How Could A Voluntary Society Function?

More videos on law at: http://vforvoluntary.com/law

Text:
http://www.vforvoluntary.com/forum/showthread.php?tid=60

Audio:
- http://www.freesound.org/samplesViewSingle.php?id=86818
- http://www.freesound.org/samplesViewSingle.php?id=18981
creative commons sampling plus 1.0 license

Outro picture with permission (for *only* this video) from Andrée Wallin:
http://andreewallin.deviantart.com/art/Metropolis-Pt4-175986908
http://andreewallin.com/

Video-file:
http://www.megaupload.com/?d=CPWV48E8

Category:

Education

Tags:

• voluntary
• society
• non
• aggression
• principle
• anarchy
• anarcho-capitalism
• pure
• free
• market
• rothbard

[infinityBBC]

this video actually makes the case for a simple gov't and rule of law. these so-called "arbitrators" and the decisions made ARE an example of gov't, being a judiciary.

there is absolutely no valid argument against liberty by means of the rule of law, and to have rule of law, there must be some form of judiciary in order to protect self-ownership (even at the tribal level), and therefore, a form of gov't.

anarchy is a lie, as much as socialism, fascism, etc. cheers! 8-)

[Nielsio]

@infinityBBC Just because arbitrational opinions are being made doesn't mean it's a government. Government is the violent monopolization of arbitration, to the point where it starts conflicts, rules in its own favor, and then enforces it.

Anarchy doesn't mean no modernity; it just means that no group of people have special privileges (an = no/without, archy = ruler).

[MrPisster]

@raizumichin Hrm, the left and right use violence to enforce their social ideas. Libertarian/Anarchy is outside the left right dichotomy because it's a pluralistic system. You only have false opposites like "left and right" when you have limited choice and little freedom.

[lostbuffalo]

@Nielsio Discernment of the rule of law. in the world the law has always protected government and ruled over the people. this is rule of law.

In America we threw off our sovereign and reclaimed our aboriginal god given sovereignty for ourselves. the govt. we created was not given our authority but only permission to execute our authority. Here the law rules over the government and protects the people. the people are free and not under the rule of law unless adverse volition brings them to it.

[lostbuffalo]

This is why you have a limited government enforcing rules only everyone can agree on and allowing individuals to do as they will because after all the society exists for the benefit of the individual not the other way around.

Using the argument that no government is bad so you have to have uber government is a farce

If there is a dispute there is a contract if there is a contract there is volition. the civil court in a free land only holds a man to his word. fairness is relative all are not =

[theawesomebeliever]

It can function, however, it can only go so far as a countryside town.

[moxin86]

One more question - how shall we trade? There is no government backed currency. Are we to trade with goats, chickens, and valuable metals? If there is an agreed to "club currency" how shall we prevent massive counterfeit? Will there be banks?

[moxin86]

The redress to the press is not convincing. Both parties can go to the press. In this case the richest party may be able to swing the most weight or may even own the press itself.

[moxin86]

@Nielsio To put it simply. What gives this reputation database, which is key to the entire system, exclusive legitimacy? Say the rich start a massive ad campaign to convince the public that, for example, a database secretly funded by BP is the most legitimate?

[moxin86]

@Nielsio If there is no monopoly on arbitration then what stops each party from simply adopting a favorable arbitrator? Say Party A and Party B both have an arbitrator on their side. (I think this is very likely in a system where arbitrators are hired among other arbitrators.) What if the dishonest hack the reputation database or start their own rival database?

[moxin86]

Question 4. How does one become an arbitrator or have access to the reputation database? What prevents a party from bribing an arbitrator? If an arbitrator is bribed where does one go to address the injustice? What if a poor party cannot afford an arbitrator? What then?

[moxin86]

Question 1: What person or persons will (a) compose and (b) distribute these original four base rules that everyone is to live by?

Question 2: How are the rules to be interpreted? (For example: If I cut down every single tree I see to make something out of nature is that okay - or should some of nature be protected? How shall we determine what nature is "free grabs" and what nature is to be protected wild-life.

Question 3: What will fund, maintain, and protect the reputation database?

[anonwoohoo]

@MrPisster :) There are ways of reconciling anarcho-capitalism with anarcho-socialism. It seems that people tend to argue that they are mutually exclusive systems, Noam Chomsky being the major proponent of Left-Libertarianism who has no qualms with hypocritically denouncing the free market. It is sad that academia is producing Libertarian thinkers who buy into the false dichotomy and perpetuate it. :/