Quote (cambovenzi @ Apr 13 2017 08:58am)
You have to prevent the government from having the powers they want to use and abuse.
Abolishing free speech, particularly of those who want to limit government, is not the answer.
Banning political speech does not solve the problem. It merely entrenches incumbents and the establishment and protects them from dissent, while the extensive government powers and programs continue to exist and be influenced by people with connections to government.
Contrary to popular opinions: campaign donations, superpac donations and documentaries about Hillary are not the only influences on government and its officials.
No. There are numerous books and lectures explaining how this might work and has worked in the absence of government. (governments which btw regularly infringe on property rights)
You not understanding the basics of how a system would work is not the same as it being impossible.
Rather than voluntaryism being a rigid single model, it is freedom for people to try a wide range of different models without being shutdown and forced into a corner by an intrusive monopolistic coercive government.
You have to actively prevent your government from doing things you don't like, while people with more resources actively work to do things you don't. This just isn't feasible as far as keeping everything you disagree with away from the government. You aren't going to ever have a government that does mostly what you want in any society larger than a few hundred people.
Of course money isn't the only influence, but it's a damn powerful one. In particular it's powerful for legislatures since their races typically don't receive nearly as much attention as the presidential campaign, and they are arguably more important than the presidency.
There are numerous books on why it wouldn't work. Unless you have an overarching force to enforce contracts and property rights the one with the biggest stick will always have the most. Yes, governments regularly infringe on property rights, but they also defend property rights much more frequently.
"It's not a rigid single model" is just a way to keep a proposed model as loose as possible, so it can't be pinned down under any specific criticism. If I give any criticism the goal posts can be moved endlessly by just saying "well, then don't do it that way since it's not rigid! How will we prevent it from being done that way? By not being rigid!"
This post was edited by Thor123422 on Apr 13 2017 03:41pm