Democracy makes the purpose of government and authority pointless.

[Philosophizer]

Pardon my interruption, but I have a question! If a government is elected by the people, that means they can pass whichever laws they want?

 

[Kanzler]

Pardon my interruption, but I have a question! If a government is elected by the people, that means they can pass whichever laws they want?

No! Of course not! If you live in the US, you likely know of the American constitution, which answers your question already. If you live elsewhere in another democracy, your government probably also works under a constitution as well.

 

[Philosophizer]

No! Of course not! If you live in the US, you likely know of the American constitution, which answers your question already. If you live elsewhere in another democracy, your government probably also works under a constitution as well.

The constitution can be amended, however. If the constitution was amended legally to allow them to pass a much larger variety of laws, it would be okay then since the constitution allows it?

 

[Kanzler]

The constitution can be amended, however. If the constitution was amended legally to allow them to pass a much larger variety of laws, it would be okay then since the constitution allows it?

It's possible. A constitution has to be based off of certain principles but it can't be completely inflexible either.

 

[Philosophizer]

It's possible. A constitution has to be based off of certain principles but it can't be completely inflexible either.

Who decides how flexible it can be though? Isn't it those in government that have the authority to?

 

[Kanzler]

Who decides how flexible it can be though? Isn't it those in government that have the authority to?

Yes.

 

[Philosophizer]

Yes.

So you're saying that they can't pass any laws they wish because of the constitution, but you're also saying they have the authority to decide what the constitution allows them to do?

 

[Kanzler]

So you're saying that they can't pass any laws they wish because of the constitution, but you're also saying they have the authority to decide what the constitution allows them to do?

Yes... and it's not necessarily contradictory.

 

[Ivysaur]

Pardon my interruption, but I have a question! If a government is elected by the people, that means they can pass whichever laws they want?

Laws are passed by the Legislative, which may or may not be elected in different terms to those of the Executive (in a Parliamentary system both go along, in a Presidential one they don't). Laws can then be reviewed by judges and must, in any case, be compliant to the Constitution, a special "super law" that is often passed in special, super-strong circumstances, usually involving a direct vote from the citizens.

But ultimately yes. People make laws. If people hire representatives to make laws, then they get the authority to make said laws in the name of the people who elected them.

So you're saying that they can't pass any laws they wish because of the constitution, but you're also saying they have the authority to decide what the constitution allows them to do?

A Constitution is not "The 10 Commandments". It is written by people and therefore can be ammended by the same people whenever they wish to. It's supposed to be a "list of basic principles", so if the people's opinion of what constitutes a basic right changes over time, the Constitution should as well. A country's electoral system, say, can be changed to adapt to modern times. Britain doesn't even have a Constitution, just normal laws, so the current Parliament could go and abolish elections with a simple majority next week if they so desire. It's just that the current system has the best balance between order and freedom.

The people who are ultimately trying to govern themselves today shouldn't be tied up by what people who died centuries ago thought was a good idea back then.

 

[Philosophizer]

Yes... and it's not necessarily contradictory.

Yes it is. You're saying that the government isn't allowed to pass any law they wish because the constitution says they can't, the same constitution you say they have the ability to amend.

But ultimately yes. People make laws. If people hire representatives to make laws, then they get the authority to make said laws in the name of the people who elected them.

I don't know about you, but I'm pretty sure a group of people who forces whatever laws they pass on those it is ruling over don't represent them.

A Constitution is not "The 10 Commandments". It is written by people and therefore can be amended by the same people whenever they wish to.

Yes, it is written by those in government and can be amended by those in government whenever they want to, giving them whichever powers they wish. That doesn't sound dangerous at all.

It's supposed to be a "list of basic principles", so if the people's opinion of what constitutes a basic right changes over time, the Constitution should as well. A country's electoral system, say, can be changed to adapt to modern times.

Or you know, to suit the interests of those who have the exclusive right to change it in the first place.

Britain doesn't even have a Constitution, just normal laws, so the current Parliament could go and abolish elections with a simple majority next week if they so desire. It's just that the current system has the best balance between order and freedom.

I don't see where the freedom is when only those in government decide how much freedom everyone has.

 

[Ivysaur]

Yes it is. You're saying that the government isn't allowed to pass any law they wish because the constitution says they can't, the same constitution you say they have the ability to amend.

I don't know about you, but I'm pretty sure a group of people who forces whatever laws they pass on those it is ruling over don't represent them.

Yes, it is written by those in government and can be amended by those in government whenever they want to, giving them whichever powers they wish. That doesn't sound dangerous at all.

Or you know, to suit the interests of those who have the exclusive right to change it in the first place.

I don't see where the freedom is when only those in government decide how much freedom everyone has.

I think your problem is that you seem to think that "Government" is an alien group of people who came from Saturn and imposed themselves on a random Earth country they picked by rolling a dice, having no relationship whatsoever with the citizens they govern. Meanwhile our idea of "Government" is more like a group of citizens like me and you who are ultimately accountable to us, can be fired by us in elections and won't do any major crazy things everybody disagrees with because then they'll be out of a job in 4/5 years tops.

It is freedom when you and me have a say in choosing who will write the law before they can even sit down to debate them.

It is freedom when you and me can stand for Parliament/Congress/whatever and get elected like the people who currently are in power.

It is freedom when the law deciding how much freedom we have has to pass a popular vote from the citizens over which it's going to apply before being applied.

Yes, Congress can write laws and amend the Constitution. You don't like what they are doing? Then next election you show up and vote for a different person to represent you. Boot the bums out. Stand yourself! These past elections, two politically-involved people from my neighbourhood, which we have known for decades from all sorts of protests and the like, stood for congress in the Spanish elections. One got a Congress seat and the other one finished fourth out of the 3 Senate seats we choose (just a few thousand votes short, sadly). They aren't evil random people from Mars, I can assure you.

I'll concede that politicians can be manipulated by individual interests. The solution is strenghtening the controls over them, not just scrapping the whole system and replacing it by... what? 7 billion people meeting one day and not leaving the table until every last one of us is satisfied with a set of common laws for everyone? Not having laws so any random strongman can impose himself on others?

 

[Kanzler]

Yes it is. You're saying that the government isn't allowed to pass any law they wish because the constitution says they can't, the same constitution you say they have the ability to amend.

And that's not contradictory at all. You're reading too much into it.

 

[Philosophizer]

I think your problem is that you seem to think that "Government" is an alien group of people who came from Saturn and imposed themselves on a random Earth country they picked by rolling a dice, having no relationship whatsoever with the citizens they govern.

Just because we might know them doesn't mean we should give them the right to decide how we should live our lives by being forced to obey their laws.

Meanwhile our idea of "Government" is more like a group of citizens like me and you who are ultimately accountable to us, can be fired by us in elections and won't do any major crazy things everybody disagrees with because then they'll be out of a job in 4/5 years tops.

Phew, we only have to put with their garbage for around half a decade, that's a relief.

It is freedom when you and me have a say in choosing who will write the law before they can even sit down to debate them.

Good thing we know every law they will pass before we elect them.

It is freedom when you and me can stand for Parliament/Congress/whatever and get elected like the people who currently are in power.

I choose not to impose my will on others and calling it "law", so it doesn't matter to me if I have the "freedom" to rule over others like those in government do. I'd rather only use force when I have to defend myself, not to command people to behave the way I think they should.

It is freedom when the law deciding how much freedom we have has to pass a popular vote from the citizens over which it's going to apply before being applied.

Won't this lead to chaos if the ordinary citizens get to decide how much freedom they have?! Who are they to decide?! Surely it has to be left up to those in authority to keep the citizens in check. (Sarcasm alert!)

Yes, Congress can write laws and amend the Constitution. You don't like what they are doing? Then next election you show up and vote for a different person to represent you.

If I don't like what they are doing, they are not representing me. I am not going to vote in hopes that the next group of people feel like "representing me" this time, as I won't acknowledge their power in the first place.

Boot the bums out.

Or we can stop pretending their idiotic rules have to be followed in the first place just because they have the label of "government" and "authority".

Stand yourself!

I am. I recognize myself as an individual who can not be forced against his will, regardless if a group of people call it "law". Do you recognize yourself as an individual, or do you feel an obligation to obey a few group of people called "government" just because they tell you to?

These past elections, two politically-involved people from my neighborhood, which we have known for decades from all sorts of protests and the like, stood for congress in the Spanish elections. One got a Congress seat and the other one finished fourth out of the 3 Senate seats we choose (just a few thousand votes short, sadly).

They aren't evil random people from Mars, I can assure you.

Great for them. They still don't have the right to tell others how to live just because they call it "law".

I'll concede that politicians can be manipulated by individual interests. The solution is strengthening the controls over them, not just scrapping the whole system and replacing it by... what?

Replacing it by the idea that calling something "law" or "authority" doesn't make it into something good that has to be obeyed or followed.

7 billion people meeting one day and not leaving the table until every last one of us is satisfied with a set of common laws for everyone? Not having laws so any random strongman can impose himself on others?

We will never be able to agree on everything, with or without "government". Calling something "law" doesn't make people think "Oh wow, I don't disagree with that idea anymore!", it just makes them discontent until the next election comes when they might get the chance to change it more to their preference.

 

[Ivysaur]

I still don't know what you propose we do. Living on our own, without any sort of rules, so it's a free-for-all? Going back to the prehistory?

Just because we might know them doesn't mean we should give them the right to decide how we should live our lives by being forced to obey their laws.

Why not? Do you know of any other way to order the relations between humans more efficient than that? One that doesn't lead to utter chaos as we all fight each other to decide who is right in X issue.

Phew, we only have to put with their garbage for around half a decade, that's a relief.

Well- you can have a system in which you can change representatives in shorter terms (2 years for US representatives, 3 years for Parliament in Australia). Anything shorter is a mess.

Good thing we know every law they will pass before we elect them.

Well I'm pretty sure you have a very good idea of what candidate stands for when you vote for them, if not about the minutiae. Again, it's not like you are voting mystery names in a vaccuum.

I choose not to impose my will on others and calling it "law", so it doesn't matter to me if I have the "freedom" to rule over others like those in government do. I'd rather only use force when I have to defend myself, not to command people to behave the way I think they should.

So what happens if you feel you have been attacked by someone but that other someone doesn't agree? You start punching it out to see who's right? What happens if you feel you aren't hurting someone with your actions but someone else does feel so? You go into a court so a judge adjudicates the dispute... thereby creating a "case law" with her decision, therefore telling future people how to behave. The horror.

Won't this lead to chaos if the ordinary citizens get to decide how much freedom they have?! Who are they to decide?! Surely it has to be left up to those in authority to keep the citizens in check. (Sarcasm alert!)

I don't know you, but I remember countries like Ireland voting on stuff like same-sex marriage just last year. There are issues in which people can vote... and then there are other matters, like "the maximum width of a vehicle to be allowed to drive on a motorway", which are a tiny bit impractical to leave to referendums. That's where legisaltive bodies come in.

If I don't like what they are doing, they are not representing me. I am not going to vote in hopes that the next group of people feel like "representing me" this time, as I won't acknowledge their power in the first place.

Then work peacefully to get people to change the political system. But this is what the majority of people voted in the Constitution centuries ago and, until someone amends it out, this is how the game works. You can not like it and you can work to change it, but you have to acknowledge that, in the real world, this is what you have to play around.

Or we can stop pretending their idiotic rules have to be followed in the first place just because they have the label of "government" and "authority".

Who said that? I obey those rules becuase theyw ere written by the representatives of me and my fellow co-citizens, following the rules people like my mum voted in her day (in her case directly, in a referendum to approve our Constitution).
You may not like how politics work, but that doesn't mean everybody sees it the same way as you do.

I am. I recognize myself as an individual who can not be forced against his will, regardless if a group of people call it "law". Do you recognize yourself as an individual, or do you feel an obligation to obey a few group of people called "government" just because they tell you to?

I obey it because I get a chance to a) decide which people will write those laws and b) stand to become one of the people who writes those law if I wanted to.

Again, the problem is that your ideas about Government are so extremely negative that you seem unable to understand how someone can see anything good in the idea of having representatives- or hell, even "laws" at all.

Great for them. They still don't have the right to tell others how to live just because they call it "law".

They do so because a majority of the people voted to have those laws installed in the first place. Not because they woke up one day and thought "Hey, imma tell people what they can or cannot do today!!! And then I'll have pizza for dinner!".

Replacing it by the idea that calling something "law" or "authority" doesn't make it into something good that has to be obeyed or followed.

So, with no laws or any authority whatsoever, what should we do? Strongest guy wins? Have a gun ready in case you feel someone is encroaching what you personally feel are your rights?

We will never be able to agree on everything, with or without "government". Calling something "law" doesn't make people think "Oh wow, I don't disagree with that idea anymore!", it just makes them discontent until the next election comes when they might get the chance to change it more to their preference.

A law means "since we'll never agree on everything, we'll just agree that this set of rules has wide enough support and follow them, because the alternative is chaos. If next time people vote they choose reprsentatives who support other rules, we'll change them accordingly".

 

[Lunaris Adamantine]

The government doesn't exist to rule people, the government exists to support people, enforce the law, aide in settling public or personal disputes, and deal with foreign affairs.

Without government, there would be no police to protect people from criminal offenders. Criminals would not go to jail, or even betried for their crimes. The lack of control would increase crime rates, even murder rates, which would result in mass public fear and hysteria would be a common result.

Without government, there would be no one to control corporations from maximizing their greedy desires. Benefits would start to disappear, minimum wage wouldn't exist, and the unemployment rates would likely go through the roof. Poverty and homelessness would become plagues of society, but since the government isn't there anymore, no one would be there to aide people when they need it most. Suicide, starvation, and malnutrition, are just a few of the results that would be caused by this.

Essentially, we would all live like natural selection. Those with power or strength would thrive, and those without would suffer. We shouldn't live in a society where each individual person makes up their own laws for themselves. That sort of life would not be good for anyone.

 

[Philosophizer]

I still don't know what you propose we do. Living on our own, without any sort of rules, so it's a free-for-all? Going back to the prehistory?

I suggest we act like equal and responsible human beings who cooperate, organize and settle disputes with each other ourselves rather than whining to those with power to handle everything. This is practically what we do now regardless. All government adds to society is the idea that since some humans can't decide something, then other humans have the right to impose what they decide with force and punish those who disobey those decisions. That is not a solution; the only aspect that solves disagreements is agreement, not giving a group of people the power over you to decide what should be done.

Why not? Do you know of any other way to order the relations between humans more efficient than that? One that doesn't lead to utter chaos as we all fight each other to decide who is right in X issue.

Even if we can't agree on everything, we can organize and cooperate with those we do agree with and leave those who don't want to follow our ideas to pursue what they want. If it's really so scary letting everyone decide for themselves how to live their lives, then we should legislate who chooses which careers; after all, what if there won't be enough doctors or mechanics or teachers?

Well I'm pretty sure you have a very good idea of what candidate stands for when you vote for them, if not about the minutiae. Again, it's not like you are voting mystery names in a vaccuum.

Sure, but we don't know all the interests influencing these candidates as you've stated before. Not to mention each politician is an individual with his or her own opinions, values and beliefs. This is why the only person who can represent you adequately is yourself.

So what happens if you feel you have been attacked by someone but that other someone doesn't agree? You start punching it out to see who's right? What happens if you feel you aren't hurting someone with your actions but someone else does feel so? You go into a court so a judge adjudicates the dispute... thereby creating a "case law" with her decision, therefore telling future people how to behave. The horror.

If I feel I'm being wronged by someone, I'm going to tell him/her why I feel that way and see if we can reach a solution that will benefit both of us. It really depends on the situation and underlying circumstances, but unless I'm in immediate danger, I don't need to use force.

That's where legislative bodies come in.

Or common sense. If a legislative body decides the drinking age is 21, but you feel it should be 18, who is right? Will you suddenly change your mind and now believe the drinking age should be 21 after all? There are places where there is no drinking age, or where the drinking age is much lower than the examples I just gave. People having power doesn't lead to a good decision, people using their brains does.

Then work peacefully to get people to change the political system.

The government is willing to use violence the moment anyone disregards any of its laws, so I'm not sure the best solution is to act peaceful and beg it to change its laws if they are oppressive. However, I understand that not all laws are oppressive and can be changed using the system. It doesn't mean the system is a good one or should be in place.

But this is what the majority of people voted in the Constitution centuries ago and, until someone amends it out, this is how the game works. You can not like it and you can work to change it, but you have to acknowledge that, in the real world, this is what you have to play around.

I understand this sentiment, but I'm going to be civil and cooperate with people because I know its the right and beneficial thing, not because some group of people are forcing me to and call it law.

You may not like how politics work, but that doesn't mean everybody sees it the same way as you do.

And I respect their viewpoints and don't threaten them with violence if they don't agree with me. The law is the opposite.

I obey it because I get a chance to a) decide which people will write those laws

Since you get to choose who writes the laws, you are automatically going to agree with every law those people pass? If you don't agree with some laws, they get to punish you with fines and imprisonment because you had the choice to vote?

b) and stand to become one of the people who writes those law if I wanted to.

So you want to threaten people who disagree with you with force if they disobey your law?

Again, the problem is that your ideas about Government are so extremely negative that you seem unable to understand how someone can see anything good in the idea of having representatives- or hell, even "laws" at all.

I think having general principles and rules are the only way to achieve a peaceful and productive society, but a group of people and/or the majority dominating everyone else using "law" is not civilized or humane.

They do so because a majority of the people voted to have those laws installed in the first place. Not because they woke up one day and thought "Hey, imma tell people what they can or cannot do today!!! And then I'll have pizza for dinner!".

The majority can be 50.01%; 49.99% lose out in this case.

So, with no laws or any authority whatsoever, what should we do?

If you place this question in its proper context, it sounds like this: "If someone else wasn't telling me what to do, what I would I do?" If there was no group of people calling themselves authority, what would you do? Go around stealing everything in sight, or try to form gangs with other people to dominate others? I'm pretty sure you'd still act the way you are now, and that you would 1) protect yourself when necessary or 2) hire someone or a reputable agency to protect you when needed. If you think government is a reputable agency, just consider how well known politicians are for their honesty (or lack thereof).

Strongest guy wins?

A "strongest guy" is already winning, it's called the institution of government. They automatically get a nice pay cut of everyone's income and set the rules for those people they are receiving the money from; it's a double win.

Have a gun ready in case you feel someone is encroaching what you personally feel are your rights?

If I had a gun, I'd have no reason to shoot you unless you threatened to shoot me first. I'm sure the majority of people don't randomly want to pull out a gun and just shoot someone. If that was our nature, there would never be civilization or society and everyone would be using brute force. Also, most people understand the principle of proportional retaliation, as in: I don't get to blow your head off just because you punch me once or step on my feet.

A law means "since we'll never agree on everything, we'll just agree that this set of rules has wide enough support and follow them, because the alternative is chaos.

If we can't agree on everything, which I agree is true, the solution shouldn't be: "Well, we can't agree on everything, so let's just threaten everyone else who doesn't agree with us with imprisonment or fines!" How about we let them be if they are peaceful and don't bother us?

If next time people vote they choose representatives who support other rules, we'll change them accordingly".

The fact that the legal process allows laws to be amended, repealed or added demonstrates how we already live under anarchy; nothing is set in stone and whichever group of people are elected decide the rules. I don't see where the order is here. Furthermore, nothing guarantees good laws will be passed and at the correct moment. If you want a peaceful, stable world, work for it; leaving it to a few group of people with power is the last thing that will achieve justice.

 

[gimmepie]

The fact that the legal process allows laws to be amended, repealed or added demonstrates how we already live under anarchy; nothing is set in stone and whichever group of people are elected decide the rules. I don't see where the order is here. Furthermore, nothing guarantees good laws will be passed and at the correct moment. If you want a peaceful, stable world, work for it; leaving it to a few group of people with power is the last thing that will achieve justice.

Ignoring the naivety of the rest of your post, this point in particular I really have to comment on. You're fighting for an anarchy but you don't seem to actually understand what an anarchy is. An anarchy is a society without government. Having a government that can adapt to fit a changing society doesn't mean we're all living in an anarchy without realise it any more than it makes the government oppressive or irrelevant (all three things you have argued which makes it very hard to actually work out what your stance is), it means that the government can change to suit the people who have given it its power to begin with.

Change isn't anarchy, amending laws isn't anarchy and a government cannot ever be anarchy. What it can be is a body that changes to reflect the society it governs, which is exactly how a government should function. The government might pass laws and enact them but society defines how the government functions. That's not anarchy, that's accountability.

 

[Somewhere_]

So, without a currency, what will we use to do trade with? Barter? Or that fiat currency known as gold, which, on top of being as inherently worthless as a dollar, is far less convenient for any sort of payment? Do you understand why paper currency was even developed?



a) Who pays the court? Because if we all are forced to pay a court, then it becomes a tax. And if the court is voluntarily paid by people who want to have a court in place, then what happens to people who refuse to pay because they simply don't feel like it? Who will force me to accept the authority of the court? Who will force me to accept the authority of the law? If we are all supposed to agree on this beforehand, all 7 billion humans, who is nonetheless stopping me from just withdrawing my consent tomorrow? Who will enforce the ruling? *Fun fact: Public courts, financed by a public budget, were developed over time to ensure that they'd be properly financed and that everybody would be covered*

b) Who pays the police? What happens to people who freely decide not to pay for their local police company Inc. because they don't feel at risk? If there is a free market and four different police companies working, then what happens if I'm being robbed and the nearest policeman belongs to force B, when I'm subscribed to force D? Same with, say, firemen and other public insurance services. *Fun fact: Public police was developed over time to ensure that they had the duty to protect all citizens, instead of working privately for any given strongman*

c) What happens if you don't have enough money to pay for a private school? In the current world, you have public schools financed by the Government (aka by the taxes paid from all your co-citizens). If there is no Government, you'd have to choose between, say, eating, or taking your kid to school. Or you'd have to send her to a "cheap school for dummies". Or you'd have to beg your neighbours for money. *Fun fact: Public schools (and a legal obligation to make your kids receive education until a certain age) were created to ensure parents wouldn't just send their kids off to work, as they did in the past when people were poorer and needed every help they could get*

d) Why would they be poorer? Because the Government does a redistributive work to fix the unequalities of the market. Talking about Spain, which is my country and the one I have studied, the poverty rate by market income (aka the money you get after working, raw, no taxes or subsidies) is about 45%- aka 45% of the population get less than 1,000€ per month. After the Government uses its powers to take money from the rich and fund public services (which are mainly used by the poor) and hand out subsidies (and retirement pensions through Social Security), poverty rates sink to 22%. It's still bad, but just half as bad. In an anarchy, where there is no Government to fix the unequalities of the free market, people would be reduced to begging for rich people's charity, a charity that would be random in quantities, regularity and goals (maybe I'll donate 3 billion to help people get education. Your problem was eating? Well, tough luck!).

Modern day Governments aren't a bug. They are a feature.

Currency can work without a government. There would be competing currencies, which actually protects the people from hyperinflation and large businesses trying to work with banks. This is also why war would not be sustainable.

a) Courts would be voluntarily paid for, and we would pay a subscription fee for the court of our choosing. There would be a common law established between the courts upholding property rights of self-ownership and property. We see this occur in other societies in the past.

So if someone breaks into my house, I call up my court company. If the criminal does not show up to court, they pretty much automatically lose. What occurs is ostracism- the most powerful punishment tool. The criminal will not be able to buy, sell, or get a job. Eventually he would be able to gain back his reputation. So the criminal HAS to show up to court, but at the same time, does not. If he is found guilty, he will have to pay back all of the damages, and if he does not or does not try, he will be ostracized. The criminal can also use appeals by suing me back and bringing me to his court system, and if the judgement contradicts my court (such as saying he is innocent, the two courts can either work it out or hire an appeals court to settle it.

b) The security firms would most likely be hired by the road companies. So there wont be a community police force residing over a town or city, but rather, only protecting the road. Local communities can do that in neighborhoods depending on who built the roads, or the road company would do that for them. Stores, shopping malls, squares, and stuff like that protect their own stores with security firms. So there isn't any issue of calling 911 vs calling help of another police service or anything. Its whatever security service that is nearest that helps.

Other services work similarly. Firefighting services would be hired by the road company, or by local communities.

c) Charities would cover those who cannot afford private school. Surprisingly, private school is actually very cheap in a free market. I have heard a statistic that it would only cost $60 a year for schooling. Online schools would be more prevalent. Dont forget in a free society people's money are worth more and that they can afford more with it. And public education in general is pretty bad because they do not give the students any economic value. I cannot leave public high school and get a job with any of the skills I learned. In a free society, schooling reflects the needs of the communities and individuals, not a collective "averaged out" need. And funding does not hurt the education of the children because they aren't paid for based on the socioeconomic status of the communities. With public education, we have the poor subsidizing the rich or the rich having better schools, which is unfair.

d) Broken window fallacy. Resources have not been allocated properly, and you have not seen the negative effects because they are not there. This may or may not boost the economy, but you will never see how it would have been better without the redistribution.

What happens when you run out of money to redistribute? How is this model sustainable? Eventually you will have to tax those who are receiving the help, and employing them or taking care of them with their own money. And considering, most of funds go towards overhead in government (in the US it is 70%), this will result in a net loss for these people.

 

[Ivysaur]

Currency can work without a government. There would be competing currencies, which actually protects the people from hyperinflation and large businesses trying to work with banks. This is also why war would not be sustainable.

So how large would be those currencies? For a city, a household, a province, a state, a country? What happens when a town goes into bad shape for whatever economic reason (ie local industry goes out of fashion) and its currency starts inflating wildly as they need to import, say, food from a neighbouring town and nobody will take their currency because there is nothing to buy from them? Who prints the new notes? I'll let you know, in case that you aren't aware of basic principles, that you need to keep printing cash at the very least in order to track the rate of GDP increase (because you need new cash to sustain the increase of trade, or else the currency would start deflating, which is as dangerous as hyperinflation). Also, you know, currency exchange houses would flourish, all of them taking cuts of every transaction between every two cities/states/communities that happen to have different currencies. This, incidentally, would cause really bad inefficiencies in the long run, plus an increased exchange risk to all trades. Eventually, all close communities (like modern-day countries) would end up using a single currency as it makes internal trade so much more efficient and risk-free. And the currency will have to be managed by someone- perhaps a central bank board, I don't know I'm just throwing wild ideas out there.

a) Courts would be voluntarily paid for, and we would pay a subscription fee for the court of our choosing. There would be a common law established between the courts upholding property rights of self-ownership and property. We see this occur in other societies in the past.

So if someone breaks into my house, I call up my court company. If the criminal does not show up to court, they pretty much automatically lose. What occurs is ostracism- the most powerful punishment tool. The criminal will not be able to buy, sell, or get a job. Eventually he would be able to gain back his reputation. So the criminal HAS to show up to court, but at the same time, does not. If he is found guilty, he will have to pay back all of the damages, and if he does not or does not try, he will be ostracized. The criminal can also use appeals by suing me back and bringing me to his court system, and if the judgement contradicts my court (such as saying he is innocent, the two courts can either work it out or hire an appeals court to settle it.

If a higher court settles a case, then you get something called "case law", which is incidentally how a lot of the US code came to be.
So tell me, if I'm rich and/or have a lot of friends, who would force me to be "ostracized"? What happens if there are a lot of people who think I'm not guilty after all? What if the guilty guy just moves to a different place and starts a new life? And who chooses the curt? Who decides the court has any authority? Who decides whether the judge's ruling is fair? The judge? What happens if people who like judge A's ideology go to their court, and people who like judge B's ideology go to theirs? Who settles up who is right? And why would the appeals court be more right than any of the others? Who would manage jailed people?

b) The security firms would most likely be hired by the road companies. So there wont be a community police force residing over a town or city, but rather, only protecting the road. Local communities can do that in neighborhoods depending on who built the roads, or the road company would do that for them. Stores, shopping malls, squares, and stuff like that protect their own stores with security firms. So there isn't any issue of calling 911 vs calling help of another police service or anything. Its whatever security service that is nearest that helps.

So vigiliantes would patrol the neighbourhoods. Okay. Sounds really nice. What if a neighbourhood decides that "being black" is a crime and their local judge agrees with them very much? What happens if there is a cross-border case? Who investigates major fraud cases spanning over several towns? The local townsfolk? Who tackles cases of terrorism?

Dont forget in a free society people's money are worth more and that they can afford more with it.

What, why? Explain me why. I don't follow at all.

c) Charities would cover those who cannot afford private school. Surprisingly, private school is actually very cheap in a free market. I have heard a statistic that it would only cost $60 a year for schooling. Online schools would be more prevalent. And public education in general is pretty bad because they do not give the students any economic value. I cannot leave public high school and get a job with any of the skills I learned. In a free society, schooling reflects the needs of the communities and individuals, not a collective "averaged out" need. And funding does not hurt the education of the children because they aren't paid for based on the socioeconomic status of the communities. With public education, we have the poor subsidizing the rich or the rich having better schools, which is unfair.

So what happens if a community would rather teach kids stories about gods rather than science? What happens if a community decides they don't need to teach their kids math and focus on 'manufacturing skills'? What if one town gives kids 10 hours of class a day and the other one gives 3? Yeah, well "each community is king", but certainly some kids would be far better off in the long run. And you can't make sure teacher X is doing a good job or that the kids are learning correct stuff.

d) Broken window fallacy. Resources have not been allocated properly, and you have not seen the negative effects because they are not there. This may or may not boost the economy, but you will never see how it would have been better without the redistribution.

Therefore you can't prove whether they'd be poorer... or richer. Okay.

What happens when you run out of money to redistribute? How is this model sustainable? Eventually you will have to tax those who are receiving the help, and employing them or taking care of them with their own money. And considering, most of funds go towards overhead in government (in the US it is 70%), this will result in a net loss for these people.

"Running the government, including overhead costs and spending on various agencies and offices, such as the FBI and immigration services, comes in at 4.5%."

http://money.cnn.com/2014/04/11/pf/taxes/how-federal-income-taxes-are-spent/

I dispute your claim that most expenses go towards overhead. Show me your sources or I'm afraid I'll have to dismiss it as a mere fabrication that might suit your ideological purposes but which has nothing to do with reality.

 

[Kanzler]

a) Courts would be voluntarily paid for, and we would pay a subscription fee for the court of our choosing. There would be a common law established between the courts upholding property rights of self-ownership and property. We see this occur in other societies in the past.

So if someone breaks into my house, I call up my court company. If the criminal does not show up to court, they pretty much automatically lose. What occurs is ostracism- the most powerful punishment tool. The criminal will not be able to buy, sell, or get a job. Eventually he would be able to gain back his reputation. So the criminal HAS to show up to court, but at the same time, does not. If he is found guilty, he will have to pay back all of the damages, and if he does not or does not try, he will be ostracized. The criminal can also use appeals by suing me back and bringing me to his court system, and if the judgement contradicts my court (such as saying he is innocent, the two courts can either work it out or hire an appeals court to settle it.

If you've ever thought about a career in law, please refrain from considering it further unless you change your views about the above. Actually, no definitely be interested in a career in law. It may change your mind.