[RivieraKid]

Does non-aggression principle mean, that society can't have any enforceable rules, like taxes? If so, NAP is not a good idea.

[dmix]

There will be enforceable rules against any type of aggression. Coercion of private property would be considered immoral and an act of violence.

So social programs would be voluntary. ala non-profit organizations such as Kiva that utilize technology, the internet and volunteerism (instead of highly bureaucratic systems with no quality control) to affect social change.

Of course this is all an extremely radical thought experiment. But it seems to be the coming side-effect of technology.

[RivieraKid]

This almost certainly won't work for many reasons:

1. People would donate radically less money than they pay via taxes today. That would result in even higher inequality.

2. Rich people would be more powerful, because for example, they would be able to make their own army (tanks, nuclear weapons, etc.).

3. No regulation of private sector (banks, food companies, ...) is not good for the society as a whole.

4. Etc.

[dmix]

Mhm the usual markets don't work arguments... lets apply the same points to the current corporatist system:

1) We have the highest inequality in recent history... while still having the high tax expenditure in recent history

2) Rich people and large corporations hold massive power while lacking the stabilizing reduction in wealth via competition thanks to government protectionism

3) Hows that regulation working out for banks, pharma companies and food companies?

[1] see bank bailouts and moral hazards of last 4 yrs. Almost all big banks are still in business.

[2] this happens yearly, small government lawsuit settlements then business as usual: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_largest_pharmaceutical_... + The FDA helped keep the same 8 pharma companies in business since the 1800s by making competition impossible.

[3] FDA is becoming less relevant thanks to information availability.

It's possible to have food safety done via organizations/associations... so you buy food brands based on the fact it's been verified by x food safety board.

[RivieraKid]

Markets work quite well but markets without any rules are often not optimal.

1) Percentage of GDP in social expenditures: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Social-expenditures-2001-O... . This correlates with inequality.

2) Corporations in countries like France, Germany, Canada etc. have less relative power than in the US.

3) I don't know, I don't live in the US. But zero regulation of these industries is without question not the best amount of regulation.

As for the last sentence – I think it should be illegal to sell food that causes serious problems.

[dmix]

> 2) Corporations in countries like France, Germany, Canada etc. have less relative power than in the US.

I live in Canada. The 4 banks and 2 telecom companies here have total domination of the market and our gov agencies prevent competition openly. Much more than the US.

We've been fortunate that they've been conservative for the last few decades but they are increasingly becoming americanized and our corporatist government wants badly to be like America.

I agree laissez faire markets aren't optimal. But I'm also 100% sure government run markets is significantly worse. I only support the elimination of massive governments in favor or smaller communities with their own economic freedom (social or capitalist) similar to Hong Kong city-states.

ala Startups vs mega-corporations.

[RivieraKid]

What responsibilities shoud different levels (city, territory, country) have, is a complicated question... but I definitely agree that probably every governement is far from being simple and effecient.