And how do you justify this claim? In capitalism, if an employer starts to unfairly take advantage or abuse workers, the worker has the right to leave and find another job. If an employer has no one willing to work for him/her, then he would most likely raise standards until someone is willing to work there.
It's often not practical to leave a job. And you know as well as i do that capitalism requires a certain number of people unemployed as a back-up for such an occasion or where there is a requirement of expansion. How will the unemployed be provided for?
This is the reason man created Unions.
No, I don't. We got relatively close to it during the early years of this nation and we experienced great prosperity. In fact, I would say my vision of free market capitalism is far from a pipe dream in comparison to your radical stateless society. What is really more likely?
Of course my ideal is a pipe dream! What ideal isn't? But it's a nice idea to work towards. Pure capitalism is a pipe dream - well, more like a nightmare - in that to enforce private property, there always needs to be a Government, which always needs funding, which commits the cardinal sin - disrupting free movement of capital. Not to mention in practice, it distributes most power and privelege to those well off - the bourgeoisie - leaving the honest working man (or woman) to lease their labour and get little in return.
That is a problem though. If it costs too much to find it resources only to have them provide very little profit, then the motive is often gone. For example, if it took $10 million to find a new source of oil, and the oil in the area was potentially worth $50 million, then a oil company obviously has a motive to find that resource. Now, in your system they may pay $10 million to find it only to have hundreds of oil companies come in and take the oil so that the original company can't even make back its original $10 million in discovery costs. This provides a motive NOT to find resources, not the opposite.
As i say. Society will still require energy. This would encourage renewable resources.
Every resource is scarce- there is no unlimited resource. Also, what about things like finding special herbs and things for new health-related procedures. Are you saying that under your system you would be ok letting human advancements that could save millions of lives slip away because there is no benefit to find new resources? That sort of thinking stops the progress of civilization and the growth of technology, which ultimately do improve people's lives.
If it is vital or important or in demand, which it would be in the cases you suggest, free federation in fact encourages likeminded people to come together and work for a common goal or resource or what have you.
And you think vandals always have a reason for what they do? You think arsonists always burn things with a purpose?
There's definitely a reason. What you mean is whether the crime is socially or psychologically motivated.
You don't need legislation to back something up. Ultimately, legislation isn't even the strongest form of security- it is arms. A guy with tanks in a town with people without tanks would most likely be able to use force to get what he wants.
The tyrant would have to watch his back like hell. There's the option of guerilla war. It's impossible to indefinitely occupy a place without hearts and minds. And this in a society that has rejected all forms of illegitemate authority?
I can imagine a transitionary violence. People taking advantage and so on. But society inevitably organises itself. There are some things i have no idea or can only guess at how they would work in practice. But people aren't going to form around my ideals, they would organise around what
society wants.
Do you really think that everyone else will care at all if the situation doesn't effect them at all? Your sort of world only works if everyone is compassionate, caring, selfless, and healthy. This is not the world we live in. Human nature simply is not like that. There will always be selfish people. There will always be manipulative people.
But people are caring, loving and compassionate. These are all vital parts of human nature. Selfishness is only one aspect of human nature. But we learn to cooperate and get along with others, to work toward common goals, to help people, to care.
When you are a toddler, you see someone has something, you want it. You try and take it from them. As you grow older, you learn about sharing and that games are often more fun when you play together with someone else. Later on, you find that chores are finished much sooner if you have someone to help you.
Of course there will always be people that embrace the more negative sides. But for the most part, and in the majority of instances, these occur due to social environment. It's about social development. You may decide to abuse your freedoms. Until you are considered an adult by your parents, they can still deal with you.
No society is ever perfect but the number of people doing things considered bad will most likely be less than those doing bad - and succeeding - today. If you look at most of the crimes they are committed by those in poverty, often the cause of crime will be to relieve poverty (theft etc), or to escape poverty (drug dealing), or to mentally escape poverty (taking drugs). This is induced by the socio-economic climate.
You can not change that, you can only make it harder for one person to abuse the liberties of others when they are trying to manipulate or abuse others out of their own interest.
But who stops this abuse? The Government? So long as a Government exists, it will gather power. It almost has its own social gravitational field. Governments aim to escape accountability to the people and gain powers. Who would be defined as "bad people"? Political dissidents, for example?
The current system in America is state capitalism. As it is, economically, America would break down completely if it changed to a free market economy. Whether breaking down or with a hypothetical ideal country, a free market economy would always favour the rich. The poor would be crushed.
