In idealized form, "communism" is better called syndicate anarchism. It means the elimination of all hierachal structure, voluntary or not. Of cousrse, syndicate anarchism is completely untenable in the real world by it's own ideals, as it would require the violent put-down of anyone who dared form a voluntary organization with any form of hierarchy (also, things like interest and rent would be violently eliminated under syndicate anarchism, as they view that as "theft"). Of course, in an Stateless world, individuals would be free to voluntarily pursue their syndicate organization, but they would surely be outcompeted by hierarchal organizations.
By the way, the now-common definition of communism includes what I was referring to.
Your belief that the government is the protector of the free market is non-sense. There is no greater hindrance to the free market and no greater violator of property rights and bodily rights than the government. All that the government is is a monopoly on violence. The government (the individuals controlling it, rather) is the only entity allowed to commit violence without being punished. Only the State can murder millions of individuals without the individuals within it facing the consequences.
In regards to your absurd idea that the government is needed to prevent monopolies, you should know that all true cases of monopoly-pricing are government-created. The following articles may be helpful:
But, what are we to expect from State-funded education, which spews such non-sense as the idea that prior to the government stealing radio waves from private owners, there was chaos in radio waves (there was no such thing, courts were enforcing property rights).
You demonstrate extreme stupidity by claiming that the government "created" currency. Currency is established voluntarily by individuals acting of their own free will. At first, there is barter. Then when an item is in enough demand, it is used as a medium for indirect exchange, rather than barter. This creates conveniency and allows for more precise transactions.
You are right about one thing: we need property rights for the free market to exist. The non-aggression axiom must be enforced. You are completely wrong about the necessity of a government for this funciton. All that government is is (ideally) is a monopoly on the enforcement of property rights; that monopoly is protected by coercive force. There is no reason to presume why the free market cannot supply protection for property rights and justice more effectively than the government, just as it provides everything else more effectively than the government. Furthermore, there is no reason to presume beforehand that a monopoly on law-enforcement is the ideal solution. See Rothbard:
http://www.mises.org/rothbard/newliberty11.asp Of course, government's are alot more than a monopoly on law enforcement. They also ahve a monopoly on things like theft, stealing, and murder. In other words, the goverment is a self-legitimized organization of criminals, with a monopoly on violence.
Utility industries have not been completely de-regulated. Let me explain how government regulation works. The government regulates something, trying to solve a problem it fabricated. Then it realizes that it just created another problem, so it regulates to get rid of that problem, while creating another problem anew. The process predictably goes on an on, until we have communism, or the government realizes that it's interventions have harmed things. The same applies to the utilities. Because the government only partially de-regulated, enormous problems caused by the regulation that's left over (which now isn't being counter-acted by other limiting regulation) are revealed. The solution is simply to completely deregulate all at once.
In regards to people who drink tainted water, and other pollution torts. Pollution is exactly that -- a tort. A violation of private property, analagous to tresspassing, and should be treated as such. If a company pollutes the air, and this causes damage to my trees or reduces the purity of water that I own, then the company should have to pay to either compensate me, retroactively fix [purify] the problem, or eliminate the problem.
To understand how the free market solves the problem of pollution, where government regulation is a failure, see Rothbard's For a New Liberty:
Monopolies do not come about by government inaction. They come about precisely because of government action: priviledges granted by the government to various corporations. Microsoft's "monopoly", if you can call it that, only exists because of government-granted patents and copyrights. Without these, there is no MS monopoly.
The only way for the free market to function optimally is for the government to retract itself from the market entirely, and cease any tampering with the free market.
similar result to Fritz (original) tying Kramnick. Fritz X3D ties Kasparov.
This doesn't prove that humans are better at chess than computers. This proves that Gary Kasparov is better (or can be better) at chess than current computer programs. Gary Kasparov is the top chess player in the world.
What does that mean? That means that out of probably about a billion people who can play chess, there's only two of them -- Kramnick and Kasparov -- who can play well enough to draw the best chess programs. Hardly a resounding victory for humanity. Braggings rights for Kasparov and Kramnick, but not a one big stem for humanity.
Despite not having the same 3D effect that NWN has, Baldur's Gate 1, 2SoA, and 2ToB are essentially better games. The Age of Mythology is also a great game.
But, all that RPG stuff aside, I'd really like to see Tekken 4 on a PC. There's also supposed to be a new game coming out for the playstation that's a spin-off of one of the characters in Tekken, Nina (not suprisingly, the game is going to be called Nina).
You're defining quality as the subjective assessment of the listener. I'm defining quality as the capacity for artistic expression.
I do not deny that Beethoven's music expresses infinitely more than Britney Spears' does. This is evident from the fact that one can listen to the 9th every day for 365 days a year for all of one's life, and find something new in it each time. That is because there are many layers of complexity. Contrarily, in Spears' music (and all modern pop-culture music) there are very few layers of complexity. This is an objective, not subjective, statement.
What I am talking about is which music is "better" or has more "value". By many measures of quality, Beethoven's music is superior to anything else you can find. However, "better" and "value" are subjective.
Your argument is based on a false premise: that art exists to please the viewer.
Ah, the old "art exists for its own sake". I think this type of argument was the same thing used by Sophists to say that what is right is what is best for the ruler. Socrates exposed that, making certain relevant analogies. Medicine, for example, does not exist for it's own purpose; it exists to serve to the needs of the sick. Art does not exist "for its own sake". Art exists and is created because it pleases the creator and/or because it supports the creator. If it supports the creator, it can only do such because other people like it enough to pay the creator for it. In either case, "art does not exist for its own sake". It was created either because it's creation and use pleased the creator and/or because it can support the creator, in which case it must please others.
Art can be prolonged and preserved throughout history if it pleases the viewer. This is obviouisly why Beethoven's music has been preserved and become ever-more respected over hundreds of years, and will likely do so over hundreds and even centuries to come. It pleases the listener because something about it's various musical relationships is naturally pleasing to most human ears, because it has pathos. It has lasted so long because it has many layers of complexity, because it is eternally "fresh" due to it's incomprehensible complexity.
But the only reason why Shakespear is still around is because people have chosen to continue reading what he wrote, hundreds of years after his death. It is a subjective personal preference. But highly educated snobs want to try to claim that somehow the individuals acting on the free market are wrong, and that X modern artist's music or art or whatever is crap. Of course what they don't realize is that all consumer choice is simply a matter of preference, most if not all of which is eventually subjective. Your attempts to try to objectively analyze that which is subjective are similar to attempts by certain ignorant economists to place objective "true" or "absolute" value on various objects, without realizing the fact that all value is subjective by nature.
If someone chooses to spend more money money buying Britney Spears music than Beethoven's, that means they value her music above that of Beethoven's. Nothing you can say changes that, including various explanations of why Beethoven's music is "better" than that of Britney Spears, because all it amounts to is your subjective opinion that it is "better".
that people just don't think "alternative" music is as great as some of the liberal whiners think it is? There's a lot of snobbery, especially among professional musicians, as to what is "good" music. Madonna and Britney Spears are "bad music", Moby is "decent", and some obscure individual I've never heard of before is "great".
What these snobs fail to recognize is that there is no such thing as "good" and "bad" music. There is only music that they do or don't like, and that may be influenced by their musical education. Likewise, there is music that many people do like, or that many people don't like. It's all as subjective as chocolate vs. vanilla ice-cream.
1. President of the USA 2. Congressmen 3. Senators 4. Mayors 5. Generals 6. Anyone working at the IRS 7. Anyone working at the DMV 8. Anyone working at the US Post Office 9. Anyone working at the US Patent Office 10. Anyone working in the "Department of Defense"
that depends. If they're the owners, then it's not a "bribe", but a business transaction. If it's an executive who's offered $50-million and he makes a decision that doesn't benefit the owners of Google, then he's just committed a criminal action, and violated his contract. In the first case, there's no problem, because the owners can do whatever the hell they want: they're the owners -- it's theirs. In the second, the executive has committed a crime and violated contract.
I'm glad that Google decided to maintain their independence, but what would be so bad if they were taken over by MS? After all, it is the decision of those who currently own Google, not ours. They're going to make a decision based on what they think is good for them and their company.
Please, god, let this fall through! Freddy vs. Jason was bad enough -- now we have to have "Alien vs. Predator"? What kind of childish teenaged crap is this? What's next? Jaws vs. Jurassic Park?
then it's fine. What you define as "zealotry" I simply call being firm in your beliefs, and having a backbone, as opposed to compromising your "principles" to be more popular, which is what you seem to advocate.
zealotry is simply another name for a very strong belief in something. If that's a very strong belief in, for example, individual freedom or pacifism, there's nothing wrong with that belief. It's only when someone has a zealous belief in something that is dangerous (like forcing all women to cover their faces) and is willing to back that up with dangerous force, that zealotry becomes a problem.
Just as gravity is not free of the limitation that nothing may travel faster than the speed of light, nor is light free of the effects of gravity. The path light travels is affected by gravity; indeed, light can be completely trapped by a black hole.
in an anarcho-capitalist world, there would be no intellectual property. Thus, your scenario where a company prevents a vaccine from reaching everyone is unlikely, as other companies could make generic knock-offs.
The free market is not some oppressive institution created by the "evil capitalists" with their tophats. That's a Marxist fallacy. It is the natural result of the voluntary interaction of individuals interacting peacefully with eachother. As for private property, that's also a natural result of individuals interacting peacefully with eachother; private property comes into existence when previously unownedl and is homesteaded. It allows for individuals to avoid territorially fighting over the same set of resources like wolves.
From your comments, I can only presume that you are a syndicate anarchist. I suggest you read the following chapters from Mises' "Human Action":
http://www.mises.org/humanaction/chap33sec1.asp http://www.mises.org/humanaction/chap33sec2.asp http://www.mises.org/humanaction/chap33sec3.asp h ttp://www.mises.org/humanaction/chap33sec4.asp
your comments about canadians are irrelevant, as are your ad hominem attacks on me. "Society" is simply short-hand for the cummulative effect of the interactions of all individuals with eachother. Society does not do anything. It is only individuals who act; even if they act in concord, it is individuals who are choosing to act in concord with other individuals. Your concept of us owing "society" something is non-sense, which amounts to the enslavement of those who work to those who don't.
Paying taxes is no-more an obligation than is accepting theft and robbery. Taxes, btw, largely go to support murder on a mass-scale. As for "helping the poor and sick", that is a moral virtue which is eliminated by taxes. Taxes to forcibly redistribute wealth from those who work to those who don't only create resentment, and enforce an unhealthy attitude of entitlement. Irrelevant of your assertions, the only thing we are obliged to do is not to initiate violence against anyone else. No-one is entitled to my labor without compensating me what I would accept of my own free will, nor are they entitled to the proceeds of my labor without compensating me.
Welfare and other programs to "help the poor" only worsen their situation, by encouraging individuals not to work, and creating a permanent class of individuals who don't work and are parasiting off of the work of those who do. I suggest you read the following references to understand this:
http://www.mises.org/rothbard/newliberty7.asp h ttp://www.mises.org/rothbard/newliberty8.asp
Yes, I have "money" and thus a job. And no-one -- no matter their situation -- is entitled to my labor without compensating me for it, nor the proceeds of my labor without compensating me for it. I am not some uncaring asshole; however, neither am I an idiot. Simply giving people hand-outs does not help them. It only creates dependence. Indeed, I would go so far to say that private charity to "help the poor" which gives them handouts for nothing is actually harmful, as it enforces a sense of enitlement. The Mormons have an excellent private welfare system, where those helped are expected to get a job, or at least provide services to the Church, and the length of time they are helped is limited.
for who is to enforce and interpret the constitution, but the entity in power, namely the State? The last 300 years have proved that no matter how carefully you've thought out a system of "checks and balances", the state will invariably grow and grow and grow, meaning more war (mass murder), more taxes (mass-enslavement), and the complete and utter violation of property rights (which are the foundation for all other "rights" we speak of).
The only way to protect against that is anarcho-capitalism. Under anarcho-capitalism, ultimate power rests with the consumer, and he exercises that power daily. Sure, the rich may have more "consumer power" than others, but as they exercise that power (buy things), they likewise diminish it. The only way for them to replenish their purchasing power is to continue making products that other consumers like, and in that area, they can be dethroned at any instant if they are sloth.
In an anarcho-capitalistic system, there would be courts and police, but they would be appointed by and dethroned by the consumers. see http://www.mises.org/rothbard/newliberty11.asp
The system you seem to support seems like anarcho-capitalism, except without private courts; hence, anyone can do anything they want, including murder, rape, and steal. This is hardly ideal, though certainly better than the current system (where the State has a monopoly on murder, rape, and theft, and engages in mass-murder periodically). Of course, in your system, norms could enforce rights; e.g., if someone is found to be a murderer, groups of individuals could blacklist him and refuse to sell him anything. This would be minimally effective, however, compared to having a privitized court system, with punishment determined by the victims: see http://www.mises.org/journals/jls/12_1/12_1_3.pdf
Btw, "society" never intervenes in anything. It is always individuals, not groups, that act. If they act together -- e.g., sing together -- it is still the individuals that are singing, albeit in chorus.
Slashdot Mirror
By the way, the now-common definition of communism includes what I was referring to.
Socialism would also apply.
In regards to your absurd idea that the government is needed to prevent monopolies, you should know that all true cases of monopoly-pricing are government-created. The following articles may be helpful:
Fear of monopoly
The question of the cable monopoly
Understanding the Barriers to Entry
Pile on Microsoft
Media Concentration: Not a Threat
Break up Microsoft
Anti-trust, anti-truth
Cipro Shortage: An Invented Scarcity
But, what are we to expect from State-funded education, which spews such non-sense as the idea that prior to the government stealing radio waves from private owners, there was chaos in radio waves (there was no such thing, courts were enforcing property rights).
You demonstrate extreme stupidity by claiming that the government "created" currency. Currency is established voluntarily by individuals acting of their own free will. At first, there is barter. Then when an item is in enough demand, it is used as a medium for indirect exchange, rather than barter. This creates conveniency and allows for more precise transactions.
You are right about one thing: we need property rights for the free market to exist. The non-aggression axiom must be enforced. You are completely wrong about the necessity of a government for this funciton. All that government is is (ideally) is a monopoly on the enforcement of property rights; that monopoly is protected by coercive force. There is no reason to presume why the free market cannot supply protection for property rights and justice more effectively than the government, just as it provides everything else more effectively than the government. Furthermore, there is no reason to presume beforehand that a monopoly on law-enforcement is the ideal solution. See Rothbard:
http://www.mises.org/rothbard/newliberty11.asp
Of course, government's are alot more than a monopoly on law enforcement. They also ahve a monopoly on things like theft, stealing, and murder. In other words, the goverment is a self-legitimized organization of criminals, with a monopoly on violence.
Utility industries have not been completely de-regulated. Let me explain how government regulation works. The government regulates something, trying to solve a problem it fabricated. Then it realizes that it just created another problem, so it regulates to get rid of that problem, while creating another problem anew. The process predictably goes on an on, until we have communism, or the government realizes that it's interventions have harmed things. The same applies to the utilities. Because the government only partially de-regulated, enormous problems caused by the regulation that's left over (which now isn't being counter-acted by other limiting regulation) are revealed. The solution is simply to completely deregulate all at once.
In regards to people who drink tainted water, and other pollution torts. Pollution is exactly that -- a tort. A violation of private property, analagous to tresspassing, and should be treated as such. If a company pollutes the air, and this causes damage to my trees or reduces the purity of water that I own, then the company should have to pay to either compensate me, retroactively fix [purify] the problem, or eliminate the problem.
To understand how the free market solves the problem of pollution, where government regulation is a failure, see Rothbard's For a New Liberty:
http://www.mises.org/rothbard/newliberty12.asp
Monopolies do not come about by government inaction. They come about precisely because of government action: priviledges granted by the government to various corporations. Microsoft's "monopoly", if you can call it that, only exists because of government-granted patents and copyrights. Without these, there is no MS monopoly.
The only way for the free market to function optimally is for the government to retract itself from the market entirely, and cease any tampering with the free market.
I believe Bobby Fisher said something like, "The key moment for me was when I realized that black should play to win."
similar result to Fritz (original) tying Kramnick. Fritz X3D ties Kasparov.
This doesn't prove that humans are better at chess than computers. This proves that Gary Kasparov is better (or can be better) at chess than current computer programs. Gary Kasparov is the top chess player in the world.
What does that mean? That means that out of probably about a billion people who can play chess, there's only two of them -- Kramnick and Kasparov -- who can play well enough to draw the best chess programs. Hardly a resounding victory for humanity. Braggings rights for Kasparov and Kramnick, but not a one big stem for humanity.
Despite not having the same 3D effect that NWN has, Baldur's Gate 1, 2SoA, and 2ToB are essentially better games. The Age of Mythology is also a great game.
But, all that RPG stuff aside, I'd really like to see Tekken 4 on a PC. There's also supposed to be a new game coming out for the playstation that's a spin-off of one of the characters in Tekken, Nina (not suprisingly, the game is going to be called Nina).
I do not deny that Beethoven's music expresses infinitely more than Britney Spears' does. This is evident from the fact that one can listen to the 9th every day for 365 days a year for all of one's life, and find something new in it each time. That is because there are many layers of complexity. Contrarily, in Spears' music (and all modern pop-culture music) there are very few layers of complexity. This is an objective, not subjective, statement.
What I am talking about is which music is "better" or has more "value". By many measures of quality, Beethoven's music is superior to anything else you can find. However, "better" and "value" are subjective.
Your argument is based on a false premise: that art exists to please the viewer.
Ah, the old "art exists for its own sake". I think this type of argument was the same thing used by Sophists to say that what is right is what is best for the ruler. Socrates exposed that, making certain relevant analogies. Medicine, for example, does not exist for it's own purpose; it exists to serve to the needs of the sick. Art does not exist "for its own sake". Art exists and is created because it pleases the creator and/or because it supports the creator. If it supports the creator, it can only do such because other people like it enough to pay the creator for it. In either case, "art does not exist for its own sake". It was created either because it's creation and use pleased the creator and/or because it can support the creator, in which case it must please others.
Art can be prolonged and preserved throughout history if it pleases the viewer. This is obviouisly why Beethoven's music has been preserved and become ever-more respected over hundreds of years, and will likely do so over hundreds and even centuries to come. It pleases the listener because something about it's various musical relationships is naturally pleasing to most human ears, because it has pathos. It has lasted so long because it has many layers of complexity, because it is eternally "fresh" due to it's incomprehensible complexity.
But the only reason why Shakespear is still around is because people have chosen to continue reading what he wrote, hundreds of years after his death. It is a subjective personal preference. But highly educated snobs want to try to claim that somehow the individuals acting on the free market are wrong, and that X modern artist's music or art or whatever is crap. Of course what they don't realize is that all consumer choice is simply a matter of preference, most if not all of which is eventually subjective. Your attempts to try to objectively analyze that which is subjective are similar to attempts by certain ignorant economists to place objective "true" or "absolute" value on various objects, without realizing the fact that all value is subjective by nature.
If someone chooses to spend more money money buying Britney Spears music than Beethoven's, that means they value her music above that of Beethoven's. Nothing you can say changes that, including various explanations of why Beethoven's music is "better" than that of Britney Spears, because all it amounts to is your subjective opinion that it is "better".
that people just don't think "alternative" music is as great as some of the liberal whiners think it is? There's a lot of snobbery, especially among professional musicians, as to what is "good" music. Madonna and Britney Spears are "bad music", Moby is "decent", and some obscure individual I've never heard of before is "great".
What these snobs fail to recognize is that there is no such thing as "good" and "bad" music. There is only music that they do or don't like, and that may be influenced by their musical education. Likewise, there is music that many people do like, or that many people don't like. It's all as subjective as chocolate vs. vanilla ice-cream.
1. President of the USA
2. Congressmen
3. Senators
4. Mayors
5. Generals
6. Anyone working at the IRS
7. Anyone working at the DMV
8. Anyone working at the US Post Office
9. Anyone working at the US Patent Office
10. Anyone working in the "Department of Defense"
Baldur's Gate? Might actually make for more of a plot. That aside...
The same guy who directed Mortal Kombat? Now you know the movie's going to suck!
that depends. If they're the owners, then it's not a "bribe", but a business transaction. If it's an executive who's offered $50-million and he makes a decision that doesn't benefit the owners of Google, then he's just committed a criminal action, and violated his contract. In the first case, there's no problem, because the owners can do whatever the hell they want: they're the owners -- it's theirs. In the second, the executive has committed a crime and violated contract.
I'm glad that Google decided to maintain their independence, but what would be so bad if they were taken over by MS? After all, it is the decision of those who currently own Google, not ours. They're going to make a decision based on what they think is good for them and their company.
Please, god, let this fall through! Freddy vs. Jason was bad enough -- now we have to have "Alien vs. Predator"? What kind of childish teenaged crap is this? What's next? Jaws vs. Jurassic Park?
then it's fine. What you define as "zealotry" I simply call being firm in your beliefs, and having a backbone, as opposed to compromising your "principles" to be more popular, which is what you seem to advocate.
zealotry is simply another name for a very strong belief in something. If that's a very strong belief in, for example, individual freedom or pacifism, there's nothing wrong with that belief. It's only when someone has a zealous belief in something that is dangerous (like forcing all women to cover their faces) and is willing to back that up with dangerous force, that zealotry becomes a problem.
that the laser wouldn't be effective; the point was that light is not "gravity-free".
gravity-free
Just as gravity is not free of the limitation that nothing may travel faster than the speed of light, nor is light free of the effects of gravity. The path light travels is affected by gravity; indeed, light can be completely trapped by a black hole.
in an anarcho-capitalist world, there would be no intellectual property. Thus, your scenario where a company prevents a vaccine from reaching everyone is unlikely, as other companies could make generic knock-offs.
The free market is not some oppressive institution created by the "evil capitalists" with their tophats. That's a Marxist fallacy. It is the natural result of the voluntary interaction of individuals interacting peacefully with eachother. As for private property, that's also a natural result of individuals interacting peacefully with eachother; private property comes into existence when previously unownedl and is homesteaded. It allows for individuals to avoid territorially fighting over the same set of resources like wolves.
http://www.mises.org/humanaction/chap33sec3.asp
h ttp://www.mises.org/humanaction/chap33sec4.asp
From your comments, I can only presume that you are a syndicate anarchist. I suggest you read the following chapters from Mises' "Human Action":
http://www.mises.org/humanaction/chap33sec1.asp
http://www.mises.org/humanaction/chap33sec2.asp
your comments about canadians are irrelevant, as are your ad hominem attacks on me. "Society" is simply short-hand for the cummulative effect of the interactions of all individuals with eachother. Society does not do anything. It is only individuals who act; even if they act in concord, it is individuals who are choosing to act in concord with other individuals. Your concept of us owing "society" something is non-sense, which amounts to the enslavement of those who work to those who don't.
h ttp://www.mises.org/rothbard/newliberty8.asp
Paying taxes is no-more an obligation than is accepting theft and robbery. Taxes, btw, largely go to support murder on a mass-scale. As for "helping the poor and sick", that is a moral virtue which is eliminated by taxes. Taxes to forcibly redistribute wealth from those who work to those who don't only create resentment, and enforce an unhealthy attitude of entitlement. Irrelevant of your assertions, the only thing we are obliged to do is not to initiate violence against anyone else. No-one is entitled to my labor without compensating me what I would accept of my own free will, nor are they entitled to the proceeds of my labor without compensating me.
Welfare and other programs to "help the poor" only worsen their situation, by encouraging individuals not to work, and creating a permanent class of individuals who don't work and are parasiting off of the work of those who do. I suggest you read the following references to understand this:
http://www.mises.org/rothbard/newliberty7.asp
Yes, I have "money" and thus a job. And no-one -- no matter their situation -- is entitled to my labor without compensating me for it, nor the proceeds of my labor without compensating me for it. I am not some uncaring asshole; however, neither am I an idiot. Simply giving people hand-outs does not help them. It only creates dependence. Indeed, I would go so far to say that private charity to "help the poor" which gives them handouts for nothing is actually harmful, as it enforces a sense of enitlement. The Mormons have an excellent private welfare system, where those helped are expected to get a job, or at least provide services to the Church, and the length of time they are helped is limited.
After all, they've had a whole lot of experience with fixing bugs...I mean, if you do something enough, you should get good at it, right?
for who is to enforce and interpret the constitution, but the entity in power, namely the State? The last 300 years have proved that no matter how carefully you've thought out a system of "checks and balances", the state will invariably grow and grow and grow, meaning more war (mass murder), more taxes (mass-enslavement), and the complete and utter violation of property rights (which are the foundation for all other "rights" we speak of).
The only way to protect against that is anarcho-capitalism. Under anarcho-capitalism, ultimate power rests with the consumer, and he exercises that power daily. Sure, the rich may have more "consumer power" than others, but as they exercise that power (buy things), they likewise diminish it. The only way for them to replenish their purchasing power is to continue making products that other consumers like, and in that area, they can be dethroned at any instant if they are sloth.
In an anarcho-capitalistic system, there would be courts and police, but they would be appointed by and dethroned by the consumers. see http://www.mises.org/rothbard/newliberty11.asp
The system you seem to support seems like anarcho-capitalism, except without private courts; hence, anyone can do anything they want, including murder, rape, and steal. This is hardly ideal, though certainly better than the current system (where the State has a monopoly on murder, rape, and theft, and engages in mass-murder periodically). Of course, in your system, norms could enforce rights; e.g., if someone is found to be a murderer, groups of individuals could blacklist him and refuse to sell him anything. This would be minimally effective, however, compared to having a privitized court system, with punishment determined by the victims: see http://www.mises.org/journals/jls/12_1/12_1_3.pdf
Btw, "society" never intervenes in anything. It is always individuals, not groups, that act. If they act together -- e.g., sing together -- it is still the individuals that are singing, albeit in chorus.