smarterthanone

If the government was overthrown by robots, slaves, aliens, everyone involved in government spontaneously combusts... it doesn't matter. Instantly, wouldnt everyone be living in a voluntary society? Yes. The answer is Yes. Now what if you were just sitting home watching tv one night and the next morning you woke up to this... did you decide to be part of a voluntary society...? No the answer is No. I mean I suppose you could instantly kill yourself but short of that you are now in a voluntary society. The same people that exist today would exist in a voluntary society. Reason is because a voluntary society could exist tomorrow, its independent of biology. Biology cannot change tomorrow. SO the government could cease functions tomorrow in some place in the world yet it would not make any biological changes to the people living there. The kinds of people that live today are essentially the same as all human history. So that is the absolutely least likely thing to change in any way and can be assumed to be constant. Its a definition issue. If it is a voluntary society, nobody will have a system of coercive force. If its a voluntary society, nobody can stop you from making your own voluntary contracts. If someone does stop you then it is not a voluntary society. Safe bet. See history. Think about it for a moment. And its not necessarily the 30 men will get you... its more the fear that 30 men will get you and do you like that.

You don't choose to live in a voluntary society. Say one day the government is overthrown and now there is no government. It's not something to simply choose. The same people who exist today would exist in a voluntary society. Dumb lazy people will always exist. How does living in a voluntary society vs modern society make any difference? The only difference is that there are legal protections to help curb this behavior. In a voluntary society, there would be no government interventions in preventing this kind of behavior. Well if you have the option for a clean nice guy to rape you once a month and he gives you a nice place to live OR 30 smelly std infested people to rape you non stop while you are chained to a tree and barely fed scraps to live... hmmm. In order to protect yourself from the gang rape, obviously some people would choose the one man to protect them.

Hypergamy works great for strong, dominant, intelligent, powerful men... so just be that and you will have a harem in no time.

I believe socialist mindset comes from weak realizing they need a master to protect them from strong people. In the past, servitude to a strong protector King or something would offer them protection and care. In today's world, socialist governments offer this protection. I think its a logical, biologically driven need. So it would not simply disappear if there were more opportunities.

I am not concerned, I think its naive to assume it would not happen. Which I think most people think it won't. Regarding cost of violence, yes, its not cost effective in many cases, but you overestimate the cost of violence. Assume someone is behind in paying you $50,000. It would help payments to send 3 armed men to their house once a week for a whipping every week they don't pay and charge them $500 fee to cover the service as part of the contract. I guarantee you would collect faster and I guarantee people would sign it (in order to borrow $50,000 to maybe start a business or help buy a house). Also, why is pimping make financial sense to both the pimp and the chattel? Has little to do with the legality of the industry. Make it legal, there will be pimps too (see all of history). I never thought this way until I met more types of people in the world. Most people live in a bubble, I used to. People will sell their own life if you give them the opportunity. If you really don't think so, you need to get out more.

Why would there not be violent enforcement of contracts if it was agreed upon? If you want to be punched in the face and I want to punch you in the face, could we not have a contract outlining that mutual agreement in a voluntary society? If you are affiliated with some law enforcement or community group that does not allow these kinds of agreements, then you would not be capable to make the agreement. BUT if you want to make the agreement you would then just remove yourself from whatever group so that you could then sign up as an indentured servant. Now the article you posted, from a business perspective I agree, there is no normal incentive to use this kind of labor. This is kind of where I was expecting the conversation to go with an argument like this. But just because it is logical that there would not be this kind of arrangement, doesn't mean it won't exist. In fact, outside of FDR, most people do not engage or endeavor to engage in logical behaviors. That is the flaw in the argument... and precisely why I am sure most people would gladly be an indentured servant if the opportunity presented itself. Most people WANT to have their freedom taken away from them... see all the socialist/commies running around.

I understand why you do not consider it slavery, but you surely would consider it indentured servitude? I have heard many people say things like Gavitor regarding its existence in voluntary society. You cannot (or not without serious repercussions) in an indentured servant agreement. See my example. And why do you mean you can't take it if its a bad deal? Well obviously it would be a deal both sides deemed valuable however looking in on it from most perspectives it would be a very very bad deal, such as my example.

I don't believe the online investigator is a very bad guy. If you look at the whole picture, sure he stands in the way of the best outcome (shutting down the fake news, helping police do good police work etc) but nothing was really anything wrong per se. Lets look at his actions: 1. Gets in his opinion a credible tip and posts it. He is not trying to do something wrong and is being honest. 2. Does not want the police to TAKE HIS COMPUTERS. He believes he is entitled to his privacy. Would you be happy if police just show up and demand your computers when you use them for work? 3. After the police TAKE HIS PROPERTY, he gets pissed at them and retaliates with the kid photos. So this isn't the most pure and upstanding motive but HE WAS JUST STOLEN FROM and probably the only way he could fight back. So I don't think hes a very bad guy at all... unless you are looking at it from a collectivist central planning type perspective... which the show readily leads you down since you get to see all sides at once which is not how real life works. Try to look at it only from his perspective and empathize with him alone.

Well its voluntary in the fact they accept the agreement. But the agreement is for slavery. Think of the typical indentured servitude agreement. SOON TO BE SLAVE: I need (a trip to America) (medicine for my daughter) (money for a lawyer to face legal charges) (etc). EMPLOYER: Here is $10,000 value, you will work it off at the rate of $5 per day. The work has no specific limits or outlines other than complete obedience 24/7 and can include traditional work, sex work, beatings for your employers amusement, anything. Any property or money you come into (outside of the $10,000) will be your employers. At any time if you disobey you will face punishment (lashings?) for the disobedience. Do you accept these terms? SOON TO BE SLAVE: Yes.

Calling it a person (having personhood and thus rights) is the problem. The exact definition is subjective and has changed over time. Everyone, both sides of the issue agrees murder is wrong. If everyone agreed it was a person with rights while unborn, everyone would agree it was murder. If everyone agreed upon birth or thereafter it was a person with rights, everyone would agree abortion is not murder. Throughout history, unborn children and young children did not have any rights whatsoever. If a child is old enough to sell, it does not really have rights now does it? So why would it arbitrarily have the right to live? Parents used to be able to kill children, sell children, do whatever the fuck they wanted with them. Personally I see birth as irrelevant to personhood. The act of being inside the mother or outside the mother doesn't really change the entity. But I absolutely do not believe a bunch of cells in a womb is a person with rights either. I think one only becomes a person with rights once they are capable of asserting their rights. When the child is able to disobey the parent and is responsible to accept the consequences, that is when I really believe they are now a person. This is more like the historical method of determining personhood. When your father can't physically or financially make you do something any more, you are now your own person when you can provide for yourself and defend yourself. Yes this is very off base with mainstream opinion of abortion but in order to map it to the normal discussion it would make me firmly pro choice. The important thing to remember throughout the whole debate is what is a person, and realize the answer is subjective. Therefore in terms of a voluntary society, I would say if there is no complaint, ie the "dead entity" doesn't complain, the mother doesn't complain, the father doesn't complain, the "dead entity" if alive would have been unable to complain, and those involved personally decide what they did was correct (decided for themselves as there is no central authority)... then no crime has been committed.

Voluntary slavery and indentured servitude will exist in voluntary society. The majority of the population does not value freedom. They will readily give up everything for some morsel of value. Now I have heard arguments both for and against but never very in depth. What do you all think?