this does not mean there are not rules. but where the community understands a set of rules/morals and self governs
some view libertarianism as the outlaw/lawless society of no laws, no punishment, let people do as they please even if it inflicts harm, change on others... to me i dont see libertarian as this. [...]
my view is freedom as long as you dont inflict harm, change, loss on another. where the population on mass have a bare minimum set of rules they decide themselves to agree to , a basic etiquette of moral understanding when others are involved set by the whole community agreement. not by some master representation group above the community.
yes individuals, master groups are free to set proposals for rules/etiquette, but not enforce them against populations lack of agreement(abstinence)
eg barter between two individuals is liberty/freedom, they can agree on whatever value they want
expanding to more population a freemarket of mass individuals coming to an agreement of perceived value is freedom/value
but to say a custodian of users funds is free by 'libertarian right' to 'rig the price' or abscond with all population funds, is not liberty
some view libertarianism as the outlaw/lawless society of no laws, no punishment, let people do as they please even if it inflicts harm, change on others... to me i dont see libertarian as this. [...]
my view is freedom as long as you dont inflict harm, change, loss on another. where the population on mass have a bare minimum set of rules they decide themselves to agree to , a basic etiquette of moral understanding when others are involved set by the whole community agreement. not by some master representation group above the community.
yes individuals, master groups are free to set proposals for rules/etiquette, but not enforce them against populations lack of agreement(abstinence)
eg barter between two individuals is liberty/freedom, they can agree on whatever value they want
expanding to more population a freemarket of mass individuals coming to an agreement of perceived value is freedom/value
but to say a custodian of users funds is free by 'libertarian right' to 'rig the price' or abscond with all population funds, is not liberty
again i dont think liberty is wild west, outlaw, no repercussions, chaos.
liberty does have some bare moral rules that all would seem acceptable etiquette. where its self governed and judged by peers. rather then hierarchical governed and judged by representatives
liberty does have some bare moral rules that all would seem acceptable etiquette. where its self governed and judged by peers. rather then hierarchical governed and judged by representatives
That pretty much sums everything up. I was also referring to a liberty which did not involve any kind of violence.
Yes, and that could be possible into an utopian web of trust, where a solid reputation system would be functional, right?
Im in favor of a fair governance instead of an efficient one.
I understand your point of view; furthermore, I agree with it. But tell me this: how many times have you seen, in the past 5000 years, a fair governance...?
some say that chaos is ordered. no its not
chaos is random.
[...]
chaos is not planned or foreseen or mutually agreed
it has to take a step away from chaos to bring in a bit of unity to bring features and people together
chaos is random.
let's first remember what chaos is. And the simplest definition of chaos is that it represents "the perfect disorder". It's a disorder so well organized that you can see an order inside it. Does that make any sense? So, if chaos is a perfectly ordered disorder, what is the order? It is the cause of disorder. For example, we can say that the Universe, in its continuous expansion, it's just a combination of progressive disorder. But this disorder, as it expands itself, creates new orders and each of these orders can be identified with the initial order. So even inside chaos, which is disorder in its pure form, order is created. Therefore why would it be so bad for chaos to arise? All disorders will lead to new orders, in the future...
[...]
chaos is not planned or foreseen or mutually agreed
it has to take a step away from chaos to bring in a bit of unity to bring features and people together
However, I have a different view here... There is a concept name Spontaneous order. It implies that people, by themselves, can organize themselves, even without an authority leading them to do it. Just like in the example with the overcrowded shop. From something which looks like chaos, with no visible order, a new order appears and people organize themselves, in order to be able to find their products on the sleves, pick them up, pay for them and go home. Peacefully.
According to Wikipedia, Spontaneous order, also named self-organization in the hard sciences, is the spontaneous emergence of order out of seeming chaos.
No wonder, Wikipedia continues, the great economists following Austrian school, about which we discussed earlier, come into play: The Austrian School of Economics, led by Carl Menger, Ludwig von Mises and Friedrich Hayek made it a centerpiece in its social and economic thought. Hayek's theory of spontaneous order is the product of two related but distinct influences that do not always tend in the same direction.
The reference to anarchism says the following:
Anarchists argue that the state is in fact an artificial creation of the ruling elite, and that true spontaneous order would arise if it was eliminated. This is construed by some but not all as the ushering in of organization by anarchist law. In the anarchist view, such spontaneous order would involve the voluntary cooperation of individuals. According to the Oxford Dictionary of Sociology, "the work of many symbolic interactionists is largely compatible with the anarchist vision, since it harbours a view of society as spontaneous order.
So see, even from pure chaos, order may arise. Just by itself.