It started with an idea: "Planet Government".
Someone proposed, a couple of decades ago, that we find a dead world somewhere and let all the rulers and would-be rulers of the world emigrate there, along with all their militaries. And those who just can't get along with others.
Let them fight it out among themselves as much as they want, but warn them that if they ever return to Earth, they will be expected to abide by the Zero Aggression Principle and the Covenant of Unanimous Consent, and if they don't they will be subject to self-defensive actions. Just like any other thug. They will never again have a "position" or any veil of legitimacy to hide behind.
It wasn't an exile, but was completely voluntary. And, it was shocking how many jumped at the chance to live in a constant Hell of fighting and power struggles, rather than forgo getting what they wanted by coercion.
The authoritarian types were already becoming miserable here. Too much peace. Too few controls, and too little "crime". They had already lost power, and since that was all that gave their lives meaning, they chose to leave rather than adapt to a voluntary life.
It took several years, and a LOT of money, willingly donated, but it did happen. They launched long ago. The thing is, no one here knows if the ship ever made it to its destination or not. Their ship does have the capability to communicate with Earth, but no one was interested enough to monitor their progress.
I hope that whatever happened to them, they are happy. And I hope they never try to come back. But if they do, we are ready for them. Without their lingering influence, society is more "polite" than ever- by which I mean it is the rare individual who goes anywhere unarmed- almost everyone is ready to defend against theft or aggression. And there are anti-asteroid hobbyists who could deal effectively with the threat of an incoming hostile ship or missile.
Life is better here without them.
Monday, December 10, 2012
Thursday, June 28, 2012
I actually had to go pick up some mail today.
Normally the delivery comes to my house, no matter which service brings it. Not that I get anything too often, since almost everything is "delivered" electronically. But a couple of times a week I actually get a physical piece of mail.
But today I got an email notification that I had a bit of mail at the local "post office" that had come in after the delivery had left. I could wait until the next delivery (in a couple of hours) or, if I would be out of the house, I could get it as I went by. This was something I had been anxiously awaiting, so, I went up to the drive-through window, swiped my card, and took the mail. So inconvenient! But no one said Libertopia would be perfect.
Thursday, December 15, 2011
I touched on this a little in the previous post, but most people in Libertopia hire someone, either an individual or a company, who works as their representative. To handle day-to-day business that could affect their reputation rating.
This representative goes by many different names ("reps", "watchers", "negotiators", etc.), none of which is important.
These "reps" will make arrangements for arbitration if needed, but will usually actually negotiate you out of it.
Obviously, if you are really a jerk who can't stay out of trouble, they will either charge you a very large price for the trouble you cause, or they will refuse to represent you anymore. Representing a known troublemaker could damage their reputation, after all.
Monday, December 12, 2011
So, how exactly does this "arbitration" thing work here in Libertopia?
Suppose you have a dispute with a neighbor. You can't reach an agreement on your own- each of you thinks he is right and refuses to budge. Do you start beating the neighbor with a rake? Well, hopefully not.
The common solution is to seek arbitration.
Now, there is no "only way" this is done, but there are some fairly consistent trends, and this is what I'll describe to you now.
Either you choose a mutually-satisfactory arbitrator, or you allow your respective representatives (you do have one, right?) to get together to hire one for the case. There are many who offer arbitration services full-time, and even more people who have gained a reputation for fairness and wisdom who are sought out even though it is not their "real job". Any fees are paid up front.
If a person simply refuses to enter arbitration, or will not agree to any arbitrator that is suggested, they have already "lost". I'll discuss the "loser" later.
The arbitrator will hear both sides, and do any investigation he deems necessary (either personally or through investigators employed for that specific purpose).
Rights, and respect for liberty are the top considerations. Contracts and other agreements fall only slightly below those- and it will be considered whether those agreements violate natural rights in any way. That isn't always a deal-breaker, though.
The decision is then rendered, and the parties will have already agreed to abide by the decision as a part of signing on for the arbitration.
Now, there is no "enforcement" of a decision. So how do you make the "loser" follow through? You don't. However, failing to abide by the decision is a huge strike against an individual's reputation, and reputation is very important in Libertopia.
The "winner" who is left holding the bag is perfectly free to spread the word about the failure of the "loser" to live up to his obligation. Most people will choose to avoid entering into deals with people who are known to not be trustworthy. Or, they will charge more due to perceived risk.
And if you think it is getting hard to hide from your past in the early days of the internet, wait til you get here! Sure, it can be done, but it is complicated and inconvenient enough that it will still usually remove the uncooperative fellow from your life so that at least he won't be bothering you anymore. And even if he runs far away, his past will probably still come back to haunt him since a man without an established reputation will find it hard to do business with anyone (without, once again, paying a premium).
Is this perfect? No. Fallible human beings are involved. Is it the best system yet devised? I certainly think so, and so do a lot of others apparently, since it is all completely voluntary and very few choose to opt out.
Wednesday, December 7, 2011
My suggestion that readers ask about specific concerns has brought forth fruit.
Christopher asks: "How does the free society of the future deal with the very complex problem of parents who willfully do harm to their children?"
Good question. One such possible case, with tragic results, has been discussed before. But, what about "in general"?
First of all, a few explanations.
- Society doesn't deal with anything in Libertopia (or anywhere else); individuals do.
- Initiation of force is no one's right, regardless of relationship or age.
- And, lastly, "their children" is only an expression of relationship when other humans are being referred to; never ownership.
Yes, child abuse still happens in Libertopia. So does murder and theft. The difference is that there is no "legal" haven for the abusers anymore. Anyone can step in.
If a child is being abused there are plenty of people who will advocate or intercede for that child if he doesn't feel confident to take matters into his own hands.
However, if, in spite of being informed that he does not have an obligation to submit to any abuse, the child still wants to remain in the abusive relationship, no one has the right to save him. That doesn't mean it doesn't happen (especially when imprisonment/isolation prevents informing him of his choices), just that when it does happen, arbitration is a possibility. Remember, sometimes you just do what you feel you must, whether you have a right to do it or not, and accept the consequences of your actions.
In arbitration all the details of the situation are probably going to come out. If the parent feels confident that he can prove his innocence, then he will probably go ahead and insist on arbitration. If not, he may quietly stand down.
Also, remember that just about everyone here relies on a good reputation, and on good character underwriters* and insurers*, for just about everything. From arbitration insurance to business dealings. Refuse arbitration, or refuse to abide by its outcome, and you may be dropped like a hot coal by those you were previously involved with.
Remember that if you see someone being attacked in public in Libertopia, it would be a very strange thing indeed for no one to step in and rescue the person being attacked; to defuse the situation no matter what. Libertopians are almost universally armed and ready to come to the defense of anyone.
Hidden abuse is a little different, but someone will have a strong suspicion if it is happening, and there isn't much reason to look the other way. As long as certain steps are taken to make sure you don't go too far in your accusation, arbitration usually goes fairly easy on people who made honest mistakes when accusing someone of abuse, and restitution is normally not too high- plus concerned people often chip in to help. Plus, since there is no State to take away children on the basis of an unfounded accusation, parents who are exonerated usually don't feel too much resentment, since they would also have the best interests of the child at heart. (I've known of one case where an accused child abuser become a model parent after the accusation was dismissed- I suppose simply to avoid the appearance of problems in the future.)
I'm sure mistakes are probably made on occasion. But in just about everything, the child has the final say in where she wants to be, if he or she can speak or show a preference. As human beings, that is their right, even if you or I would disagree. It is the right of association.
I hope that answers your questions, Christopher.
(*I will have to go into all of this in more detail sometime.)
Monday, December 5, 2011
I know it's been a while since I sent one of these dispatches from your liberated future.
That doesn't mean Libertopia imploded; it means nothing noteworthy has happened recently.
If you want, you can always post a comment asking how such-and-such works out in Libertopia. Perhaps I just never considered that particular issue important.
Until next time, exercise your liberty so it doesn't get all flabby and gross.
Sunday, October 16, 2011
You may be surprised that voting still goes on in our free society. The "right to vote" applies to everyone. Adult, child, FurLumpz, cat, dog, trout, etc.
No, "the vote" has not been extended. It has been "depoliticized".
No, "the vote" has not been extended. It has been "depoliticized".
Animals have always had exactly the same right to vote that humans have. Everyone can, and does, vote- decide- to do what they want as long as it imposes on no one else of their own species. People have no right to impose their wishes on someone else by a majority [sic] vote. And they never did. This is what political "voting" was all about. And it was wrong.
Instead, if I decide to paint my house purple, by my actions of doing so I have "voted" to live in a purple house. My neighbors have no right to "vote" to force me to paint my house a different color. If my neighbors complain too loudly about my purple house, I can paint it another, possibly more annoying, color- or I can move away, or I can shun my neighbors (even as they may choose to shun me). But no one is forcing anyone to do anything just because they get more people to agree on one side of an issue than the other. Because, simply put, no one has a right to not be offended.
If someone decides it would be a good idea to build a water treatment plant, he must convince people to sign on, and pledge their own money, to the project. If someone doesn't want to participate for some reason, he is not coerced into going along. Maybe he is suspicious of the additives the treatment plant will use, or maybe he prefers his water's taste. Whatever the reason, his choice is no one else's concern. He will not get to hook up to the treated water once the project is finished without paying (just as everyone else did), but if he chooses to rely on his old water source, he is perfectly free to do so.
If my daughter decides not to eat brussels sprouts, she votes with her actions to not do so. I have no right to hold her down and force my will that she eats brussels sprouts, not even if I get her mother to agree to vote with me.
A dog will vote to eat his food or not, or to nap on the porch or under a shade tree.
Everyone gets to vote. No one gets to rule by tyranny of the majority. Not even if it is a "good idea". If the idea is that good, convince everyone to go along.
The clearest description of legitimate voting is through the illustration of the "pizzacracy". You vote for what you want, and if the results are not to your liking you opt out and are not obligated to pay. You are then free to arrange your own group that is more to your liking. Everything is done by unanimous consent.
Voting (and "politics" in general) was a terrible way to "run" a society, and my life is better off without that destructive mythology imposing itself on me and violating my liberty.
Anyway, I vote that it is time to go eat. Adios!