Capitalism sure is great, especially compared to how things are now. But consider that free trade only seems awesome by comparison because government is in the way right now. If humanity had never in history accepted the presence of organizations that violently force you to buy their service, capitalism would be "just a given" and humanity would have always had higher systems to aspire to than petty no-brainers like non violence, respect for property, and efficient trade. Would it be even healthier for humanity to support a system that allows itself more reliance on love and reputation and relies less on contractual deals kept together by threating violence against whomever initiates aggression? Once organized violence is off the table, capitalism is already a given, and at that point I think it useful to explore if there is an even more healthy creative environment for humans. When the day comes should we just all celebrate because government is gone and shut our investigation into improving morality, ethics, trust, relationships, and healthy cooperative systems?
When religion is gone, the answer to why murder is wrong is not simply "atheism", and likewise when government is gone the answer to healthy human systems worthy of voluntarily supporting is not "anarchy" or "voluntarism". Even in an anarchic society there is a very significant cost to establishing trust and preventing fraud. Any society that can reduce these costs likely through community, reputation and love will out perform systems that simply rely on the rules written in violently enforced agreements. What about a society or technology that renders obsolete the incentive to kill a human invading your property or to steal from someone who defrauded another? Once monopolies that coerce you into buying stop existing, I think humanity will find itself in a massive race of competing systems of voluntary human interaction, and the most successful ones will rely on threats and breakable agreements the least.
First off there's two different concepts: society and technology that you seem to use in this context interchangeably, and it's not clear how they relate. Next, why not expound on that, it seems that stopping there to what amounts as conclusion is a haphazard way of tying it all up:
You make the point that Capitalism is common sense in a society without monopolies centered on violence and operating through coercion/force. Alas, you jump over to Murder is common sense wrong because there's no religion to.. fear you into acting right..? I take it to mean that murder is wrong because do onto others/golden rule..? but you didn't expound on that obviously, which is why it devalues the next thought where you invalidated the subsequent next thought by saying that when government is gone the answer to healthy human systems worthy of voluntarily supporting.. is not voluntarism... which makes that thought nonsensical because voluntarism is no coercion/ no threats of violence, but simply, and ever unequivocally voluntary.
Then you invalidated your argument even more:
But offered nothing more than conjecture to that end, creating a train of thought that holds no coherent direction in rationale, it's leaps of logic. As a apropos, here's evidence that you are assuming far too much and haven't considered real world scenarios to anarchy/voluntarism: http://archive.boston.com/bostonglobe/ideas/articles/2009/12/06/the_mystery_of_zomia/
Then you invalidated that thought, like I was saying, by your very next sentence:
That is the essence of anarchism, voluntarism. That is exactly the core, the tenets of anarchy. And right before that thought you argued anarchy isn't going to achieve those ends because of fraud and establishing trust which is not only simplistic but obtuse and just more conjecture and assumptions, especially when you consider the principles of anarchy are not to create a better system but to allow people to chose their interactions and relations freely.
So it comes back to the closing thought which you argue will somehow stop a murdering psychopathic person simply through technology or society, and argue that stealing is what one does when they take from someone who defrauded someone else. Stealing and murder are very easy to define, and the course of action is equally simple: Murder the murderers, or cage them for ever. Take back your property and the damages you incurred, for not having said property, from the thief, or is that not the right, just, course of action? If not please provide examples/scenarios about said society or technology that will stop the incentive of defending my life and my property by killing the invader, and the incentive of recovering my stolen property through that same or similar society or technology.
Maybe then I can share my opinion about what will happen when monopolies that coerce us into buying are no more..
Downvoting a post can decrease pending rewards and make it less visible. Common reasons:
Submit
Sure... this article is more conclusion than argument. I had a hard time understanding your counter argument, but I can say this: The concept that fraud and trust are expensive to manage in a non-violent environment, and that it is possible to render both fraud and trust obsolete comes from what I have learned so far designing incentive architectures for decentralized autonomous organizations on Ethereum. Ethereum is a technology that allows commerce to take place in such a way that violence is essentially impossible, trust is obsolete, and allows rules to be established that make fraud always unprofitable. It is the many hours spent considering how competition will advance in the upcoming future for this voluntarist setting that gives me insight into the post above.
If the topic interests you, I currently have an in progress draft of the guidelines to rendering fraud, trust and violence obsolete using sovereign software. In the near future I will be releasing the finished version. If you enjoy it, feel free to add suggestions or comments on how to make it easier to understand and read. The intended audience is people designing decentralized autonomous organizations. (only I can see your comments) https://docs.google.com/document/d/1Oghfq1VFfGvScxzNWD14vNg_fEAC8HVrfVVVU3Al-gA/edit?usp=sharing
Downvoting a post can decrease pending rewards and make it less visible. Common reasons:
Submit