Public areas in a free society

[AncapFTW]

In another topic I mentioned public areas and they said "there wouldn't be any public areas in a free society".   While they probably were referring to the government-created public areas like we now have, there will probably be areas where people congregate or travel to for reasons that have nothing to do with the owner.  There could also be areas where the owner essentially makes it a public area, such as a park, or lets people treat it as more-or-less unowned territory.

 

This also got me thinking of rights in these areas, and how rules would be created for society as a whole.  I think that people would have rights based on what they believe their rights to be regardless of where they were and that the only way to take them away would be to have them specifically agree to losing a right.

 

That asks the question "what if I say I have a right, but you don't think I do?"  I assume it would go to arbitration.

 

I guess all of this is a long-winded way of saying, "how do you think an anarchist society should work?"

[dsayers]

I think that people would have rights based on what they believe their rights to be regardless of where they were and that the only way to take them away would be to have them specifically agree to losing a right.

 

That asks the question "what if I say I have a right, but you don't think I do?"  I assume it would go to arbitration.

"agree to losing a right" is a convoluted if not weighted way of describing something that isn't as grandiose. If I invite you over to my house and say I don't allow smoking, when you enter my house, you're not "agreeing to lose a right." You're respecting my property rights. You could go outside and have a smoke and I won't have anything to say because I respect your property rights.

 

"Rights" aren't up to us. The real world is the arbiter. In the above example, if you own yourself, then you confess that I own my house. If you say "I have a right to smoke in your house," you are claiming that property rights are valid and invalid at the same time. The real world tells us that something cannot be valid and invalid simultaneously.

[RCali]

"agree to losing a right" is a convoluted if not weighted way of describing something that isn't as grandiose. If I invite you over to my house and say I don't allow smoking, when you enter my house, you're not "agreeing to lose a right." You're respecting my property rights. You could go outside and have a smoke and I won't have anything to say because I respect your property rights.

 

"Rights" aren't up to us. The real world is the arbiter. In the above example, if you own yourself, then you confess that I own my house. If you say "I have a right to smoke in your house," you are claiming that property rights are valid and invalid at the same time. The real world tells us that something cannot be valid and invalid simultaneously.

 

It's amazing how many different things you can explain through property rights. Thank you very much for being such a helpful member of the community.

[dsayers]

Thank you for the kind feedback! I'm paying it forward. Stef's Introduction to Philosophy series help explained first principles to me. I agree with you that starting from self-ownership, seemingly most things become clearer and more simple. I think that's why the State does everything it can to destroy the idea of individual and always refer to the collective (despite the fact that you cannot have a collective without individuals).

[AncapFTW]

"agree to losing a right" is a convoluted if not weighted way of describing something that isn't as grandiose. If I invite you over to my house and say I don't allow smoking, when you enter my house, you're not "agreeing to lose a right." You're respecting my property rights. You could go outside and have a smoke and I won't have anything to say because I respect your property rights.

 

"Rights" aren't up to us. The real world is the arbiter. In the above example, if you own yourself, then you confess that I own my house. If you say "I have a right to smoke in your house," you are claiming that property rights are valid and invalid at the same time. The real world tells us that something cannot be valid and invalid simultaneously.

I was planning on ignoring you, but I'm going to have to call you out on your hypocrisy.   You stated multiple times in the "you wouldn't steal a car" thread that you have no respect for other peoples property rights when that property isn't a physical object.  If the conditions of entering the person's house was not copying the sheet music for a new song they wrote and not emailing every nudes of their girlfriend you found on their computer, you would argue that you hadn't violated their property rights at all because they weren't physical objects, just ideas.

 

Yet here you are arguing that you can't violate their wishes as far as their property is concerned and still claim to respect property rights.   That is exactly what you do, however.  So please, stop telling us that you have a right to do whatever you please with everyone's data regardless of their wishes or stop telling us that you respect property rights.  Otherwise you are just contradicting yourself.

 

 

Thank you for the kind feedback! I'm paying it forward. Stef's Introduction to Philosophy series help explained first principles to me. I agree with you that starting from self-ownership, seemingly most things become clearer and more simple. I think that's why the State does everything it can to destroy the idea of individual and always refer to the collective (despite the fact that you cannot have a collective without individuals).

A statement I actually agree with.

[dsayers]

I was planning on ignoring you, but I'm going to have to call you out on your hypocrisy... If the conditions of entering the person's house was not copying the sheet music for a new song they wrote and not emailing every nudes of their girlfriend you found on their computer, you would argue that you hadn't violated their property rights at all because they weren't physical objects, just ideas.

This is like saying that I'm a hypocrite for holding rape as immoral and love making as moral simultaneously, as if rape and love making have no distinguishing characteristics. When in fact they have the most distinguishing characteristic on the planet: consent. If I say you're only welcome in my house if you don't smoke and you choose to enter, you have consented to not smoking in my house. If you strum a guitar, this isn't me consenting to not strumming my guitar in the same way. The two are not comparable.

 

You won't even address how an idea is property in the thread that is about it, so I see nothing productive in pretending to engage in that conversation in a second place at the same time.

[nixy]

But data / information is not property.

 

MInd you, violence backed government statutes decree they should be treated the same......(by those who can afford it).

 

Don't think the threat of violence is really condusive to a civilised society.

[ribuck]

Coming back to the original question (Public areas in a free society). This really needn't be a big issue.

 

Even today, in the United Kingdom, there are private charitable organizations whose goal is to provide public areas.

 

For example, I am a life member of the Woodland Trust. It owns and operates parks and woodlands all over the UK. The parks are not just open to members; they are open to everyone. They look and function just like any other public park. Most people who visit them don't even realise that they are not taxpayer-funded.

 

In a free society, there would be plenty of "public" amenities like these. They exist because the someone is willing to pay for them. They are open to everyone for free because the marginal cost of additional visitors is near enough to zero, and certainly not enough to justify the overheads of collecting entrance fees or installing gates and locks.

 

Much of their funding comes from money left in people's wills. People often leave money for public purposes.

[AncapFTW]

But data / information is not property.

 

MInd you, violence backed government statutes decree they should be treated the same......(by those who can afford it).

 

Don't think the threat of violence is really condusive to a civilised society.

But it is, and it's special pleading to argue that it isn't just because it isn't a physical object.

 

And, of course, you are accusing we of wanting to use violence when that is exactly what you are doing by not respecting my property rights.  That's a standard tactic of those that have your views on the matter.  I consider it to not be that different than a slave owner saying "but you're just going to let them hurt me because I own a few slaves?"

 

I'm going to get even more downvotes on this, now, because those who don't want to respect property rights of a certain sub-class of property will want to do what they can to show their disapproval of me, but that's fine.  I don't really want to deal with people who can't respect my rights anyway.

[AncapFTW]

Coming back to the original question (Public areas in a free society). This really needn't be a big issue.

 

Even today, in the United Kingdom, there are private charitable organizations whose goal is to provide public areas.

 

For example, I am a life member of the Woodland Trust. It owns and operates parks and woodlands all over the UK. The parks are not just open to members; they are open to everyone. They look and function just like any other public park. Most people who visit them don't even realise that they are not taxpayer-funded.

 

In a free society, there would be plenty of "public" amenities like these. They exist because the someone is willing to pay for them. They are open to everyone for free because the marginal cost of additional visitors is near enough to zero, and certainly not enough to justify the overheads of collecting entrance fees or installing gates and locks.

 

Much of their funding comes from money left in people's wills. People often leave money for public purposes.

Thank you for the story.  I didn't realize people did this already.  I did here that one of the rich families, the Vanderbilts I think, donated a huge amount of land to the government as a national park, but I didn't realize people created parks like this.

[Jer]

Have you listened to podcast #1? http://www.fdrpodcasts.com/#/1/the-stateless-society-an-examination-of-alternatives

[AncapFTW]

Have you listened to podcast #1? http://www.fdrpodcasts.com/#/1/the-stateless-society-an-examination-of-alternatives

 

Thank you for the link.  It is a pretty good explanation of one method for organizing a stateless society, but there are others as well.  I'd be interested in discussing them as well if anyone wants to talk about them.  For example, DROs wouldn't need to exist, and individuals could deal with their problems individually or in more personal groups, as many ancient anarchys did.

[LibertarianSocialist]

"agree to losing a right" is a convoluted if not weighted way of describing something that isn't as grandiose. If I invite you over to my house and say I don't allow smoking, when you enter my house, you're not "agreeing to lose a right." You're respecting my property rights. You could go outside and have a smoke and I won't have anything to say because I respect your property rights.

 

"Rights" aren't up to us. The real world is the arbiter. In the above example, if you own yourself, then you confess that I own my house. If you say "I have a right to smoke in your house," you are claiming that property rights are valid and invalid at the same time. The real world tells us that something cannot be valid and invalid simultaneously.

"Rights" are complete nonsense. The only right is the right of might. You have as many rights as you can exert personally, or with collaboration with others. That is the only natural law. Now, what a man deems to be "right" is another thing, but they are only ever human constructs, even if heavily dictated by biology.

 

I was planning on ignoring you, but I'm going to have to call you out on your hypocrisy. You stated multiple times in the "you wouldn't steal a car" thread that you have no respect for other peoples property rights when that property isn't a physical object. If the conditions of entering the person's house was not copying the sheet music for a new song they wrote and not emailing every nudes of their girlfriend you found on their computer, you would argue that you hadn't violated their property rights at all because they weren't physical objects, just ideas.

 

Yet here you are arguing that you can't violate their wishes as far as their property is concerned and still claim to respect property rights. That is exactly what you do, however. So please, stop telling us that you have a right to do whatever you please with everyone's data regardless of their wishes or stop telling us that you respect property rights. Otherwise you are just contradicting yourself.

 

A statement I actually agree with.

I didn't see the original post, but the music and nude pic examples are strawmen. Opposition to IP is based on the fact that it prevents the creation of an identical product. Maybe he wasn't arguing this. If so, I shall be waiting to put foot in mouth.

Say a man invents the combustion engine in isolation, later realising it has been patented. He owns the object, he rightly made it. But he is prevented from benefiting from his invention. Say the patent lasts 100 years. How many times would the IC engine have been reinvented? Same story with medications and all patents.

Maybe stealing nude pics is bad, but what if he made an identical nude pic, with a different identical person in an identical but different setting?

 

Coming back to the original question (Public areas in a free society). This really needn't be a big issue.

 

Even today, in the United Kingdom, there are private charitable organizations whose goal is to provide public areas.

 

For example, I am a life member of the Woodland Trust. It owns and operates parks and woodlands all over the UK. The parks are not just open to members; they are open to everyone. They look and function just like any other public park. Most people who visit them don't even realise that they are not taxpayer-funded.

 

In a free society, there would be plenty of "public" amenities like these. They exist because the someone is willing to pay for them. They are open to everyone for free because the marginal cost of additional visitors is near enough to zero, and certainly not enough to justify the overheads of collecting entrance fees or installing gates and locks.

 

Much of their funding comes from money left in people's wills. People often leave money for public purposes.

This ^. Perfect example.

 

If ownership is a former of security it means that there will be incentive for groups of individuals to own property collectively where appropriate. In fact, given the degree of collectivisation mandated by industrial production, it stands to reason that each individual asserting his personal ownership rights would amount to joint ownership, to cooperatives and, dare I say it, producers unions.

At least this would be the aspiration (as it is today, that a man wants to own that which he needs to live, for security and reasons of bargaining power). It may not play out as such, the strong may overcome the weak and implement a society where only their ownership rights and aspirations are catered for, at the expense of the now ownerless, so recreating a class society catering for an asymmetry of interest.

[eople's wills. People often leave money for public purposes.

This ^. Perfect example.

 

If ownership is a former of security it means that there will be incentive for groups of individuals to own property collectively where appropriate. In fact, given the degree of collectivisation mandated by industrial production, it stands to reason that each individual asserting his personal ownership rights would amount to joint ownership, to cooperatives and, dare I say it, producers unions.

At least this would be the aspiration (as it is today, that a man wants to own that which he needs to live, for security and reasons of bargaining power). It may not play out as such, the strong may overcome the weak and implement a society where only their ownership rights and aspirations are catered for, at the expense of the now ownerless, so recreating a class society catering for an asymmetry of interest.

[dsayers]

How did you arrive at the conclusion that society needs to be "organized"? It's literally saying we have to decide how others will live, which is false. It suggests that people will just lay around, waiting for other people to provide solutions when empirical evidence tells us that it is our nature to adapt. If people want to be able to travel at superhuman speeds, we'll have roads (or better). If people want to be able to sit on a bench, breathe fresh air, watch some deer, and listen to the birds, there will be parks. Division of labor comes about by way of specializing to fill a demand for others so that we can choose which of our desires we'd rather farm out to others than handle ourselves. In this way, I think it's bizarre to suggest that there would be a "way to organize society" that didn't involve insurance companies and such.

[powder]

How did you arrive at the conclusion that society needs to be "organized"? It's literally saying we have to decide how others will live, which is false. 

Indeed, I cringe when I see this kind of attitude; collectivist, big brother, 'who will take care of stuff if the government goes away', statist paradigm that won't let go.  I know people will make out much better and I don't care how things get done as long as there is no coercion.  

[nixy]

Thank you for the link.  It is a pretty good explanation of one method for organizing a stateless society, but there are others as well.  I'd be interested in discussing them as well if anyone wants to talk about them.  For example, DROs wouldn't need to exist, and individuals could deal with their problems individually or in more personal groups, as many ancient anarchys did.

So we could enter into contracts agreed free from coercion? We could agree not to use each other's interlectual property.

 

Sorry this is more a test to see if it is allowed by mods.

 

edit;- It has been allowed!..... so why was my previous reply toAncapFTW disallowed?? ......

 

But it is, and it's special pleading to argue that it isn't just because it isn't a physical object.

 

And, of course, you are accusing we of wanting to use violence when that is exactly what you are doing by not respecting my property rights.  That's a standard tactic of those that have your views on the matter.  I consider it to not be that different than a slave owner saying "but you're just going to let them hurt me because I own a few slaves?"

 

I'm going to get even more downvotes on this, now, because those who don't want to respect property rights of a certain sub-class of property will want to do what they can to show their disapproval of me, but that's fine.  I don't really want to deal with people who can't respect my rights anyway.

test reply ..... my last was disallowed

Edited November 4, 2015 by nixy

[AncapFTW]

Indeed, I cringe when I see this kind of attitude; collectivist, big brother, 'who will take care of stuff if the government goes away', statist paradigm that won't let go.  I know people will make out much better and I don't care how things get done as long as there is no coercion.  

Except that I didn't say anything like that.

 

Why do you assume that by "organize" I mean coercion?  Do the umpires point a gun at your head when you play baseball?   If you don't follow the rules, the other teams don't turn violent, they just don't play with you.

 

An anarchist society could easily work the same way.  If there is a "big brother statist paradigm" here, it's your view of how things would be organized.  Organization doesn't have to be through violence, though.  Any group of people, and most groups of things, will automatically organize themselves even without violence.

 

My main problem with DROs is what Stephan says in podcast #2, that anyone who wasn't in a DRO would essentially be an outcast.  If you HAVE to join one of several groups or your life will be ruined, then if it really a free choice?  In his idea of an anarchist society, DROs are the only way to seek justice, and not being a part of one would make everyone automatically assume you were a criminal by punishing anyone who didn't.

[AncapFTW]

So we could enter into contracts agreed free from coercion? We could agree not to use each other's interlectual property.

 

Sorry this is more a test to see if it is allowed by mods.

 

edit;- It has been allowed!..... so why was my previous reply toAncapFTW disallowed?? ......

 

test reply ..... my last was disallowed

Yes, but under a strict DRO model they would have to agree to respect IP before they came across your idea or you wouldn't be able to do anything about it.  That means that people who don't respect it would get a free pass and others would be incentivized to not respect it, as you can easily make a profit if you don't have the cost of developing a product included in the sell price.

 

I favor more of a hybrid system, where you could use a DRO if you wanted to simplify things, or you could deal with violations of your rights on an individual basis, with individuals, not DROs, being directly responsible for their actions.

[dsayers]

Why do you assume that by "organize" I mean coercion?

It's not an assumption, it's the implication. You cannot decide how things that are greater than you will play out. You cannot make decisions for other people without their consent. A baseball game is a bad analogy because everybody at a baseball game is there voluntarily. You are part of society just from being born, so you cannot ethically organize society.

 

If you HAVE to join one of several groups or your life will be ruined, then if it really a free choice?

If you HAVE to eat to survive, then is employment really a free choice? Yes, because you could do everything for yourself and not interact with anybody else.

 

This too is not as grandiose as you're making it sound. Would you let somebody drive your car if they weren't insured? Exact same thing.

[powder]

Because, like dsayers said, you cannot ethically organize society and you used the term "methods for organizing society".  

 

The reason I am stuck on the 'statist paradigm' is because I have had discussions with a couple of people recently and they are stuck on the idea that the government provides services and therefore continue to fret over who would provide them in the absence of the state.  

 

People provide services.  The government simply makes laws and redistributes money.  

[nixy]

Yes, but under a strict DRO model they would have to agree to respect IP before they came across your idea or you wouldn't be able to do anything about it.  That means that people who don't respect it would get a free pass and others would be incentivized to not respect it, as you can easily make a profit if you don't have the cost of developing a product included in the sell price.

 

I favor more of a hybrid system, where you could use a DRO if you wanted to simplify things, or you could deal with violations of your rights on an individual basis, with individuals, not DROs, being directly responsible for their actions.

 

Yes, but under a strict DRO model they would have to agree to respect IP before they came across your idea or you wouldn't be able to do anything about it.  That means that people who don't respect it would get a free pass and others would be incentivized to not respect it, as you can easily make a profit if you don't have the cost of developing a product included in the sell price.

 

I favor more of a hybrid system, where you could use a DRO if you wanted to simplify things, or you could deal with violations of your rights on an individual basis, with individuals, not DROs, being directly responsible for their actions.

But although you & I freely entered into an agreement not to use you idea / product ...... why should anyone else have to be held to that agreement?

[AncapFTW]

Because, like dsayers said, you cannot ethically organize society and you used the term "methods for organizing society".  

 

The reason I am stuck on the 'statist paradigm' is because I have had discussions with a couple of people recently and they are stuck on the idea that the government provides services and therefore continue to fret over who would provide them in the absence of the state.  

 

People provide services.  The government simply makes laws and redistributes money.  

Why can't you ethically organize society?  Can you not create a set of rules based on a group's views of what the rules should be, and then allow people to join the group or not?  Can you not create a standard which other people choose to follow?

 

I think you are confusing "organize" with "force compliance."   Organize doesn't imply force, however.  It is merely the opposite of chaos.  When some group "organizes" a convention, are they using violence?  I guess that means that the security at comic-con is forcing you to be there.  I've already mentioned a baseball game, where people come together voluntarily and agree to follow the rules.  Do you believe the Umpire is forcing them to play?  Maybe the "fans" are having guns pointed at them in order to make them cheer?

[AncapFTW]

But although you & I freely entered into an agreement not to use you idea / product ...... why should anyone else have to be held to that agreement?

They wouldn't, which is another failure of the system.  If someone doesn't want to abide by the rules, they shouldn't interact with my property.  It's the same as if I told them not to interact with my car if they don't want to respect my physical property rights, or not to interact with me if they are willing to assault me.  If they do interact with me, and I feel they are violating my property rights, physical or intellectual, then I should be able to defend those rights.  If I'm in the wrong, then let them sue me for it.

 

The point is that by saying "I don't have to respect your rights if I didn't agree to already" is that you are essentially placing all of the responsibility for having their rights violated on the victim. 

 

Oh, your factory was raided?  You can't own the means of production anyway.  Oh, your husband raped you?  Too bad.  He's Muslim, and the Koran says that it's impossible for you to rape your wife unless she's under 15.  You're wiccan?  Well, time to get burned at the stake.

 

If society was the way they wanted it to be, I could simply do whatever I wanted with the excuse "well, I never agreed not to do X" and they wouldn't be able to do anything about it.  Sure, their buddies wouldn't deal with me, but what do I care?  If they won't deal with me, I'll just target them next.  I never agreed not to kill anyone, so they don't have the right to self defense.

 

I wouldn't do that, but someone could.  By letting other people decide the limits of a person's freedom, you open the door to them stripping all freedoms from them.  Which is essentially slavery or government depending on the size of the group.

 

What should happen is that the DRO or I would get to say that I have certain rights, and they, or I would be able to defend them.  If you don't like that I claim I, for example, have the right to walk around naked, then don't let me interact with you and don't interact with me.  If I say I have a right after interacting with you, and you aren't willing to respect that, then don't interact with me any further.   Sure, I might believe a violation of those rights warrants a certain punishment, but if no arbiter will uphold that, then I can't really use that punishment.  In the example above, if I think that telling me to put some clothes on is punishable by you giving me the money to buy clothes, but the arbiter doesn't agree, then you aren't punished for it.  If they do agree, however, then it is a viable punishment for you and other people violating my rights later.

[nixy]

They wouldn't, which is another failure of the system.  If someone doesn't want to abide by the rules, they shouldn't interact with my property.  It's the same as if I told them not to interact with my car if they don't want to respect my physical property rights, or not to interact with me if they are willing to assault me.  If they do interact with me, and I feel they are violating my property rights, physical or intellectual, then I should be able to defend those rights.  If I'm in the wrong, then let them sue me for it.

 

The point is that by saying "I don't have to respect your rights if I didn't agree to already" is that you are essentially placing all of the responsibility for having their rights violated on the victim. 

 

Oh, your factory was raided?  You can't own the means of production anyway.  Oh, your husband raped you?  Too bad.  He's Muslim, and the Koran says that it's impossible for you to rape your wife unless she's under 15.  You're wiccan?  Well, time to get burned at the stake.

 

If society was the way they wanted it to be, I could simply do whatever I wanted with the excuse "well, I never agreed not to do X" and they wouldn't be able to do anything about it.  Sure, their buddies wouldn't deal with me, but what do I care?  If they won't deal with me, I'll just target them next.  I never agreed not to kill anyone, so they don't have the right to self defense.

 

I wouldn't do that, but someone could.  By letting other people decide the limits of a person's freedom, you open the door to them stripping all freedoms from them.  Which is essentially slavery or government depending on the size of the group.

 

What should happen is that the DRO or I would get to say that I have certain rights, and they, or I would be able to defend them.  If you don't like that I claim I, for example, have the right to walk around naked, then don't let me interact with you and don't interact with me.  If I say I have a right after interacting with you, and you aren't willing to respect that, then don't interact with me any further.   Sure, I might believe a violation of those rights warrants a certain punishment, but if no arbiter will uphold that, then I can't really use that punishment.  In the example above, if I think that telling me to put some clothes on is punishable by you giving me the money to buy clothes, but the arbiter doesn't agree, then you aren't punished for it.  If they do agree, however, then it is a viable punishment for you and other people violating my rights later.

Don't know what happened to my last reply ....... another one lost.

 

You made mention of a person using your car without permission was the same as someone using your music without permission. It has been deleted.

 

I replied, if I use your car, without agreement, you have incurred a demonstrable loss. But, if I whistle, sing or play your music you have suffered no loss.

[AncapFTW]

Don't know what happened to my last reply ....... another one lost.

 

You made mention of a person using your car without permission was the same as someone using your music without permission. It has been deleted.

 

I replied, if I use your car, without agreement, you have incurred a demonstrable loss. But, if I whistle, sing or play your music you have suffered no loss.

If you couldn't repair the car, they would basically be the same thing.  Ideas are created at cost and then they are sold to recoop the cost, at least the ones that are created for profit, like movies, songs, patents, etc.  Sure, they may not succeed in making their money back, but by copying their idea you are diluting the market for their good, which causes it to be harder for them to recoop that cost.  If you distribute their idea for money, it's far worse, because you are earning a profit off of other people's work without compensating them and without their permission.  That is normally referred to as slavery, theft, or government depending on the size of the group doing it and how they try and justify it to their victims.

 

If you don't want to respect their rights as they state them, then don't interact with them.  It's basically the same as going into a person's house and peeing onto their carpet to interact with someone knowing what they view their rights as and initially violating those rights.  No one forces you to interact with them, but you are forcing them into a situation where their rights will be violated by choosing to interact with them.

[dsayers]

Why can't you ethically organize society?

You mean besides the reasons already given?

 

Can you not create a set of rules based on a group's views of what the rules should be, and then allow people to join the group or not?

I had already pointed out that "A baseball game is a bad analogy because everybody at a baseball game is there voluntarily. You are part of society just from being born, so you cannot ethically organize society." Here, you are moving the goalposts by no longer talking about society, but groups within society.

 

Can you not create a standard which other people choose to follow?

The people who worked on the USB standard didn't organize anything externally. People adopted that standard because it was beneficial to do so. Specifically known as "spontaneous organization," the phenomenon by which organization happens from within even when there's no organization from without. Which brings us back to the question I asked before that you didn't answer: How did you arrive at the conclusion that society needs to be "organized"?

 

Your continued willingness to ignore challenges and pick and choose which you address is a confession that you're not interested in the truth.

 

I think you are confusing "organize" with "force compliance."

According to FDR, this thread was started by you. Therefore the onus for defining terms is upon you. Communication is the responsibility of the communicator. You don't get to walk into a room where there's no expectation that people speak German, speak German to them, and then accuse them of confusing what you said with what you meant to say.

 

This is another example of you moving the goalposts. You mention conventions and baseball games, but these are the organization of THINGS. Society isn't things, is an aggregate of PEOPLE. Organize is an active term, so "organize society" means acting upon people. In order to ethically propose this or morally do this, it comes down to consent. But the moment you secure consent, it's now an internal process, meaning there's no sense in asking others how we should make these decisions for individuals.

[ResurrectMyself]

Why is everyone completely ignoring "Libertarian Socialist"?
 

[AncapFTW]

Why is everyone completely ignoring "Libertarian Socialist"?

 

I didn't even read the post because it was minimized due to his negative rep.  The only person I'm purposely ignoring is dsayers, but I told them I was going to ignore them already because of a discussion on tis same topic in another thread.

 

I've already addressed everything in LibertarianSocialist's post though, that I know of.  If you don't think I didn't, feel free to re-ask the question.