is the place to tout political ideologies. And I really don't want to get into political arguments over the internet. That said, those questions are complex, and there are centuries of Libertarian writing on the subject. When starting out, the best thing to do is to look up articles from Libertarian thinkers about the subject. Rothbard himself has many articles outside of his books on various issues. On security there's Society Without a State. There's also a book called The Myth of National Defense, which is actually what turned me into Libertarianism in the first place. I was so sick and tired of government's perpetual wars that I was looking for alternatives, and found that one. Completely crushes the myth that we need a government in order to have "national defense".
Again, I don't wish to argue ideology, but merely set the record straight. And this one is a common one.
But actually, there can be no corporations in a Libertarian society. To make a long story short, corporations are a government fabrication. No government, no corporations.
The definition of a corporation:
"A corporation is a legal entity that is created under the laws of a state designed to establish the entity as a separate legal entity having its own privileges and liabilities distinct from those of its members"
Meaning, if they fuck up, they can't be sued. The fictional entity known as the corporation will be sued. In a theoretical Libertarian society, if BP spills that oil in the gulf, it's the CEOs and owners who get sued, not the fictional entity known as BP.
Yup, I understand it perfectly, but then I would after hanging out with Lew Rockwell after getting a scholarship to Mises University two years in a row. It was interesting to hear Rothbard's wife chat about Ayn Rand and Alan Greenspan -- sadly Murray Rothbard passed a way a few years before I went.
No offense, but maybe you just don't know many libertarians?
You're right that I'm not a libertarian, but it's not because I disagree with their fundamental ideals -- rather, I think that they don't have compelling answers to important issues.
Then you would know that "survival of the fitness" is not part of libertarian ideology.
Pretty much everyone I hang out with are libertarians. The Libertarian ideal evolved in recent years, it's no longer the same as when Rothbard and those started the Libertarian Party back in the day. We pretty much reject that party as an oxymoron.
Fair enough. That's cool then. Agree to disagree.
Like I said, don't wanna argue over this.
But I think I'll avoid visiting. I don't like needles. Not sure I'd be able to handle injecting my own plasmids.
I suspect you don't understand what I'm talking about -- maybe you read it wrong? Also, it's "survival of the fittest."
It is kind of confusing, since there are a bunch of different factions that are all kind of the same from a mainstream perspective. Libertarians respect Thomas Jefferson because he said things like:
"A wise and frugal government, which shall leave men free to regulate their own pursuits of industry and improvement, and shall not take from the mouth of labor the bread it has earned - this is the sum of good government. "
and
"No free man shall ever be de-barred the use of arms.
The strongest reason for the people to retain their right to keep and bear arms is as a last resort to protect themselves against tyranny in government."
and
"Every citizen should be a soldier. This was the case with the Greeks and Romans, and must be that of every free state."
The intellectual framework of modern Libertarianism is based around free market economics, which argues that free markets are most likely to produce the best long term outcomes. A fully free market economy is called "anarcho-capitalist"; because governments depend on forcing you at gunpoint to pay taxes for "services" you may not use or want, they can't exist in a fully free market.
The word "anarchy" means "chaos" to a lot of people, but actually the word comes from the greek "an"+"archos" meaning "without a ruler." A lot of these folks feel that most of the chaos, death and destruction is originated from rulers, so they think there would actually be less chaos under anarcho-capitalism.
Along with socialism, it is one of the only real post-industrial revolution philosophies. In practice, if it existed, it would depend on using a lot of newer social institutions -- credit agency type bodies, or institutions like Underwriters Laboratories (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Underwriters_Laboratories) -- in order to operate. These would replace all government offices, like the FDA, FCC, etc etc. Since this kind of independent certification companies didn't exist for most of history, it is no surprise there hasn't been a system like this in the past.
On Bioshock: They got so much totally wrong in Bioshock that it does not really have anything to do with Rand's objectivism. Fontain is a smuggler? Smuggling what? The only possible contraband would be slaves, but even those are probably okay if they signed an indentured servitude contract. Why do they have a fiat currency? In fact, the story makes almost no mention of any real market -- Ryan owns everything. It is more like fascism.
This is the part I was commenting on. It sounds like you were saying that Libertarians believe that the aggressive and the better equipped will take from their "lessers". But reading back I may have misunderstood. It sounds like you may have been trying to say that those people who are aggressive and better equipped (mobs and such) are really no different than the government?
Which would indeed be closer to what we believe in.
But that's still not quite it. Because it's not like we're saying that in a Libertarian society, it's fine fine to have mafias and mobs because that's no different than government. No, it's never fine. I mean, the most bread&butter principle is the Non Aggression Principle... so how does the aggressive and better equipped harming the weaker fits into that? The weaker are included in the NAP.
It does sound like I'm misunderstanding you though. My apologies if so.
The part about fitness is a typo on my part. My bad.
And yeah, your last post describing Anarcho-Capitalism is much more spot on. Although I feel like I have to mention, there are lots of different Anarchos out there these days. There are Anarcho-Socialists, Anarcho-Communists, etc. I still remain in the Anarcho-Capitalism camp. I said it earlier, but I love the quote so much that I think it'll be good to repeat. But Tolkein said it best: That's the type of Anarchy we're talking about.
I apologize then, I misunderstood.
Looking back at it then, I do believe you're doing a good job representing what it's all about.
Thanks! It's no problem. I don't mind talking about this stuff because there is a lot of misunderstanding on the topic these days; especially with the Tea Party trying to co-opt that particular movement. Pretty awesome how well Ron Paul did in Iowa -- I think it would be a glorious trainwreck if he ever made it to president. I kind of want to see it.
on topic:
About these sealands, and how I mentioned earlier in the thread the idea of moving to find like-minded people. The only people who would need to move to a place like these micronations are people who can't find a place where they fit in anywhere else on earth, ie, total weirdos. It is no surprise to me that mr. gay christian billionaire chess champ wants a place like that.
Most normal people could probably find a country that they like from the existing ones-- if you are willing to go through an adjustment phase.
While I basically agree, I wonder if it doesn't have less to do with the existential search for a people and place to belong to, and more to do with circumventing or doing away with norms, mores, and accepted codes of ethics.
i.e. human augmentation, stem cell research, human cloning and genetic modification, things that are either illegal, taboo, or considered unethical.
as for all the political stuff..
http://youtu.be/hwuiHI0-z3c
Right, so we should make our own Polycount platform out at sea! Can make all sorts of games that we want. Will probably not make sense to other "regular" people, but hey, it'll be awesome.
Sounds like I just described Japan...
This is of course reliant upon the government being truthfully transparent with how they work, and with the issues at hand.
For it to work - at some point, you have to have someone (or a group of someones) who decide what's accurate and truthful, and what's not.
And being able to actually prove that to people isn't as simple as proving something like say..."fire will burn you if you touch it". Not with as many people in the world (or country) as there are today.
I think you're thinking of a company. Or just any business really. There's nothing wrong with business and companies. Hell, there would be nothing wrong with corporations if they weren't granted all these special rights, and protected by limited liability laws. Of course, then they would no longer be corporations. But that's the point
Just want to point this out -
In your utopic libertarian society in which no corporations exist because there is no state that could give them power, there'd also be no way to sue because there is no state to set laws, judge innocence, or enforce the verdict. In other words, no the owners would not get sued. And short of personal violence, there'd be no way to punish those CEOs (or anyone else). Atleast not without beginning to build up entities and groups to deal with such things, at which point you are right back where you started, with a state of some sort. :P
Kinda right and kinda wrong at the same time. Staying within my premise of not arguing or toting ideologies here, I'll try to not explain it. But I will add information where it's missing. And that is the definition of the state. Personally I go by Rothbard's definition:
Which basically means, if it can't tax, and it can't initiate aggression against people, it ain't a state.
So you're quite right that entities and groups would pop up that would deal with those issues. And all power to them. As long as they can't tax, and they won't initiate aggression against people, we've made great progress. When institutions start initiating violence against people, then they become a state. And in that case, so what? Worst case scenario, assuming it all fails, we're right back to where we are. Under the rule of the state. Best case, we're all free people. I see no harm in trying it.
A little more on-topic:
I was talking about this with a friend of mine, and we both agreed that it would be awesome to have a game where nothing goes wrong. Seems like most games, like say Bioshock, start out with a certain premise, "And then things go wrong"... for no good reason really. Just to have some action and someone to shoot.
But then looking back at the older games I used to play as a kid, most of them didn't have shooting at all. All the point&click games, like say Sam&Max, Full Throttle, Simon the Sorcerer, etc. I'd love for them to make a comeback.
Do you guys think a deep story-driven shooting-free game is possible this day and age? Could Bioshock have worked even without any superpower-junkies to fight against?