>
> All the definitions of organised in my dictionary presume some guiding
> force external to that which is being organised. So no, it wouldn't.
Organised, as far as I'm concerned is the way in which something is structured.
If something is organised, then someone, or a body of individuals has sat
down and decided how things are going to be structured.
> >Are we assuming, at this point, that there are no more states left in the
> >world?
>
> Nope. They would simply be groups of people who own some land. If they
> have representatives through whom I can deal with that group then all
> the better for me; makes life simpler.
What I mean is, does our current state, for example, cease to exist, while
other states, such as America continue to exist. Does your ideal rely on all
current states in the world being dissolved, and the implementation (if I
can get away with using that word) of your theory being universal?
> I'm talking about a contract. A contract between those individuals and
> their chosen leader.
This is the absolute fundamental idea on which *all* states are based.
> Forget state. It has different meanings for each of us and we're using
> it inconsistently. And the right I'm talking about is that afforded them
> by their contract, please don't go tangenital on that because we could
> be here for the rest of our lives talking about rights.
Yup, it's one of the most tricky little niche's in political theory.
Quick note on Rights though. Man has natural rights when in a state of nature.
Basically: Eat, Shit, Fuck, whatever you like....
When other people are involved contracts are made, and rights are held by that
contract between the people. It's kind of like a trading currancy. But it's
purely internal. No one outside that contract has any claim against you.
> I would join forces with lots of others, no doubt.
> I would employ the services of many, no doubt.
> I would form all of these associations voluntarily.
And this is the only way to survive in such a system, agreed.
>
> That is how I see it operating. We do not necessarily (IMO) end up back
> where we started.
Well, IMO, we will, but it's all down to personal perception at this point.
> Do you see the one word in the previous paragraph
> which isn't a description of where we are now? Voluntarily.
Yup, but the step between Volountary and compulsory is a very small one,
and I can see a point where it would be frowned on not to offer something
volountarily, so some bright spark decides that if we make it compulsory
then there wont be any of this kind of tension or unfairness.
Square one ... here we come.
> >Hmmm, it would be interesting, but I'd like a get out clause.
>
> You've got one. Identify the person or organisation you feel is best
> able to protect you and provide for you and cater to your every need,
> (your mother?) ... and then strike the best deal you can with them,
> where you give up a certain amount of your freedom in return for their
> services.
Essentially you've got that situation already. If you don't like the
state in which you live, go and live someplace else.
I see the advantage of your system here though, because geographical boundaries
are no longer a problem. To uproot and leave the country is an effort, and
not cheap, and involves leaving family and friends. If you can get the
system to come to you, then things are much better.
> >Do you really believe, though, that people, given the opportunity not to
> >pay taxes, are going to bother.
>
> I SAID VOLUNTARY CONTRIBUTIONS, NOT TAXES.
Language only. These volountary contributions are in the place of current
taxation, hence the reason I used the word.
> Please, read the posts.
What posts?
> Therefore nobody in the world donates money to charity.
How much do you think charities make in comparison to governments?
> Nobody in the
> world gives cigarettes to homeless people in doorways.
I don't, but then I smoke Silk Cut Ultras.
> Where's the
> incentive, huh?
There is none.
> It couldn't simply be that I might want to share some of
> my comparative success with those less fortunate?
Maybe, but you might be a nice guy. Mr Mean isn't going to give a fuck.
> >> If enough people care enough about any given issue, something will be
> >> done.
> >
> >Is this a majority? If it is, then your model is just degenerating back into
> >that which you [I assume] despise.
>
> I don't know what you assume but it appears to be wrong.
I assume (from reference to previous posts) that you are unhappy with the
effectiveness of democracy. Democracy is done by majority which seems to
be what you're suggesting here. That's what I picked you up on.
> >> >Does it have a currency?
> >>
> >> Of course.
> >
> >And who decides what it is?
>
> Any two or more people or organisations who wish to do business with
> each other. Do you really think the banking industry couldn't survive
> without government?
It could now, but if government did not exist before banking, then it wouldn't
have been pretty.
> Democracy is a lie.
Thank you for confirming my assumption.
> Why don't you go your way and I go mine? (sounds like a song) Wouldn't
> that be nice.
Ahah. Now, I talked about this in the Foetal stages of this thread. About
the setting up of the social contract. Remember? I was told it wouldn't
work, but I don't see why it can't.
> >Yup, peer pressure.
>
> Which, I suspect, are far more influential than any laws.
Of course they are ... now inject, or you won't be 'ard.
> >> >Where does this money come from?
> >>
> >> >From whatever talent or resource I sell for a living, of course.
> >
> >Are all individuals private self-employed people, contracting their services
> >out, or can you work for someone?
>
> We're all working for ourselves Richard. We do so by selling our
> services for the best price we can get.
This was a serious question, concerning the nature of your state, 'cos I'm
trying to build up a fairly definitive picture of it. There's no need to
sound patronising.
Drakir