And it sure doesn't sound like you've even bothered to read the link I offered.
I am interested in YOUR vision for a stateless society, not what others have written.
Why can't our resident anarchists--those with whom I share agreement on RKBA and much agreement on liberty and personal freedoms--who are so articulate in defending RKBA and OC, articulate
THEIR vision for how a stateless society functions?
This is clearly more than some arrogant refusal to discuss the issue with me or someone else based on personality conflicts or judged unworthiness. This is now evidencing as a complete inability to articulate even the most basic and high level functions of your non-state. Which is entirely predictable.
You don't know how things would work. You haven't been able to figure it out. You have a grand principle (as you see it) in mind but haven't figured out how to actually implement it with any practical details at all. This is entirely predictable, because nobody has figured it out for the simple case I've presented.
Prove me wrong. I've asked a couple of very simple questions, repeatedly. Answer them and prove that you have the slightest idea of practical implementation.
How do voluntary non-government service providers arbitrate differences between themselves?
How are violations of rights under one such provider, by the member of another provider for whom the conduct is not accepted as a violation of rights, handled?
For purposes of the above, assume that neither side will retreat from their position, nor is either side willing to "compromise".
Two questions at the highest of levels. You can't answer them. Nobody can. Because there is no answer within your accepted paradigm.
One way or another, the only answer is that under the system described, one side gets to force its will on the other, and we are back to force. That is your fundamental problem. It is the problem that proponents of anarchy have had since I started discussing it with them 20 years ago. Twenty years, easily a couple of dozen true believers. most of them bright and articulate (a few less so). Not a single resolution to this fundamental problem with your belief system has ever been forthcoming.
It won't this time either. And for all the epithets of "statist", for all the sideways insults of "liberty minded folks...", for all the emotion of "the state is rape/crime/evil..." you cannot solve that fundamental issue. And so you refuse to try.
And by "you" I don't mean ATM specifically. I mean anarchists. The problem is intractable within their espoused belief system.
An all voluntary society works ok in isolation, so long as the society is highly homogenous, and culturally and individually devoted to the ideas of self reliance, hard work, and respect for others' rights. There must be inherent agreement on what those rights are. Under such conditions, almost any system works well. Even highly socialized nations in Europe work great when they are highly homogenous and have some reasonable, shared values.
The problem that comes immediately is when you have heterogeneous groups, living near and among each other, and they have fundamentally different views of rights.
We value freedom of speech. Others highly value respect and tolerance for the sacred. Whether that sacred is a prophet, or a race, gender, or sexual orientation, matters not. We value private property rights. Others do not recognize private property. You value self above all else, others value society above all else, I advocate the need for balance in this area. Some value the life of an unborn baby, a black man, a woman, a poor man, and an "untouchable" on equal basis as the life of a rich, white man. Others are prone to believe that one or more of the foregoing are not really "persons" and thus not entitle to equal rights or consideration. Some accept as self-evident the supremacy of mankind; others believe just as sincerely that animals or even the earth itself must be given equal consideration.
There is a common arrogance in assuming that our view of rights is universal, or even objectively correct. No doubt, on the 90%+ where you and I agree, I'm highly attached to our beliefs rather than conflicting beliefs as we might see in India, the Islamic world, or among AmerIndians or Pacific Islanders. But I recognize that I cannot find any objective, universally accepted fact that makes our view of rights correct and theirs wrong.
So long as disparate groups are isolated from each other, there is little conflict. But when they live together, conflicts must be resolved and when neither side will retreat from its beliefs, force is the only resolution. And my two simple questions expose that, much to the annoyance and consternation of the true believers.
Charles
Lawdha'mercy!
