|
|
|
|
|
|
by Houshalter
4706 days ago
|
|
|
>First, boycotts are a use of force. Everyone ganging up on someone to boycott them (shunning, as it used to be called, or making them an outlaw) is one of the oldest, cruelest forms of punishment, and we're well shut of it now. Putting someone in prison is one thing; kicking them out of society entirely is another. In order for that to work you would need nearly 99% of the population or more to agree to that punishment and to actively participate. Which is a lot more than required in a democracy or pretty much any system. >Then why hasn't this ever happened in the past? Why is Somalia suffering through what it's going through when self-organizing communes are so much better? Somalia is a collapsed society, not really a good example of anything. The same could be said for democracy until 200 years ago. It took a long time even after the first democracy was established for the idea to spread, and the creation of the US itself took a war and a few centuries of cultural evolution before that to get to that point. The point is that you can't just say "well if it's a perfect system why has no one done it before?" Libertarianism is counter-intuitive for most people, how do you expect them to form perfect anarcho-capitalist societies overnight? >Then nobody's going to pay for it, and the people who opt out of the laws entirely are going to be robbing everyone else. People would defend their own property or pay into some private legal system that promised to do so. |
|
|
But it has happened in the past. Never underestimate the power of groupthink to do horrible things to minorities.
> Somalia is a collapsed society, not really a good example of anything.
No better place, then. Nothing for the anarchist utopia to compete with.
> Libertarianism is counter-intuitive for most people
No, it isn't. Not from what I've seen both online and off.
> People would defend their own property or pay into some private legal system that promised to do so.
We've tried this and it didn't work.