<p>Sorry for any typos in this. I don’t have time to look thru it. (:</p>
<p>@PengsPhils The standards need only apply to the vast majority of people. The rest, who are sane, will simply conform. These standards do not demand perfection, and they are not unattainable. If you disagree, I’d like to hear your actual reasoning behind that. </p>
<p>Fine then, if you want to define individualism like that, then I guess it’s not individualist or collectivist. NO, the world doesn’t consist of win-win interactions between humans. THAT’S THE POINT. That’s why Voluntarism is a controversial idea and not the unsaid status quo. However, human society is capable of having that as the status quo, unlike any other animals, or our ancestors. </p>
<p>Again, I guess we’re operating on different definitions of individualism. Let’s just talk about Voluntarism and the NAP, since that’s the meat of what I’m saying here. Voluntarism doesn’t necessarily mean capitalism. The NAP (Non-Aggression Principle) is consistent with an anarcho-capitalist society, but does not necessitate it. </p>
<p>The government provides us with stability? With all the wars, national debt, economic recessions, and even collapse within a few decades due to fiat currency. No, government were not created for stability. It was not a rational decision as many philosophers in the past argued, this has been talked about extensively. The state was created through agriculture, thus causing a surplus of resources. The most powerful in the tribe were able to acquire these resources through the support of the warriors and spiritual leaders, since they didn’t need to be shared collectively with the entire community, due to the surplus. This is the theory, and makes a lot more sense, when you consider how power-hungry and violent states have been throughout history. The concept of a social contract came a long time after the first states started to appear. I’m not even talking about “freedom above all else,” because the point is freedom is better over coercion, even from a utilitarian perspective in most cases. Again, I highly recommend the book Practical Anarchy. Hell, if you have any questions or rebuttals to the author, you can even call him on his podcast he does every Wednesday and Saturday night. They put you to the front of the list sometimes if it’s about a disagreement. </p>
<p>This is a very good question actually. If someone is, say, putting a gun to your head and saying you can’t publicly urinate, that is “oppression.” However, if people simply don’t want to see you urinate in public, that is their volition and there are organizations that could forcibly remove him (since he is initiating force by peeing in their presence when they don’t want him to) if he’s drunk or whatever, called Dispute Resolution Organizations (DROs). This is just one example of how these things could possibly be dealt with in a free society. (again, read that book!) :)</p>
<p>You’re saying humans are bad and so they need rulers. The rulers are human. See how that works? You continually call the bar I’m raising “perfection” thus calling it unattainable and a pipe dream without making any real arguments as to how it is. </p>
<p>Also, who said humans had to always do the right thing? The concept is just no coercion, empathy, and rational thought. That doesn’t mean “perfect” decisions 100% of the time. Again, if humans are so terrible, why would we have an institution in which humans have a monopoly of the initiation of the use of force over the rest of humans? Wouldn’t the worst humans be more attracted to this institution. Oh wait, we’ve had this for a few thousand years, and history says yes. </p>
But yeah, many people are purely ideological and emotionally defensive, which can be quite frustrating. I cringe at libertarians saying “because the free market,” instead of actually explaining the principles and mechanics of it. </p>