I think all anarchists could agree with this form of government.
After everything I have read, I have come to the conclusion that the only form of government that can "work" is a true democracy. In other words, everyone can vote and there is no "head of state". The other aspect of a "true democracy" is that legislation is only approved if every single voter votes yes for the legislation. If even one voter voted against the legislation, then the legislation would not pass. Lastly, anyone that did not get to vote on the legislation would not be bound by the legislation.
Since no legislation would ever be passed, it would in essence null and void government power, completely. But, at least everyone could say they had a chance to vote.
At most, I think only 5% of the adult population would need to stop cooperating to have real change.
February 17 - 1600 - Giordano Bruno is burnt alive by the catholic church. Aquinas : "much more reason is there for heretics, as soon as they are convicted of heresy, to be not only excommunicated but even put to death."
Well but that's not government in any recognizable sense; it's simply group-building.
Unanimous government like that are impossible. The market is better because it can serve everybody's needs without needing everyone's vote.
http://libregamewiki.org - The world's only encyclopedia on free(as in freedom) gaming.
kiba: Unanimous government like that are impossible. The market is better because it can serve everybody's needs without needing everyone's vote.
Tell that to those who would insist government is required to allow commerce to occur. Also, tell this to those who would aspire to abuse the market & try to coerce a non-voluntary proto-government into existence (I'm not objecting to the markets, just saying that this is obviously a possibility, although one I would think PDA's & armed individuals would be in a good position to stop such).
"Look at me, I'm quoting another user to show how wrong I think they are, out of arrogance of my own position. Wait, this is my own quote, oh shi-" ~ Nitroadict
Spideynw:I think all anarchists could agree with this form of government.
Stop there. Now, either a) this is actually not a government and so it is not surprising that some anarchists could find it reasonable or b) it is a government and, by definition, anarchists oppose it.
Without government, how would companies know how much to charge people for stuff? God, you guys are so stupid.
(*stands back and waits*)
Spideynw: Since no legislation would ever be passed, it would in essence null and void government power, completely. But, at least everyone could say they had a chance to vote.
Then how would anything ever get done?
Art transcends ideology.
http://mises.org/Community/blogs/ruben
How does bread get made and sold in a bakery?
Spideynw: I think all anarchists could agree with this form of government. After everything I have read, I have come to the conclusion that the only form of government that can "work" is a true democracy. In other words, everyone can vote and there is no "head of state". The other aspect of a "true democracy" is that legislation is only approved if every single voter votes yes for the legislation. If even one voter voted against the legislation, then the legislation would not pass. Lastly, anyone that did not get to vote on the legislation would not be bound by the legislation. Since no legislation would ever be passed, it would in essence null and void government power, completely. But, at least everyone could say they had a chance to vote.
It is not a government.
Schools are labour camps.
Rubén: Spideynw: Since no legislation would ever be passed, it would in essence null and void government power, completely. But, at least everyone could say they had a chance to vote. Then how would anything ever get done?
Maybe because people want to get things done?
Nice discussion really.
I'd like to add some important comments.
1) The price and behaviour of the firm is not determined whether there is government or not, because "the price is governed" by supply and demand. Only question is how does the firm know that will get payment for products and services?
2) The question above have been theoretically solved and proved. Law can work even if there are no courts and governemnt. We have to just concern the costs. In my opinion costs are higher in world without official courts and laws.
3) If we have "true democracy" how is legislation going to be promoted? You always need someone or some group (let's call it party) who suggest sollution. And for this sollution this group will want some reward, or not?
Spideynw, It would be democractic only in that it applied arbitrary social constructs to groups of people. What is the purpose of the vote if everyone could choose to ignore it? And if it can't be enforced wont some places simply cease voting? And in this event wouldn't any centralized legislator collapse? But why should any such govenrment exist at all if it served no purpose?
Yeah, that's good point. Then it's not democracy by definition. Democracy is rule of majority ... (http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/democracy).
How will be relations between people coordinated? I don't mean moral imperatives or laws. I believe these can exist without government, but (maybe I'm too limited ) but I can't see any solid rule I can rely on. Maybe it is private property what matter in world without government. What do you think? What about externalities?
" On the contrary, it is to be considered that, without his consent having even been asked a man finds himself environed by a government that he cannot resist; a government that forces him to pay money, render service, and forego the exercise of many of his natural rights, under peril of weighty punishments. He sees, too, that other men practice this tyranny over him by the use of the ballot. He sees further, that, if he will but use the ballot himself, he has some chance of relieving himself from this tyranny of others, by subjecting them to his own. In short, he finds himself, without his consent, so situated that, if he use the ballot, he may become a master; if he does not use it, he must become a slave. And he has no other alternative than these two. In self- defence, he attempts the former. His case is analogous to that of a man who has been forced into battle, where he must either kill others, or be killed himself. Because, to save his own life in battle, a man takes the lives of his opponents, it is not to be inferred that the battle is one of his own choosing. Neither in contests with the ballot — which is a mere substitute for a bullet — because, as his only chance of self- preservation, a man uses a ballot, is it to be inferred that the contest is one into which he voluntarily entered; that he voluntarily set up all his own natural rights, as a stake against those of others, to be lost or won by the mere power of numbers. On the contrary, it is to be considered that, in an exigency into which he had been forced by others, and in which no other means of self-defence offered, he, as a matter of necessity, used the only one that was left to him."
-Lysander Spooner: No Treason
Truly voting is the most oppressive tools that has been aggrandized by populations.
'Men do not change, they unmask themselves' - Germaine de Stael
That's exactly the point: this government won't be able to do anything (including interfering in your life). Actually, this might work: people whofeel they need a political process and some kind of government will accept it and might be even active in it but without being able to harm productive citizens. Also, this could be a "dummy" government that could fool the neighboring states. Governments prefer to deal with other governments and anarchies tend to make them wary (what if it spreads to our countries? Let's send some troops before it happens). When they see what looks like a government too they are more likely to leave the anarchy state alone.
The only problem I see is what will happen if a law is indeed passed one day? Is it supposed to be enforce? This can be fixed by turning these laws into recommendations only, not be enforced on people without their consent.
If I hear not allowed much oftener; said Sam, I'm going to get angry.
J.R.R.Tolkien, The Lord of the Rings
Morty:Stop there. Now, either a) this is actually not a government and so it is not surprising that some anarchists could find it reasonable or b) it is a government and, by definition, anarchists oppose it.
Well, I think if you get into the meat of what an anarchist is, it is not simply someone who is opposed to government, it is someone opposed to government force. They do not want to be "ruled" by someone else. In a true democracy, everyone has full veto power, as such, no one has to be subjected to anyone else's will. And if you do not get a chance to vote, and legislation is passed, then you are still not subjected to someone else's will. But a true democracy would also satisfy all the statists need for a government.
Donny with an A: Well but that's not government in any recognizable sense; it's simply group-building.
I am not sure how it is not a "government".
Your statement makes no sense. There would still be a market. Actually, that is all there really would be, because there would be no legislation from the government to "rule" the market. It would be a completely free market. Free from government interference.
Donny with an A: Without government, how would companies know how much to charge people for stuff? God, you guys are so stupid. (*stands back and waits*)
In the U.S., the government does not dictate prices. Prices seem to work themselves out just fine without the government.
Rubén:Then how would anything ever get done?
In the U.S. the government does not force us to go to work, so I would imagine nothing would change there.
eliotn:It is not a government.
How is it not a "government"?
Jan Uhlík:1) The price and behaviour of the firm is not determined whether there is government or not, because "the price is governed" by supply and demand. Only question is how does the firm know that will get payment for products and services?
Well, most goods and services are paid for immediately. For those that are not, there is the credit system. And if someone is not credit worthy, then they do not get credit.
Jan Uhlík:2) The question above have been theoretically solved and proved. Law can work even if there are no courts and governemnt. We have to just concern the costs. In my opinion costs are higher in world without official courts and laws.
There is some good reading on the Mises site about natural courts springing up without government. Even in the current U.S. system, I believe MOST cases are settled OUTSIDE of a court through arbitration and other means. So a world without a functioning government does not mean a world without courts. And if you look into government courts, they are full of abuse.
Jan Uhlík:3) If we have "true democracy" how is legislation going to be promoted? You always need someone or some group (let's call it party) who suggest sollution. And for this sollution this group will want some reward, or not?
That is the point, there would be no legislation. There would be no standing army. There would be no trade barriers. If people want to go fight in other nation's wars, they could. But I really doubt anyone ever would.
Jan Uhlík:Yeah, that's good point. Then it's not democracy by definition. Democracy is rule of majority ... (http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/democracy).
And how is a 100% vote not rule by majority?
Wilhelm Raschke:Spideynw, It would be democractic only in that it applied arbitrary social constructs to groups of people. What is the purpose of the vote if everyone could choose to ignore it?
If a vote did pass, then everyone who voted for it could not ignore it. So your statement is false. Only those that did not get to vote could ignore it (this way legislation passed does not affect the next generation).
Wilhelm Raschke:But why should any such govenrment exist at all if it served no purpose?
It would serve a purpose. Pretty much to let statists have feel good feelings that they got to vote.
Jan Uhlík:but I can't see any solid rule I can rely on. Maybe it is private property what matter in world without government.
Um, there would be a government. A democratic government.
Jan Uhlík:What about externalities?
What about them?
Natalie:The only problem I see is what will happen if a law is indeed passed one day? Is it supposed to be enforce? This can be fixed by turning these laws into recommendations only, not be enforced on people without their consent.
Do you think it is possible to get 100+ million people to agree on anything? What about 100,000? Or how about 10,000?
No, nothing would ever be passed into law. On the highly slim chance that something were, then they would have to figure out how to enforce it at that time, but it could only be enforced on the people that were able to vote for it.
Spideynw: Natalie:The only problem I see is what will happen if a law is indeed passed one day? Is it supposed to be enforce? This can be fixed by turning these laws into recommendations only, not be enforced on people without their consent. Do you think it is possible to get 100+ million people to agree on anything? What about 100,000? Or how about 10,000?
Not likely, but it's better to be prepared.
I hate to tell the OP this, but here goes: you just described a free market, not a government.
"The power of liberty going forward is in decentralization. Not in leaders, but in decentralized activism. In a market process." -- liberty student
Spideynw: I think all anarchists could agree with this form of government. After everything I have read, I have come to the conclusion that the only form of government that can "work" is a true democracy. In other words, everyone can vote and there is no "head of state". The other aspect of a "true democracy" is that legislation is only approved if every single voter votes yes for the legislation. If even one voter voted against the legislation, then the legislation would not pass. Lastly, anyone that did not get to vote on the legislation would not be bound by the legislation.
If certain people aren't bound to the law (non-voters), even if the vote is unanimous, then what is the point? Couldn't people who do vote for it follow it and people who didn't be free from its domain? And people who change their mind, or find it to be inconvenient, could just say "I didn't vote for it?"
Laughing Man:Truly voting is the most oppressive tools that has been aggrandized by populations.
No, voting is not the problem. The problem is being subjected to another's will without consent. A true democracy would eliminate this problem.
ladyattis: I hate to tell the OP this, but here goes: you just described a free market, not a government.
No, it results in a free market. But I did describe a "government". I have come to the conclusion that people cannot exist without some form of government. And this form of government would satisfy that need.
Angurse:f certain people aren't bound to the law (non-voters), even if the vote is unanimous, then what is the point?
The point would be that those that did vote for it would be subject to it, only if 100% of the voters voted for it.
Angurse:Couldn't people who do vote for it follow it and people who didn't be free from its domain?
If even one vote for no is cast, then it would not come into being. Everyone has full veto powers.
Angurse:And people who change their mind, or find it to be inconvenient, could just say "I didn't vote for it?"
If the votes are recorded, then no.
Voting is the subjacation of another....When you vote what do you think you do? Look at Proposition 8 in California. You think gay-marriage is illegal because one person say's "No" in a public arena? It is voting that "legitimizes" state intervention. That is how government claims it is acting according to the "will of the people" or "the public good" and other ambiguous obnixous claims.
Spideynw: Angurse:If certain people aren't bound to the law (non-voters), even if the vote is unanimous, then what is the point? The point would be that those that did vote for it would be subject to it, only if 100% of the voters voted for it.
Angurse:If certain people aren't bound to the law (non-voters), even if the vote is unanimous, then what is the point?
Why would such a system come about? Why is 100% of voters significant, when a unanimous decision still doesn't bind everyone?
Spideynw:If even one vote for no is cast, then it would not come into being. Everyone has full veto powers.
Wouldn't it make more sense to just allow people who like the law to be subject to and not those who don't. If 99% of the population wants to follow a law they should be entitled to, regardless of the other 1% (assuming the law doesn't harm that 1%).
Spideynw:If the votes are recorded, then no.
Whos doing the recording?
Laughing Man:Voting is the subjacation of another....When you vote what do you think you do? Look at Proposition 8 in California. You think gay-marriage is illegal because one person say's "No" in a public arena? It is voting that "legitimizes" state intervention. That is how government claims it is acting according to the "will of the people" or "the public good" and other ambiguous obnixous claims.
Voting in our current system is subjugation of another, but only because everyone does not have full veto powers. You are talking about the current system, and I agree that in the current system this is true. In my system, it would not be.
What's the point of the voting system if everyone can continually veto each other? Or are you suggesting that veto power should only rest in the majority?
So the only governement that could ever work is the governement that could never ever work? Figures. :)
Angurse:Why would such a system come about? Why is 100% of voters significant, when a unanimous decision still doesn't bind everyone?
It is significant because it is binding to those that voted for it.
Angurse:Wouldn't it make more sense to just allow people who like the law to be subject to and not those who don't. If 99% of the population wants to follow a law they should be entitled to, regardless of the other 1% (assuming the law doesn't harm that 1%).
No. Because then government power gets established, and the minority will eventually get abused by it. If even 51% vote in favour of attacking another country, I guarantee you the other 49% will get dragged into it, against their will. But this does not take away the power from the 51% to go ahead and go to war, but the other countries cannot blame the entire state for it, which would include the 49% that were against it.
Angurse:Whos doing the recording?
Well, if there ever were a time where you could get millions of people to agree on something, then you could figure it out at that point I guess.
Laughing Man: What's the point of the voting system if everyone can continually veto each other? Or are you suggesting that veto power should only rest in the majority?
The point is that everyone would get to vote.
And I am suggesting the veto power rest in each voters hands.