MiraiRonin Posted November 17, 2015 Share Posted November 17, 2015 From what I understand, one of the common criticisms of libertarianism is that in a free society there will be no provision of what people see as 'public services', roads being the standard example? Wouldn't it be nice if there was a real-world example you could point to of the free market solving this exact problem without, or even in spite of, the involvement of the state? Well here's one: Not an unprecedented one either: This guy also has an example of the free market solving a problem without the involvement in of the state, that of making sure you're connecting to the website you want to communicate with and not an identity thief; a problem of the internet that governments never interfered with because, possibly, it arose, was discovered, and was fixed before most politicians even knew what an 'internet' was. 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Susana Posted November 17, 2015 Share Posted November 17, 2015 Roads and zoning are one of the worst goverment inventions. So many health issues created by suburbia and zoning. zoning is so strange that unlike most other countries where a business is in the bottom front of the house. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dsayers Posted November 18, 2015 Share Posted November 18, 2015 Wouldn't it be nice if there was a real-world example you could point to of the free market solving this exact problem without, or even in spite of, the involvement of the state? Actually no. If somebody has arrived at a conclusion not by way of logic, reason, or evidence, then logic, reason, or EVIDENCE will not dissuade them. If somebody emotionally NEEDS police to be benevolent, presenting them with an example of abuse will lead to them marginalizing it as an isolated incident, think they've succeeded in defending their position from attack, and therefore believe it MORE for having weathered a storm. Without evidence, logic tells us as much. That's why I'm keen on pointing out that the only thing you can accomplish with violence that you cannot accomplish without violence is violence. Because this address roads, welfare, medical, etc. It is still nice to see real world, present day examples. Because as the world burns at the hands of the States of the world while private individuals continue to solve problems, I think it warms the general perception that MAYBE the State ain't so great. The warmer people are to that idea, the more they'll likely not react to empires falling by rushing to get a new master in its place. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jer Posted November 18, 2015 Share Posted November 18, 2015 Actually no. If somebody has arrived at a conclusion not by way of logic, reason, or evidence, then logic, reason, or EVIDENCE will not dissuade them. Peter Boghossian disagrees with you. Have you read A Manual for Creating Atheists? I'd recommend it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dsayers Posted November 18, 2015 Share Posted November 18, 2015 I forgot add too that pointing out private roads will come across to Statists as a NEW cost. Not realizing exactly how much of their wealth is taken from them by the State, how much more efficiently business is conducted without the overhead of a coercive regime, etc. Peter Boghossian disagrees with you. Have you read A Manual for Creating Atheists? I'd recommend it. No, I have not read that book. Are you able to identify a flaw in my claim? Because I think it's logically consistent. If as your brain forms, your standard for determining what is truth is "what my parents tell me" then unless your parents tell you we could build flat things without pointing guns at people's heads, you will reject it. If your standard for determining the truth is what the most people claim is true, then unless most people say that we don't need to threaten people to compel them to satisfy their goals, they will reject it. It's like expecting somebody to arrive at the correct answer for an addition problem by applying multiplication to it. Which I realize is a bad analogy since multiplication is a shortcut for long addition Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jer Posted November 18, 2015 Share Posted November 18, 2015 No, I have not read that book. Are you able to identify a flaw in my claim? I was indoctrinated and came to be an atheist after hearing Stefan's arguments. I've also been watching a bunch of these vids lately. https://www.youtube.com/user/magnabosco210 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
luxfelix Posted November 18, 2015 Share Posted November 18, 2015 I was brainstorming recently about how a completely privately town could work. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AncapFTW Posted November 18, 2015 Share Posted November 18, 2015 I forgot add too that pointing out private roads will come across to Statists as a NEW cost. Not realizing exactly how much of their wealth is taken from them by the State, how much more efficiently business is conducted without the overhead of a coercive regime, etc. No, I have not read that book. Are you able to identify a flaw in my claim? Because I think it's logically consistent. If as your brain forms, your standard for determining what is truth is "what my parents tell me" then unless your parents tell you we could build flat things without pointing guns at people's heads, you will reject it. If your standard for determining the truth is what the most people claim is true, then unless most people say that we don't need to threaten people to compel them to satisfy their goals, they will reject it. It's like expecting somebody to arrive at the correct answer for an addition problem by applying multiplication to it. Which I realize is a bad analogy since multiplication is a shortcut for long addition We have all been exposed to multiple ways to determine the truth. All that showing them evidence is supposed to do is to get them to doubt the other ways that they determine "truth". Most people in the US, for example, have been told that "What the bible says" is the way to determine truth, or "what authority figure says" is how you determine truth as well as "logic and evidence" being a way. The people on this forum ostensibly choose logic as the best method, but many people have to be shown that it is the best method. Showing them the flaws in their other methods make the other methods worse options. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MiraiRonin Posted November 18, 2015 Author Share Posted November 18, 2015 I forgot add too that pointing out private roads will come across to Statists as a NEW cost. Not realizing exactly how much of their wealth is taken from them by the State, how much more efficiently business is conducted without the overhead of a coercive regime, etc. That point did occur to me; with the cost of roads covered by through private transactions the government in question would simply scoop up the same taxes and spend them on something else. The real challenge is getting people to understand that 'efficiency' doesn't only mean a few extra dollars left in some project's budget; it means that the achievements of private business could not and can not be replicated by government. That if the government had control of electronics, we probably wouldn't have smartphones now. That a systemic lack of efficiency means that everything is less than it should be by some unknown percentage, be it the MPG of your car, the speed of your internet, the stability of your buildings, your very life expectancy. That is the difference that, somehow, needs to be communicated. I was brainstorming recently about how a completely privately town could work. Brainstorming is the right approach; whatever the problems of a free community are, many of them will have wildly creative solutions (the rest will be reassuringly simple. Need sewer? Dig ditch, lay pipe, cover with dirt, flush with confidence). Consider the last video in the first post; the solution to the man-in-the-middle problem was the concept of a 'certificate signing authority', a concept so abstract that the presenters had no idea how to describe it, before jokingly drawing a picture of 'the internet factory'. How could anyone not up to their knees in tech know-how, and even plenty of them that are, predict that the solution would be "change your message so that's it's completely readable after you send it and after your intended recipient gets it, but not in between. Because maths." I'm also a bit buoyed by the fact that the system works on trust. What about the company that betrayed that trust? They went bankrupt, because no-one trusts them anymore Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AncapFTW Posted November 18, 2015 Share Posted November 18, 2015 I was brainstorming recently about how a completely privately town could work. I'd start with how you build a rural house, with sewage, water, power, etc. being put in in a simple, cheap way, only with oversize pipes/wires/etc to future-proof it. Then expand. You could either have each system be run by a different business, or a co-op where people provide to it or buy from it, similar to how electrical co-ops work. That would let people make extra power/water or use extra, and it wouldn't be as critical if they do either. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
luxfelix Posted November 18, 2015 Share Posted November 18, 2015 I'd start with how you build a rural house, with sewage, water, power, etc. being put in in a simple, cheap way, only with oversize pipes/wires/etc to future-proof it. Then expand. You could either have each system be run by a different business, or a co-op where people provide to it or buy from it, similar to how electrical co-ops work. That would let people make extra power/water or use extra, and it wouldn't be as critical if they do either. That makes sense, start small, and then replicate successes on larger scales where doable. I'm also a bit buoyed by the fact that the system works on trust. What about the company that betrayed that trust? They went bankrupt, because no-one trusts them anymore It certainly does raise the stakes for companies to maintain their integrity. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
luxfelix Posted November 22, 2015 Share Posted November 22, 2015 More about possible replacement for statist system (step-up?): [Article] It's still based on a statist foundation, but there are a few ideas to test for in the Honduran (and Atlanta!) experiment. P.S. I recently stumbled upon [this site] with more information about startup cities. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts