> Your question is, how can we make sure people don't hurt other people if there's no government. Well, let's say we all live in this city. Do we want a police force? If we do, we can fund one and have it. Then it will protect us. Same as current taxes for police forces, only at local level. It's no different than having tinier countries. Switzerland is tiny and peaceful and they have a police force but they also have everyone armed and so everyone can help protect others that may be being harmed. And in general you will see less people being harmed if everyone is able to help.
So... are you an anarchist, or just a big fan of small governments? :) I ask because I've seen people who essentially define anarchism as "direct democracy in a town hall model", which is still a government, but try getting them to see that.
Anyway, one problem with this approach is the small government that isn't as small as your government and decides to take you over by force. And then keeps going until it's a large government again, and nobody who disagrees too loudly is left to complain.
Another problem is, well, what if one small government isn't expansionist, but is basically North Korea? Nobody leaves alive, nobody complains and lives, and nobody but the oligarchs has a say in government.
> If everyone likes me then now we're all the more empowered as a town to go on strike and advocate that the company change their hiring policy. But let's say the town hates me, I'm a terrible person. I can try to redeem myself in the eyes of my town by providing services to my townsfolk, slowly building up enough savings to perhaps move out of town.
How about this: Some people like you, but not enough. If they strike, or demonstrate, my police forces kill them and everyone else goes back to work, suitably chastened. My company takes a small hit, but compliance among the workforce is more important to my bottom line than not killing your supporters.
Also: Your plan to scrape up enough resources to leave is overly-optimistic, especially given how much of a following the KKK had in some towns in the 1920s. Do you know what a "sundown town" was?
> I've tried my best to honestly answer your questions. If I haven't addressed your core concerns I invite you to rephrase and we can try again. :)
I do appreciate your honesty. I'm also trying to be honest in this, and to explain myself well.
My core concern is this: We tried it your way, more or less, back in the Gilded Age, a time of big companies largely untroubled by governmental regulations of any kind and local governments largely left alone by state and Federal actions. Why do you think going back to that would not cause a return to the serious social and economic problems the Gilded Age had?
> So... are you an anarchist, or just a big fan of small governments? :)
I'm looking to minimize the amount of force used in the world. Increasingly smaller governments are in the right direction, and without central governments I believe we'd still organize ourselves in enclaves or archologies that would trade with each other.
> one problem with this approach is the small government [...] then keeps going until it's a large government again
People would only allow to be governed with explicit contracts and insurance in place. This gets into dispute resolution, which I'm still studying, but there are definitely ways to set incentives in place so that "becoming a large government" becomes a terrible course of action (economically, not just nominally and flexibly as is with law today).
> If they strike, or demonstrate, my police forces kill them
You can't initiate force in a libertarian society, or you will be inviting problems/conflicts. It's not economically advantageous to wage wars in a free society, so this won't be chosen often. The reason people go to war is because they want to make money selling weapons. This model only works with fiat money (historically, as wars are usually much more expensive than anyone could pay for). Real money can't pay for wars. Wars are really expensive.
Sundown towns were an explicit death threat to people who did not initiate force.
> We tried it your way, more or less, back in the Gilded Age
I'm reading a lot about the Gilded Age now and I'd really emphasize your "more or less". There was a lot of government meddling in the market at the time (railroads: government land grants and subsidies; in 1873 the Coinage Act demonetized silver [this is a huge intervention], which raised interest rates [artificially, which is why it's bad], which contributed to the first "Great Depression" until 1879). And that's not even the beginning of government interventions within 1860-90.
The Gilded Age is not an example of the free market. I'm looking at Celtic Ireland for something more like it.
So... are you an anarchist, or just a big fan of small governments? :) I ask because I've seen people who essentially define anarchism as "direct democracy in a town hall model", which is still a government, but try getting them to see that.
Anyway, one problem with this approach is the small government that isn't as small as your government and decides to take you over by force. And then keeps going until it's a large government again, and nobody who disagrees too loudly is left to complain.
Another problem is, well, what if one small government isn't expansionist, but is basically North Korea? Nobody leaves alive, nobody complains and lives, and nobody but the oligarchs has a say in government.
> If everyone likes me then now we're all the more empowered as a town to go on strike and advocate that the company change their hiring policy. But let's say the town hates me, I'm a terrible person. I can try to redeem myself in the eyes of my town by providing services to my townsfolk, slowly building up enough savings to perhaps move out of town.
How about this: Some people like you, but not enough. If they strike, or demonstrate, my police forces kill them and everyone else goes back to work, suitably chastened. My company takes a small hit, but compliance among the workforce is more important to my bottom line than not killing your supporters.
Also: Your plan to scrape up enough resources to leave is overly-optimistic, especially given how much of a following the KKK had in some towns in the 1920s. Do you know what a "sundown town" was?
> I've tried my best to honestly answer your questions. If I haven't addressed your core concerns I invite you to rephrase and we can try again. :)
I do appreciate your honesty. I'm also trying to be honest in this, and to explain myself well.
My core concern is this: We tried it your way, more or less, back in the Gilded Age, a time of big companies largely untroubled by governmental regulations of any kind and local governments largely left alone by state and Federal actions. Why do you think going back to that would not cause a return to the serious social and economic problems the Gilded Age had?