Slashdot Mirror

While researching your point, I came across this pro-driving is a right not privilege article which seems to set out the history of drivers licences. One part struck me though :-

Although there appear to have been no legal challenges to the constitutionality of requiring drivers licenses, there were a number of test cases in several states which challenged the legitimacy of the registration laws. Invariably these laws were upheld on the basis that they were a proper exercise of the police power of the state to provide for the health, safety, and comfort of the citizenry. The earliest registration laws were justified by state authorities, as well as vehicle owners, by referring to "the need of identifying a vehicle with its owner as a protection against theft."

Doesn't licensing make sense in this context?
- to ensure that the majority of drivers on the road have at least demonstrated minimal competency in driving by passing a mandatory test
- to ensure that drivers are covered by insurance (which i think is a pre-req to getting a licence in most places)
- to link vehicles with their drivers for the purposes of identification, for liability settlement in case there is an accident, theft etc

It doesn't seem that unreasonable in light of the amount of damage already caused by licensed drivers every year. Completely doing away with licensing and thereby allowing even those who have failed their driving tests to drive would seem counter productive.
 

Voting with your wallets is much more effective then the fake choice presented in elections. Hopefully, people will finally realize that in today's world, it's the best way to start making a difference.

No. You do both. My New Year wish for the world is actually that also Americans would bother to turn up and vote at an election. Instead of giving up before even trying, and by that handing the control over to the people who do bother. And if the result shouldn't be perfect the first time, you turn up even stronger next time. The politicans who want to keep their seat will start to get the message.

In a democracy the poor will have more power than the rich, because there are more of them, and the will of the majority is supreme. ~Aristotle Bad officials are elected by good citizens who do not vote. ~George Jean Nathan I'm tired of hearing it said that democracy doesn't work. Of course it doesn't work. We are supposed to work it. ~Alexander Woollcott People often say that, in a democracy, decisions are made by a majority of the people. Of course, that is not true. Decisions are made by a majority of those who make themselves heard and who vote - a very different thing. ~Walter H. Judd

Why would they do that? Voting just legitimizes their position if your choice loses. The less people at the ballot box, the less support they have over their position of power. And considering there's a huge number of people voting for bad politicians, why support a bad system where they'll later start praising about the voter turnout and gloat about how they won. I'd rather vote with my feet and wallet, as it's makes a bigger impact (See Detroit). Now consider if the election was for a Hitler or Stalin, would you really vote against them when doing so means death, considering they're going to know who you are anyways. I didn't think so.

I'll take Plato's stance over Aristotle and all the people you've quoted.

http://www.voluntaryist.com/nonvoting/index.html

And that strategy is working out great for the US? It's the people who do bother to vote who gets to decide over the ones who don't. Blaiming the system, alternatives, lobyists and money is just a cop out when the country has never even tried the effect of actual large voter turnout. There isn't enough lobbyists to keep these people in office, you do (through action or inaction). I don't disagree with voting with wallets too, not at all. this isn't either or.

Voting with your wallets is much more effective then the fake choice presented in elections. Hopefully, people will finally realize that in today's world, it's the best way to start making a difference.

No. You do both. My New Year wish for the world is actually that also Americans would bother to turn up and vote at an election. Instead of giving up before even trying, and by that handing the control over to the people who do bother. And if the result shouldn't be perfect the first time, you turn up even stronger next time. The politicans who want to keep their seat will start to get the message.

In a democracy the poor will have more power than the rich, because there are more of them, and the will of the majority is supreme. ~Aristotle Bad officials are elected by good citizens who do not vote. ~George Jean Nathan I'm tired of hearing it said that democracy doesn't work. Of course it doesn't work. We are supposed to work it. ~Alexander Woollcott People often say that, in a democracy, decisions are made by a majority of the people. Of course, that is not true. Decisions are made by a majority of those who make themselves heard and who vote - a very different thing. ~Walter H. Judd

Why would they do that? Voting just legitimizes their position if your choice loses. The less people at the ballot box, the less support they have over their position of power. And considering there's a huge number of people voting for bad politicians, why support a bad system where they'll later start praising about the voter turnout and gloat about how they won. I'd rather vote with my feet and wallet, as it's makes a bigger impact (See Detroit). Now consider if the election was for a Hitler or Stalin, would you really vote against them when doing so means death, considering they're going to know who you are anyways. I didn't think so.

I'll take Plato's stance over Aristotle and all the people you've quoted.

http://www.voluntaryist.com/nonvoting/index.html

That's not a bad idea, but (IMHO) the term "libertarian" (like "anarchy") has too many possible definitions for this purpose. Some people use it as a synonym for "anarchism", others (like the Libertarian Party) place it closer to the minarchist philosophy. Perhaps the term "voluntaryism" would serve? As far as I know it only has the one meaning: "Voluntaryism is the doctrine that relations among people should be by mutual consent, or not at all."[1] The term was chosen specifically to fit the general idea behind "anarchism" without implying chaos as well.

[1] Fundamentals of Voluntaryism

But the other extreme is just as guilty of ignoring human nature. In your system, once people are rich enough to pay for their *own* services, won't opt to support the rest of the village.

Which system of government were you advocating? No system that I know of, except perhaps pure communism or an extreme form of socialism, would eliminate that advantage--and only if it is somehow universally enforced, which it never is. Wealth is always a form of protection, under any form of government. However, the wealthy do not hurt the rest of the community by paying for their own services. They would do that anyway, since the services shared by the community at large would probably be insufficient to adequately protect all of their property. Under a voluntaryist system, they are free to choose their own services. Under most other forms of government, they are forced to pay for both their own services and those of the community. While this reduces the burden on the community, it is hardly fair to the ones forced to pay for services they don't use themselves.

Arguing "wealthy people vs. the community" is a bit impersonal, so I'll try to put this in more direct terms. Let's say you're a successful entrepreneur with a large estate and significant investments in various growing industries. Your next-door neighbor is not so lucky, having been unfortunate enough to find himself significantly in debt and unable to pay his bills. While you might be generous enough to help your neighbor willingly, would it be justifiable for him to employ coercion to force you to pay off his debts? Perhaps by threatening to steal some of your hard-earned wealth or place you in jail until you agree to pay? That is what taxation amounts to, except that it happens indirectly. People rarely realize what they're really asking for when they vote for more expensive public services.

I am also a bit short on time at this point, so I'll finish by saying that while my posts may have given the appearance of oversimplification, the voluntaryist philosophy is far from simplistic. People have been studying this situation for quite some time, and have developed some rather innovative ways to do without the concentrated monopoly on the use of force that government represents. I recommend the voluntaryist website for more information, if you're interested.

That may work, although sooner or later your nice society will be taken over by the country next door which taxed its people and made an army. Or do you believe people would voluntarily pay for something like an army which to the average person provides no short term benefit?

As history has shown, people will fight when their freedom and property are in danger. If this means volunteering to join a militia, or simply investing in the public defense, then yes, I believe that if the situation calls for it most people will pay their share for public defense. They do now, under duress, in the form of taxes, and yet have no say in how "their" army is employed. How often has our (U.S.) army been used in defense of our country against a foreign aggressor? How many times has it been used in retaliation or unprovoked attack against a nation that was not a threat?

For the case of individuals who may be inclined to "freeload" off their friends and neighbors: human beings are social creatures. Even without the threat of force, and disregarding their own reputations in their communities, most individuals cannot live for long without trade, and most individuals would not trade with anyone who showed such low esteem for the safety of their community. Social pressure is sufficient, IMHO, to induce most individuals to support the public defense. Those who can provide for themselves without relying on their neighbors are usually more than capable of defending themselves as well. There is no need to impose a "defensive army" through force.

For an idea of how a private justice system could work, which is a similar topic, see Protection By Voluntary Means.

The people who think property damage is a valid/proper/appropriate means of expression for anarchist ideals are not anarchists, they're vandals and criminals. If they think of themselves as anarchists, then they are misleading themselves and others Anarchy is NOT "fuck shit up and get away with it". Anarchy is NOT chaos, or destruction - though this is often how it is portrayed by its many detractors, and unfortunately how it is portrayed by those so called "anarchists" who have no clear idea whatsoever about Anarchist ideology.

Read people like Goldman, Kropotkin, Bakunin, Chomsky, Tolstoy and others - anarchism is a political ideology of peace and true liberty; it seeks to undermine the greed, heirarchy, control, coercion and force inherent in government and other similar institutions on the core belief that man has the means and the ability to act harmonious with his fellow man; that man can, and should, be able to organize himself in positive and productive ways without forming the central force of government.

Anarchy is not naive or unrealistic - extremely difficult to acheive perhaps, especialy as the institutions and governments and status quo is only getting stronger. But to say it is naive, unrealistic or impossible is a wholly defeatist attitude, and shows a distinct lack of outward/forward thinking, not to mention a complete lack of regard or faith into what we as humans are capable of achieving, sooner or later.

Don't concentrate on the spectacularly difficult notion of changing the world - but instead focus on all the ways you can realize and act upon the ideas of freedom and liberty starting with just yourself.

Also understand that there's alot more of us out there than you may realize.

Links:

http://www.infoshop.org/
http://www.infoshop.org/faq/index.html
http://www.infoshop.org/fake.html

http://www.practicalanarchy.org/

http://www.voluntaryist.com/

http://www.strike-the-root.com/

http://www.voluntaryist.com/

http://www.no-treason.com/resources/Spooner_No_Tre ason_VI.html

http://www.geocities.com/CapitolHill/5065/between. html
--

"Flags are bits of colored cloth that governments use first to shrink-wrap people's minds and then as ceremonial shrouds to bury the dead."
- Arundhati Roy

"Giving money and power to government is like giving whiskey and car keys to teenage boys."
- P.J. ORourke

"A man is none the less a slave because he is allowed to choose a new master once in a term of years."
- Lysander Spooner

"They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety."
- Benjamin Franklin

"Every man who puts money into the hands of a "government" (so called), puts into its hands a sword which will be used against himself, to extort more money from him, and also to keep him in subjection to its arbitrary will."
- Lysander Spooner

The people who think property damage is a valid/proper/appropriate means of expression for anarchist ideals are not anarchists, they're vandals and criminals. If they think of themselves as anarchists, then they are misleading themselves and others Anarchy is NOT "fuck shit up and get away with it". Anarchy is NOT chaos, or destruction - though this is often how it is portrayed by its many detractors, and unfortunately how it is portrayed by those so called "anarchists" who have no clear idea whatsoever about Anarchist ideology.

Read people like Goldman, Kropotkin, Bakunin, Chomsky, Tolstoy and others - anarchism is a political ideology of peace and true liberty; it seeks to undermine the greed, heirarchy, control, coercion and force inherent in government and other similar institutions on the core belief that man has the means and the ability to act harmonious with his fellow man; that man can, and should, be able to organize himself in positive and productive ways without forming the central force of government.

Anarchy is not naive or unrealistic - extremely difficult to acheive perhaps, especialy as the institutions and governments and status quo is only getting stronger. But to say it is naive, unrealistic or impossible is a wholly defeatist attitude, and shows a distinct lack of outward/forward thinking, not to mention a complete lack of regard or faith into what we as humans are capable of achieving, sooner or later.

Don't concentrate on the spectacularly difficult notion of changing the world - but instead focus on all the ways you can realize and act upon the ideas of freedom and liberty starting with just yourself.

Also understand that there's alot more of us out there than you may realize.

Links:

http://www.infoshop.org/
http://www.infoshop.org/faq/index.html
http://www.infoshop.org/fake.html

http://www.practicalanarchy.org/

http://www.voluntaryist.com/

http://www.strike-the-root.com/

http://www.voluntaryist.com/

http://www.no-treason.com/resources/Spooner_No_Tre ason_VI.html

http://www.geocities.com/CapitolHill/5065/between. html
--

"Flags are bits of colored cloth that governments use first to shrink-wrap people's minds and then as ceremonial shrouds to bury the dead."
- Arundhati Roy

"Giving money and power to government is like giving whiskey and car keys to teenage boys."
- P.J. ORourke

"A man is none the less a slave because he is allowed to choose a new master once in a term of years."
- Lysander Spooner

"They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety."
- Benjamin Franklin

"Every man who puts money into the hands of a "government" (so called), puts into its hands a sword which will be used against himself, to extort more money from him, and also to keep him in subjection to its arbitrary will."
- Lysander Spooner