correct, and that is why voluntarists want a free society with sufficient specific deterrence to realize a sustainable culture of the Non Aggression Principle
I mean first you would obviously have a police force, at least until people are angels, just the difference would be it is financed voluntarily without utilizing coercion. Second depends how you define brainwashing, i mean that one does not always have to use force, one can instill cultures like the golden rule, that when followed leads to nonviolence for the most part, so you can call that brainwashing perhaps, but if it is voluntarily assumed identity then perhaps it is not. but cultures may be able to make people angels.
I just don't get the means of instilling a culture, public service announcements? public schools? so people can voluntarily pay for police protection or deal with criminals on their own? what if they are poor and can't afford it, do they get a discount? is that fair? who decides what people pay for that protection?
well if we are discussing voluntarism a culture would only win by being more competitive than competing cultural identities in the marketplace of ideas. I can't dive deep into social organization currently, but I think Richard Dawkin's "The Selfish Gene" gives a good discussion of cultural evolution. Concerning financing, either a, poor people would be voluntarily subsidized by those who can pay, perhaps merchants have an interest in an NAP culture or other people have interests in such subsidy, perhaps friendly societies or religious groups. Or people could be made poor no more via some sort of a guaranteed minimum income, which in a voluntary society would be funded by people directly and/or by nonprofits that perhaps capture portions of the economy.
Without concern for legal repercussions I probably would go around doing violence on people actually and I doubt I am alone in that. This is another case where we don't have to think abstractly we can look at what really happens, in places where to police don't go there is rampant violence. Look at your ghettos where the police fear to tread.
"At the end of every law that is written, is the implication of "or we will shoot you." That's not how you enforce good ideas."
Sure, but of course we don't actually have to shoot many people, almost none, only the ones who don't get what a good idea it is.
sounds like it is specific deterrence, not legal repercussions that keep you at bay? or do you super love the law independent of its power to actually regulate conduct?
how do you figure? You still have not been specific about what you consider "specific deterrence". What prevents me from doing violence is knowing that I will have legal repercussions, otherwise I would go around smacking people, beating the shit out of others and straight slaughtering some. You wouldn't?
I find the law interesting, I did win some awards for my lawyering skills.
maybe, and what type of violence, and what kind of anarchy, i think things are little more nuanced than your comment implies.
we can see that in places with failed states where there is no government that violence is rampant and constant and unavoidable.
correct, and that is why voluntarists want a free society with sufficient specific deterrence to realize a sustainable culture of the Non Aggression Principle
sufficient specific deterrence to realize a sustainable culture
brainwashing? what are these deterrences specifically and how will they create a culture?
I mean first you would obviously have a police force, at least until people are angels, just the difference would be it is financed voluntarily without utilizing coercion. Second depends how you define brainwashing, i mean that one does not always have to use force, one can instill cultures like the golden rule, that when followed leads to nonviolence for the most part, so you can call that brainwashing perhaps, but if it is voluntarily assumed identity then perhaps it is not. but cultures may be able to make people angels.
I just don't get the means of instilling a culture, public service announcements? public schools? so people can voluntarily pay for police protection or deal with criminals on their own? what if they are poor and can't afford it, do they get a discount? is that fair? who decides what people pay for that protection?
well if we are discussing voluntarism a culture would only win by being more competitive than competing cultural identities in the marketplace of ideas. I can't dive deep into social organization currently, but I think Richard Dawkin's "The Selfish Gene" gives a good discussion of cultural evolution. Concerning financing, either a, poor people would be voluntarily subsidized by those who can pay, perhaps merchants have an interest in an NAP culture or other people have interests in such subsidy, perhaps friendly societies or religious groups. Or people could be made poor no more via some sort of a guaranteed minimum income, which in a voluntary society would be funded by people directly and/or by nonprofits that perhaps capture portions of the economy.
Yep. And it wouldn't be sanctioned by anyone with a 200 year old piece of paper for justification.
If it weren't illegal, would you just walk around doing violence on people? Most people wouldn't. Most people don't now.
At the end of every law that is written, is the implication of "or we will shoot you." That's not how you enforce good ideas.
corerect, i think specific deterrence is important but coercion, and the subset of state based coercion is not the only means.
Without concern for legal repercussions I probably would go around doing violence on people actually and I doubt I am alone in that. This is another case where we don't have to think abstractly we can look at what really happens, in places where to police don't go there is rampant violence. Look at your ghettos where the police fear to tread.
"At the end of every law that is written, is the implication of "or we will shoot you." That's not how you enforce good ideas."
Sure, but of course we don't actually have to shoot many people, almost none, only the ones who don't get what a good idea it is.
sounds like it is specific deterrence, not legal repercussions that keep you at bay? or do you super love the law independent of its power to actually regulate conduct?
how do you figure? You still have not been specific about what you consider "specific deterrence". What prevents me from doing violence is knowing that I will have legal repercussions, otherwise I would go around smacking people, beating the shit out of others and straight slaughtering some. You wouldn't?
I find the law interesting, I did win some awards for my lawyering skills.