Monday, June 22, 2009

Friendly chat about anarchy

Friendly chat about anarchy

I have lived in many different parts of the country, in big cities and in rural areas. Even a few years in the North-Eastern US. People are pretty much the same everywhere I have been, but maybe it is because of the way I deal with them. City people do seem a bit ruder at first, but will warm up quickly when you don't return the rudeness, at least in my case. They continue to stare at me, though.

Part of the reason people in cities are more aggressive is that we have made it safe for them to be that way. We have removed all the repercussions and given them free-rein. Once again, "laws" protect them from the consequences of their actions. People in small towns also give you the finger. Maybe not as often, but with just as much, or more, feeling when it happens.

The good thing about living by the Zero Aggression Principle is that it doesn't require the cooperation of the bad guys in order to work in the real world as it exists today. I know this from personal experience. I am not really an overly optimistic person or delusionally trusting, either.

Does living a voluntary life work better some places than others? Not in my experience. It isn't necessarily the case in small towns or rural areas that people are nicer or that reputation is more important. Just be unfortunate enough to be different or threaten the status quo and see how thin the "friendly veneer" really is. The reason reputation feedback of the sort I advocate isn't important today is because such a system isn't being used and depended on in our society yet. Yes, I realize that is a circular argument. If a system of "reputation feedback" is wanted, it will develop. If there is a market for it, someone will willingly provide it, and there will probably even be competing providers each trying to be the best- the most accurate and fair. Personal acquaintance isn't necessary. I have never personally known anyone I dealt with on eBay, but I can still check their feedback and see if I am willing to deal with them.

There would still be conflicts, since we are talking about interactions between real people who are prone to misunderstandings and disagreements. I could go into the whole idea of "dispute resolution organizations" and such, to explain how one such possible future might play out, but you can google more information from experts much smarter than me.

If you know of a person who talks about stealing things, even if you have no real proof, you should probably accept them at their word. You could make a note of their admission to your "insurance" provider, who could then provide the information to the report. If you lie, your company could penalize or drop you, and your reputation would get damaged. If the person disputes it, an investigation could be done by his "company" and yours. (Remember, these are all just possibilities that I can see right now, and not necessarily the only solutions the market will discover.) Some other people might brag about committing violence, or speak of violent fantasies. These people would figure out quite quickly that government was protecting them from retribution if they act upon their aggressive fantasies. Of course, without government regulations, businesses catering to fulfilling these fantasies voluntarily might fill their needs instead of them risking being killed in the act.

Just remember that in a free society, the risk of doing business with a person who has violated the rights of others would make it important to have a way of knowing whom to trust and who would be a risk. You would be free to do business with anyone you wanted, of course, but why risk your reputation and also take the chance that he will steal from, or attack, you (or your other customers) as he has done to others in the past?

If people are looking for handouts, let private charities give them one. No one is owed a handout like the state has brainwashed them into believing. All welfare should obviously be ended and replaced by private, voluntary, charity. Anything else is theft. Small town and rural people are just as likely to look for government handouts. They call them "farm subsidies", "Medicare", and "Social Security", but they are still welfare. These salt-of-the-earth people will attack you violently for pointing that uncomfortable fact out to them.

The good thing about "my system of government" is that it works even if people would like to be parasites. If that is their true desire, let them set up their own subsystem within the free society. Nothing would prevent or prohibit that. Let people subscribe to be taken care of if that is their choice. Just realize that those who choose to not participate will defend their right to stay out of the system. Those who do not subscribe would also not be able to avoid paying into the system and then, if everything goes wrong, decide they now want to be taken care of. Charity would be their option instead. They had better hope they maintained a good enough reputation that others will want to help them.

Some people claim that New Orleans, after Katrina, is an example of life without government. I don't see it that way at all. New Orleans is a perfect example of how government makes any situation worse by many orders of magnitude. Look what caused the flooding to be catastrophic instead of natural, and what prevented REAL help. It wasn't "anarchy"; it was "chaos-by-government".