So, in other words, Marxism.
Imagine a society in which the state doesn't feel the urge to "structure society" at all...
As one of those nerds, I'm happy for the state to structure society in a way where my ability to do things with my brain matters than my ability to fight or lead people in fighting. But its foolish to believe that this structure is the natural order of things.
Wisest words I've read so far on HN.
Sounds great! So, who is going to build the roads, schools, hospitals, water sanitation, power plants, transportation, and ensure their upkeep and performance without conflicts of interest? Who is going to decide whether you can hire private armies to enforce your will or not? Who is going to make sure that those with power are held accountable to those without?
Please share your thoughts.
As for crime control(such as hiring a violent army, or shoplifting), companies could form unions that will turn down the business of "convicted" criminals. If you steal from a Walmart and you get caught by their union, then Walmart and every other retailer in that union isn't going to sell to you in the future. It's against the personal interests of a company to hire their own private army.
Sounds pretty tame to the actions of the US state, doesn't it?
Thus the private army which fights to free him would be agreed to beforehand.
And presumably Walmart would lose access to some of their markets as a result, and be fined, and/or and/or etc.
Agree with who exactly about those requirements?
The term "jurisdiction" itself implies some governing entity from which to exercise jurisdiction.
I'll assume you mean "the local commune", and when Wal-Mart ignores the rulings of the local commune and opens a shop anyways, what is the commune going to do about it?
Eject them by force you say from the local commune's militia? Wal-Mart will have a bigger army, because they can pay for it.
Eject them by force with a coalition of regional militias perhaps? That might work, but a regional coalition of actors with the right to use force isn't an anarchist commune, it's a government.
For example:
If you've got this one 'government' controlling everything, what happens if it just up and decides to start enslaving tens of thousands of people and sending them to die in horrific trench warfare? Who's going to stop this 'government' from doing that?
What if this 'government' starts outlawing certain plants and/or alcohol, and punishing people harshly for using them? Who's going to stop the 'government' from doing that?
What if this 'government' enacts racially discriminatory laws?
What if...
Don't turn the question around.
And don't forget that the one proposing to change the status quo is the one with the responsibility to prove that their proposed change is better, not simply "just as bad".
Nor the ability to opt out entirely.
Lenin on the topic:
It was solely against this kind of “abolition” of the state that
Marx fought in refuting the anarchists! He did not at all oppose
the view that the state would disappear when classes disappeared,
or that it would be abolished when classes were abolished. What
he did oppose was the proposition that the workers should renounce
the use of arms, organized violence, that is, the state, which is
to serve to "crush the resistance of the bourgeoisie".
We, humans, feel an almost primal need to structure everything around us, not just those of us who suffer from OCD.
Your imaginary libertarian/anarchistic society is about as realistic as pure Marxism. It denies human nature.
In a free nation, people would be able to organize a Marxist sub society, yes?
One axis is the capitalism-socialism axis, where you have a basic argument about redistribution and the role of wealth.
The other, and for the well-being of the economy much more important axis, is the market economy/planned economy axis. If you harness the power of evolution for you economy, there will be overall success. On the other hand, if all decisions are made in Moscow, things will suck.
Some of the more liveable places on the planet unite market economy and some degree of socialism. The nordic countries come to mind, also France, Germany.
Furthermore, while I do see the value in your proposition, I'd say that the pursuit of science alone has, going by historical precedent, proven to be insufficient. There are just too many examples of people ignoring the catastrophic circumstances that others are put through because of their scientific pursuits. Werner von Braun was justifying his work with the prospect of going to other planets. He probably wasn't happy that the V2 was aimed at London, or that he was utilizing an army of slave workers, but he sure as hell didn't let that stop him.
One way of looking at it is modulating the outcome distribution of the "game". Yeah, games are a great way to test out economic ideas in "competition" with one another, but the outcome distribution maybe should be more shallowly sloped, not a winner-takes-all game.
I do think one important aspect is that the state still does make some planning decisions, especially on infrastructure. The decisions may be implemented with market mechanisms, by putting out a tender for the operating contract. But the state decides which metro lines to build, how much service there should be, what fares should be, etc. The state also centrally manages both the healthcare and university systems as a "single payer", though some degree of internal markets exist within those sectors (especially in the universities).
To be fair, we sorta did.
This book discusses this problem in depth and suggests some possible solutions:
How Much is Enough?: Money and the Good Life
http://www.amazon.com/How-Much-Enough-Money-Good/dp/15905150...
They explore how the focus on unlimited growth and acquisition as an unquestioned good is a recent phenomenon in human history, and how almost all major philosophical and religious lines of thought throughout history have placed limits on the optimal amount of wealth and possessions to accumulate. They cover the same ground on Marx as this article, but include many other thinkers and systems of thought as well.
There are many countries that have realized this, and have implemented capitalism's competitive force in a controlled, positive sum manner while simultaneously leaving a generous safety net for those getting started or recovering from failure.
However, I believe that in the past few decades, modern nations have had no guiding principles other than economic growth. This begets a huge host of problems, mainly resulting from parasitic and wasteful economic practices which tend to be zero or negative sum when all externalities are accounted for.
If we look closely at history, our guiding principles have always been based on fear in the form of massive wars, whether waged or theoretical (WWI, WWII, Cold War, etc.). Increasingly I've become convinced that in order to address all of the failings of modern societies, we need to have national principles based upon something other than pure economic performance and/or war.
I sincerely hope that someday, modern nations will adopt scientific research as their guiding principle, and structure society around the continuous quest for knowledge. Research would be the economic engine that drives growth, and national spending would be based upon catalyzing scientific and technological progress. Professional science would be the developed world's biggest industry, which would facilitate implementations in private industry when technologies mature. Universities, hacker spaces, and all academic institutions would provide a plethora of training opportunities that would be sponsored by national spending, ensuring a citizenry that would be incredibly educated and willing to engage in research at all levels, from lab technicians to principal investigators.
As such, there would always be a job available in the nation's scientific infrastructure for every citizen at some level. The state would be the employer of last resort, but would also allow opportunities for incredible advancement. Furthermore, this would result in an extremely informed voter base, with the time to participate in direct and/or representative democracy.
I see this as being an incredible opportunity going forward. As automation proceeds to rapidly destroy middle and low class jobs, the entire concept of employment will have to be reevaluated. Capital will eclipse labor in the economic factors of production, leading to a necessity for people to find another meaning in life other than just "jobs" for the sake of survival. We'll need a guiding principle to structure our society around.
Thus, I humbly nominate the pursuit of science as our prime directive.