Quote from: JayJuanGee on March 12, 2014, 07:57:20 PM

Quote from: octaft on March 12, 2014, 05:05:15 PM

Quote from: Richy_T on March 12, 2014, 01:48:20 AM

Quote from: octaft on March 12, 2014, 12:56:02 AM

I'm looking for better definition on where you stand.

Alright, let's take this further: the argument is that we would support the poor through voluntary charity, yes? Now let's say after 10 years, charity turns out to be woefully inadequate. Let's assume that -- while the world has not devolved into chaos and anarchy as a result of a lack of government -- that some are suffering because not everything went as planned. There's slums with no police protection because everyone that lives in the neighborhood can't afford it. How do we approach that? Are some things up for socialization, or is it all strictly no go, no budge?

Sure, the poor ain't doing so hot right now, but in order for the change to be worth it, it's not enough to be different. It's got to be better, and noticeably so. The problem is better is subjective, and not everyone will agree on, let alone know, what better really is.

Oh, I'm fairly happy to take things piecemeal. If things don't appear to be working, back off and adjust approach. Obviously, I believe things would not tend to end up that way (though government action has created a huge underclass that would have to be accounted for) but I'm not one for big schemes that have to be implemented in one fell swoop (just look at Obamacare for how that kind of thing goes).

Basically I see it like a big game of Jenga. There are some pieces which can be taken easily and others which require the removal of other pieces before they can be taken without collapsing the whole tower. Fortunately, almost every step that is taken to improve freedom should make the next one easier.

Okay, so you're willing to take things piece-meal. Great, but you didn't provide any solution to the problem. Pretend you're taking things piece-meal, and this information has just come up. I'm personally not the type who is comfortable with "crossing that bridge when you come to it."

For that matter, what if there are no solutions to the problems that come up? What if it turns out that, for most, your idea is, in fact, a dismal failure? Or what if it's not even possible, for example forms of government start popping up because that's what people want. What if all these small governments start warring with each other? How do we set up an army to fight off an invasion from a country who doesn't share our approach? All of these are questions that need to be addressed before you take the leap.

I'm still lacking answers on the whole "what if I decide to get a large crew together to violently take your shit" argument I presented earlier, as well. That's a general statement to all who agree with you, not specifically directed at you. You can say all you want "it won't happen," but it will. There will always be monsters in this world who will take full advantage of whatever situation they are put in. It's just a question of how widespread it will be.

I have a lot of questions for libertarians that I want answered. I've been asking them for years. Most of them still haven't been answered. I thought that might change here, but I'm starting to lose hope and am almost to the point of writing it off as another lost cause.

I admire your persistence and your formulations of questions for the libertarians, and you are generally fairly polite in your presentation of various issues and various scenarios, yet it should be clear that trying to get concrete answers from the no government folks is an exercise in futility.

It may be that they have an impossible task to describe some future society b/c no one person or group of libertarians are likely to be able to really design some community arrangement that adequately accounts for the variety of stakeholders (without involving some of the various stakeholders in the process).... which frequently causes the libertarians to speculate or to propose fairly specific plans that in fact have NOT been thought through very well.

A voluntary society cannot be designed at all. It will be emergent. When a critical mass of people realize that the rules we tell children to live by (namely don't hurt people, don't mess with their stuff, and keep your promises) should be applied across the board, and that no other general rules are necessary, then such a society will form.

There can be no formula for dealing with people in need. As soon as such a formula is known, most of the marginally needy and some of the non-needy attempt to game the system. Subsidizing poverty creates more poverty. The best way to deal with those in need is on an individual case-by-case basis. It's too important of a problem to be left to monopolists. Concrete answers are wrong answers.