@Critz,
Hey, I would just like to bring mention to the fact that 1/2 of threebobs posts are eerily (exactly) similar to the one above. ; /
Despite this, ill try to formulate a responce to what i find is a statment that has little to do with the question- cuz im bored.
_________________________________________________________________
threebobs wrote:I reject the premise of the question, which is that 1) a monolithic top down system can claim the right to make these decisions uni-directionally 2) this organization can effectively make this decision for it's subjects.
Regardless of your regection of the premise, a 'top-down system' already has the right to make these decision, as is proven by Canadas Gun registration fracas. Aswell, the organization WAS voted in by the people, so its actions [ideally] are on behalf of it's subjects.
Quote:
I think the better way to look at this issue is: Given a complex system of actors, each with his own preferences for risk and defense, what is the best possible structure?
Thats what im asking you...Whats the best possible structure to use- one where Guns are restricted, or one where there is no restrictions on any weapons.
Quote:
That would be a system of laws based on freely chosen associations. Allowing each individual autonomy to associate with the legal/dispute/insurance organization of his choice solves the problem of utilitarianism and in actuality, solves the problem of politics.
In practice this would be market-anarchism.
According to Wikipedia Free-Market-Anarchism " (sometimes called
market anarchism[1]) refers to an
individualist anarchist philosophy that harmonizes the abolition of the state with a
market economy by proposing to replace the monopoly of force held by government with a competitive market of private institutions ...without central control."
[3]
If private institutions acted like this, how would you ever know what gun laws to obey- and if one private institution decalred complete anarchy, then to me hell on earth would proceed.
Quote:
No central authority can dictate the best allocation of risk (or anything else) in a marketplace. This is why socialism has failed, and it is why democracy will fail.
I think this is really off topic ; /.
Quote:
In the long-run, it will take alot of blood and poverty before we realize that only systems of voluntary association such as anarcho-capitalism, or voluntaryism allow complex systems to extend themselves in the best possible function.
But even people who claim to be forward-thinking still cling to the religious notion that a traditional State is necessary for order in society. The opposite is true, the State creates chaos and disorder and destroys peace in society.
Is there a current EFFECTIVE government using the above system? If not, I can only assume its because of some fatal flaw it possesses.
?
Stumble It!
Tweet This
Bookmark on Delicious
Share on Facebook
Share on MySpace