PDA

View Full Version : So instead of Anarcho-capatalism...




jack555
02-17-2009, 10:30 PM
How about this hypothetical situation.


Lets say 100 of us from this forum buy 300 acres of land (honestly) and start a minarchist society where taxes are mandatory but you can leave the 300 acres of land if you so choose. We give everyone 1 acre of land and we all agree on location. This means we have an extra 200 acres of land that we decide we as a whole collectively own, our minarchist government of the people owns it. The society grows and we aquire more and more land through honest means. We allow our offspring and some newcomers to come onto our land and join our government. Anyone can leave if they so choose but everyone must pay taxes because we honestly own the land and everyone is on it of their own free will. Also if you leave you forfeit your land and any collective ownership of land. Lets say we get to be the size of a state.

In a situation like this I think minarchy is a great answer, at least ethically. You do not use force on anyone.

I think this is a (very simplified) example of how minarchy could work. A lot of people here say it must be anarcho-capatalist or else you are contradictory but I diagree if the majority of the land is collectively owned and obtained honestly. What do you guys think?

Rael
02-17-2009, 10:33 PM
I guess one question is, if they have to pay taxes to keep the land, do they really own it? arent they just renting it?

heavenlyboy34
02-17-2009, 10:37 PM
This is minarchy? Sounds more like "conservatism". :p

user
02-17-2009, 10:41 PM
How about this hypothetical situation.


Lets say 100 of us from this forum buy 300 acres of land (honestly) and start a minarchist society where taxes are mandatory but you can leave the 300 acres of land if you so choose. We give everyone 1 acre of land and we all agree on location. This means we have an extra 200 acres of land that we decide we as a whole collectively own, our minarchist government of the people owns it. The society grows and we aquire more and more land through honest means. We allow our offspring and some newcomers to come onto our land and join our government. Anyone can leave if they so choose but everyone must pay taxes because we honestly own the land and everyone is on it of their own free will. Also if you leave you forfeit your land and any collective ownership of land. Lets say we get to be the size of a state.

In a situation like this I think minarchy is a great answer, at least ethically. You do not use force on anyone.

I think this is a (very simplified) example of how minarchy could work. A lot of people here say it must be anarcho-capatalist or else you are contradictory but I diagree if the majority of the land is collectively owned and obtained honestly. What do you guys think?
Jack, it's possible that no rights are violated in your scenario, but the problem is the huge risk in joining your society. The government could do something stupid at any time, and if your only recourse is to leave and automatically forfeit your land, you are taking on quite a risk by joining in the first place.

I don't mean to be too critical; I believe you are on the right track in looking for a way to achieve your goals without violating anyone's rights.

tremendoustie
02-17-2009, 10:43 PM
How about this hypothetical situation.


Lets say 100 of us from this forum buy 300 acres of land (honestly) and start a minarchist society where taxes are mandatory but you can leave the 300 acres of land if you so choose. We give everyone 1 acre of land and we all agree on location. This means we have an extra 200 acres of land that we decide we as a whole collectively own, our minarchist government of the people owns it. The society grows and we aquire more and more land through honest means. We allow our offspring and some newcomers to come onto our land and join our government. Anyone can leave if they so choose but everyone must pay taxes because we honestly own the land and everyone is on it of their own free will. Also if you leave you forfeit your land and any collective ownership of land. Lets say we get to be the size of a state.

In a situation like this I think minarchy is a great answer, at least ethically. You do not use force on anyone.

I think this is a (very simplified) example of how minarchy could work. A lot of people here say it must be anarcho-capatalist or else you are contradictory but I diagree if the majority of the land is collectively owned and obtained honestly. What do you guys think?

Your line of thinking is good, but if people really own the land, they can change their mind. Once they buy the land, you have no claim on it, and cannot demand taxes. You would be better off creating a voluntary association that people can leave if they choose, but which is not perhaps geographically contiguous. Or, buy up the land yourself, and form a commune, charging rent -- then you make the rules.

Conza88
02-17-2009, 10:48 PM
Sorry, but lmao. :D

jack555
02-17-2009, 11:03 PM
Sorry, but lmao. :D

Its just hypothetical. I wanted to make sure in my scenario rights were not being violated.

danberkeley
02-17-2009, 11:03 PM
How about this hypothetical situation.


Lets say 100 of us from this forum buy 300 acres of land (honestly) and start a minarchist society where taxes are mandatory but you can leave the 300 acres of land if you so choose. We give everyone 1 acre of land and we all agree on location. This means we have an extra 200 acres of land that we decide we as a whole collectively own, our minarchist government of the people owns it. The society grows and we aquire more and more land through honest means. We allow our offspring and some newcomers to come onto our land and join our government. Anyone can leave if they so choose but everyone must pay taxes because we honestly own the land and everyone is on it of their own free will. Also if you leave you forfeit your land and any collective ownership of land. Lets say we get to be the size of a state.

In a situation like this I think minarchy is a great answer, at least ethically. You do not use force on anyone.

I think this is a (very simplified) example of how minarchy could work. A lot of people here say it must be anarcho-capatalist or else you are contradictory but I diagree if the majority of the land is collectively owned and obtained honestly. What do you guys think?

As long as it's voluntary.