B0b

No one needs to learn anything. You see the world in a Marxist way, with two classes, the dominator and the dominated. It does not work like this. Without the government, things will likely get better for the poor.People are not stupid. If they see that they do not get paid well, they will create their own companies. Once there are lots of companies, employees become harder to find, and are therefore more expensive. As for a lazy and unqualified employee, why should his employer care about his salary? The employer is kind enough to give him a job. It is the guy's responsibility to make an effort to become more valuable.

So, not only do you want to get rid of the government but you want every employers to change their attitudes towards salaries. Why not wishing people to have 5 arms? Without a government, talented people will make a lot and very unqualified or lazy people will make very little. This has nothing to do with the average cost of living. If there is not government to impose minimum wages and all kind of regulations, salaries will be set by the market through competition. The rest is wishful thinking.

Thomsasio, this is not how things work in reality. Employers and employees do not care much about all this. Employers pay employees just enough so that they work enough and don't leave. Employees try to get as much as possible. The system finds an equilibrium in the end. Your analysis is 100% Marxist. Suppose that the state was absent from the game and that money was private, do you think there would still be a problem, and if so, what would it be?

Thomasio, employers pay employees less than they produce otherwise the companies go bankrupt. If an employer does not pay his employees well, they look for better paid jobs elsewhere. I don't think you can expect employers to think about the buying power of their employees when setting their salaries. What set salaries is competition, even these days. Besides, what makes you think that if the employers started paying their employees more, prices of manufactured goods and services would not go up?

Matthew, you said there is no such thing as distribution of wealth, so I thought maybe the distribution of capital is more meaningful. Thomasio, I thought it was the market that set salaries of employees, not the understanding of employers.

Thomasio, Bill Gates pays his employers well and still make tons. So why would rich people need to understand what they have already understood? Matthew, maybe you prefer the expression "distribution of capital"?

Yes, it includes the standard of living, especially since it would be more difficult to assess the monetary wealth of people with all the private currencies. It would definitely be "more about the honest versus the abusive". But my question is still would we see people 10 times richer than Bill Gates since there would be nothing to prevent very talented entrepreneurs to get richer and richer? At the same time, competition would fairer, so maybe more entrepreneurs would go after them. Socialists think that rich people would impose monopolies and turn everyone into slaves. There is no reason to think that this would happen. Can Austrian economics tell us something about this question?

How do you think wealth distribution would be in a stateless society? Would poor people tend to be richer and very rich people trend to be less rich, or the opposite?

Do not bother commenting my posts, I do not read your full of hatred comments.

Matthew, I am not putting the emphasis on a false problem, I am asking some smart guys example of solutions to technical problems. Do you see a problem asking questions? My parents told me when I was a kid that all questions were fine. I am also telling you that you would have an even harder time explaining all the people I know and probably almost anyone that the state is immoral and that is the only problem. You have to understand that people not all think like you. Regarding the garbage, maybe I did not express myself well, English not being my language. I was talking about the public bins in the street. You also did not address the problem of the railroad and the single guy that does not want his land to be cut in half, no matter how much money we want to offer him. What is worth arguing about if not about the moral case? You have no idea how it will be in true free market. Point out what is wrong now to them is more important than what could be wrong in a hypothetical future without force. Do I still have the right to talk about what I want? Can’t I try to answer people’s question? If they ask me about railroads, I answer them about railroad. I cannot tell them, the state is immoral. ProfessionalTeabagger, Who cares what you buy? It's not like we're going to wait for dickheads who can't even think how to pick up trash unless the state tells them how. You just hire someone to do it you fucking idiot. Thank you for these kind words. You don’t care what I buy, I understand. The problem is that there are tons of people out there that are just as stupid as me and true statists. If you don’t care what they buy, you will never convince anyone of anything. Think about it. If you cannot even explain things calmly and politely to someone who shows already a certain degree of goodwill, how will you be able to deal with your neighbor in the stateless society to take of one of the issues I raised? Will you start insulting him? Your style contrasts with the style of Stefan. You're one of those jackasses who doesn't even bother to read the entire free book on this website that deals directly with this issue but then proceeds to bombard us with irrelevant questions that you then throw cold water on. If you though that my questions were irrelevant, why did you feel the need to answer my post? What do you know what I read? If answers to my questions are readily available, why no one answered them in one sentence, so that I can move on to other less mundane questions. And people gave you practical answers galore AND gave the argument from morality that shows why it doesn't matter how things will work. I did not get any practical answers, and the morality argument has nothing to do with practical questions. If someone ask me how does this gun works, I am not going to tell him, you don’t need to know, killing people is immoral. You have a long way to go because there are still millions of people to convince that we would be better off without a state, and believe me, these people are even worse than me. Some are even stupider than me. But maybe worse, some are much more intelligent than me, but statists as hell. You will discredit yourself insulting them.

Matthew, You're not an abstract person, so why are you asking about things that are nowhere near on the horizon when I have brought up the much more practical, moral problem of the existence of the state today? I find these issues very concrete. It is the stateless society that is an abstraction. You are a bit like the stereotypical farmer who won't talk about the immorality of slavery until you tell him exactly how the cotton is going to be picked, who says he's only not acknowledging the moral argument because he's just so god damn practical. Did I hurt someone or said something immoral? Lots of people will not buy the "state is immoral and therefore must be ended". These people will be more convinced by practical considerations. As a matter of fact, these are exactly the questions that my friends and relatives keep asking me. They do not want to hear the "state is immoral and therefore must be ended" motto. This is not my fault. I just asked how it would work, where is the crime?

Hello Torero, How do we practically handle 'problems' (?) in the present? We make arrangements between each other, right? If you live in an apartment building, or a compound, or whatever, you negotiate with your neighbours and come up with a plan for handling trash, don't we? The recycling industry at present is a valuable industry, so no reason to assume suddenly without a state the trash would not be collected anymore. Sorry, I was talking about public trash cans in the street. My neighbors do not want to pick up the leaves outside their gates already... This assumes a utopian situation where there are no borders between a free society and the statist countries and that a free society cannot protect itself. Why would that be the case? But who would decide who we should let in? Peaceful negotiation. And it opens up new markets for more silent trains, highways, etc. No more ugly fences, yet filled with trees and plants who actually absorb quite some sound as well. People want to see green, market for flora-rich fences would appear and we would not be forced by the State to accept an ugly fence around highways or train tracks. What do we do if one person does not want to let the railroad go through his property? Why wouldn't there be any "laws"? A law is now enforced by the State. But a "free society law", i.e. a contract between people, can still exist in a free society. Also here new markets will pop up; people developing software to protect files from getting copied. Books are just the printed digital texts then. Look at FDR itself; audio books are given out for free, if you want the hard-copy, you pay a small fee. It works! Who would choose such laws? Suppose 50% of the people want intellectual property right laws and 50% don't. If a person copies and resell a book, he does not violate any contract since he did not buy it in the first place. If your idea is that without a forcing power (i.e. the State) there wouldn't be concrete, workable solutions possible and you take that as the basis for that State, yes, then you would be a Statist. But also it would make you not seeing the millions of human interactions that we have everyday that are not based on force/violence. I do not have any idea, I just want to hear how a few issues would be handled in a stateless society.

Thank all you for your answers, but why did you all talk about State and moral principles when I wanted concrete answers, examples? Sorry if I did not express myself well. How do we practically handle problems such as trash cans on the streets? Since everyone can use them, who pays for collecting the trash? How do I prevent migrants from a poor (statist) country from begging and camping in the opulent (private) streets ? How can we build a new highway or train railroad, crossing so many private lands if 10% of the people do not want to hear about a highway or railroad? How do you get people not to copy and resell books they did not right if there are no intellectual property laws? If there are no laws, it means it is legal, right? I am all for no State, but before I buy a product, I need to see the instruction manual. I prefer to know how we will handle these problems before we get rid of the State rather than hearing "don't worry, we will find solutions afterwards". I can't buy promises. I am not an abstract person, I need concrete, workable solutions. Does this make me a statist?

Hello, I have read articles and listen to programs, but I find some questions inadequately answered. Roads, public bins, immigration, intellectual property rights are among them. Even libertarian thinkers are opposed on these subjects. Do you have any convincing argument for any of these subjects? Thank you for your help cause I am a bit lost as to what to do regarding these issues among others.