Walt Disney World: A Case Study in Anarchy

[tremendoustie]

Your last paragraph is illogical. Number one, because it's been well over 200 years since the constitution was ratified and it only took 6 years to replace the AOC. We morphed into this mess because we didn't adhere to the Constitution. On the other hand, we replaced the AOC shortly after we instituted it for many reasons. First and foremost was because the states refused to help pay the 70 million dollar debt that had incurred to bring them their freedom. This debt included paying soldiers and even private citizens who had provided supplies. Also, the British and the Spanish were chomping at the bit to invade again and the states gave the federal gov't the finger. They couldn't even keep an army or navy together to protect the new country under the AOC.

There were tariff wars between the states as well. States were imposing taxes on goods from other states. American merchants had a hard time competing with european rivals. States set up their own rules, made their own money and taxed each other. This created an unsound economy because the states refused to acknowledge the laws of other states. And there were no federal courts in place to settle the disputes between the states.

The AOC lacked the necessary basis to run the new country effectively. I think, had we adhered to the Constitution all these years since then, we might have evolved into a society that could handle a premise such as the AOC. We certainly are not a society that could handle it now.

The point was, your assumption that X replaced Y implies X is better than Y is false.

The states shouldn't have been taxing their citizens, or goods, or imposing tariffs at all, if we're talking about a voluntaryist approach. And, we'd be talking about militias, not standing armies. All of the problems you mention regarding the states at that time were caused by aggressively coercive policies. Regardless, free trade agreements, rather than a new central government, would have been a far better way to go to resolve disputes. If we used their logic in modern days to resolve trade disputes, instead of instituting free trade agreements with other countries, we'd form a world, or continental government. Any guesses how that would turn out?

They squashed the ant with what was an anvil at that time, and has turned into the rock of Gibraltar.

 

[rancher89]

WDW = "Westworld" in the future?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Westworld

http://www.bing.com/videos/watch/video/westworld-movie-trailer-westworld-trailer-with-new-music-man-vs/0601dd3251320d2210490601dd3251320d221049-1584550708692

 

[torchbearer]

I find it funny that someone would compare a place that is suppose to depict a fantasy world as a case study for anarchy.
lmfao.

 

[BuddyRey]

I'm a Voluntaryist, but may I play Devil's Advocate?

What I'm wondering is, when talking about how everything at Walt Disney World is run very efficiently and nothing is done that the property owners wouldn't approve of, doesn't that just sound like a privately-run state to you? I mean, it sounds kind of authoritarian. I know that the people who visit don't have to be there, but in a hypothetical future scenario in which entire regions, countries, and even the entire world has been converted into 100% private ownership, how will people even be able to travel or live without knowing the exact rules and regulations for whatever piece of private property they might be standing on at any given moment? And, even more importantly, once all of the private property has been bought up, won't non-property owners be akin to second-class citizens, like in the Colonial days? It seems to me that a "Propertocracy" would form eventually, and we'd find ourselves, for all intents and purposes, in just another oppressive state.

 

[Deborah K]

Regardless, free trade agreements, rather than a new central government, would have been a far better way to go to resolve disputes. If we used this logic in modern days to resolve trade disputes, instead of instituting free trade agreements with other countries, we'd form a world government.

We ARE forming a world gov't and agreements like NAFTA have led the way. Not because free trade is bad, but because agreements like NAFTA line the pockets and give power to a select few.

Once again, though, all of the list of problems you mention regarding the states at that time were caused by aggressively coercive policies.

"Aggressively coercive policies" by the states themselves - NOT the federal gov't - since the AOC gave it virtually no power. You can't have it both ways. The fact remains, the AOC was ineffectual at the time.

I have and will always contend that freedom is an ongoing struggle that will never end and will never be perfected - man's nature will not permit it. The systems we put in place to try to preserve freedom - no matter what they are - rely solely on the scruples of the people who apply the chosen system.

 

[tremendoustie]

We ARE forming a world gov't and agreements like NAFTA have led the way. Not because free trade is bad, but because agreements like NAFTA line the pockets and give power to a select few.

Certainly, I agree. I meant really free trade agreements -- not managed trade like NAFTA.

"Aggressively coercive policies" by the states themselves - NOT the federal gov't - since the AOC gave it virtually no power. You can't have it both ways. The fact remains, the AOC was ineffectual at the time.

You listed a number of problems that occurred because the states were using aggressive violence. I agree, agressive violence causes problems.

I also pointed out that these problems could have been resolved, even in the context of coercive states, better with interstate agreements, rather than central government. I think it's clear central government has caused far more problems than it could ever have hoped to solve.

I have and will always contend that freedom is an ongoing struggle that will never end and will never be perfected - man's nature will not permit it. The systems we put in place to try to preserve freedom - no matter what they are - rely solely on the scruples of the people who apply the chosen system.

Absolutely right. All systems rely on the scruples of people. The question is, would you rather rely on the scruples of elite and inevitably corrupt politicians thousands of miles away, or on the scruples of your neighbors?

Furthermore, don't you think we should have scruples that preclude our support of aggressive violence? I'd say that particular scruple is necessary for moral decency.

 

[tremendoustie]

I'm a Voluntaryist, but may I play Devil's Advocate?

What I'm wondering is, when talking about how everything at Walt Disney World is run very efficiently and nothing is done that the property owners wouldn't approve of, doesn't that just sound like a privately-run state to you? I mean, it sounds kind of authoritarian. I know that the people who visit don't have to be there, but in a hypothetical future scenario in which entire regions, countries, and even the entire world has been converted into 100% private ownership, how will people even be able to travel or live without knowing the exact rules and regulations for whatever piece of private property they might be standing on at any given moment?

As a property owner, you don't have the ability to do anything you want on your land. You can evict those who disobey your rules, but you can't steal a person's money just because they're on your land, for example.

And, even more importantly, once all of the private property has been bought up, won't non-property owners be akin to second-class citizens, like in the Colonial days? It seems to me that a "Propertocracy" would form eventually, and we'd find ourselves, for all intents and purposes, in just another oppressive state.

In colonial days, huge tracts of land were handed out by the king to a few individuals. If everyone had to acquire land by the fruit of their own labor, it would have been far more equitable.

Secondly, individuals and businesses compete. Consider the food supply. Everyone needs food -- is everyone that doesn't have a farm a "second class citizen"? Do we have a "farmerocracy"? No, because those who supply food compete for the business of those who don't. They don't get together into some massive conspiracy to withhold food from the masses in order to obtain huge amounts of wealth. Likewise, land owners would compete with each other to offer the best deals on rent, and they would often sell land to obtain money, and have to compete to offer the lowest price.

What's more, you refer to "all the property" being bought up -- but property is an expandable resource just like anything else. If we truly had problems with land scarcity, we could build underground or undersea, or on platforms, or on barges, or in space. That wouldn't happen unless land became extremely valuable, of course -- far more valuable than I'd anticipate in the foreseeable future.

 

[angelatc]

Because each operates on his/her own rational self interest and honors the rules made by the private property owner. For instance, there are designated smoking areas, and all day long I NEVER saw anyone smoking outside of these areas. Why? Because those smokers were honoring the private property owners rules based on rational self interest.

No, because every corner of the park is under surveillance by park security. If you light up outside a smoking area, they'll be on you so fast it will make your head spin.

The people that refuse to abide by the rules that the property owners sets forth are booted from the park, at gunpoint if necessary.

And every move you make in that park has already been anticipated.

 

[Deborah K]

I also pointed out that these problems could have been resolved, even in the context of coercive states, better with interstate agreements, rather than central government. I think it's clear central government has caused far more problems than it could ever have hoped to solve.

I tend to think the subversion of the Constitution has been at the crux of our problems - starting with the Federal Reserve Act of 1913 which usurped Congress's authority to issue currency.

Absolutely right. All systems rely on the scruples of people. The question is, would you rather rely on the scruples of elite and inevitably corrupt politicians thousands of miles away, or on the scruples of your neighbors?

My neighbors have the same potential for tyrannical behavior as any other human being has. My freedom is dependent upon my ability to defend it. As long as I can do that, it matters not whether "the tryant is 3 miles away or 3000 miles away". (Borrowed from 'The Patriot' )

Furthermore, don't you think we should have scruples that preclude our support of aggressive violence? I'd say that particular scruple is necessary for moral decency

Yes, I agree. Just because I support the Constitution does not mean I support aggressive violence. I'm tired of the two being juxtaposed.

 

[__27__]

I find it funny that someone would compare a place that is suppose to depict a fantasy world as a case study for anarchy.
lmfao.

I find it funny that torchbearer would make an off the cuff snide remark in a thread about anarchy without an ounce of rational thought, logic or relevance to the OP ... oh wait, no I'm not.

lmfao

 

[torchbearer]

I find it funny that torchbearer would make an off the cuff snide remark in a thread about anarchy without an ounce of rational thought, logic or relevance to the OP ... oh wait, no I'm not.

lmfao

It's a small world after all! you guyz crack me up.

 

[__27__]

No, because every corner of the park is under surveillance by park security. If you light up outside a smoking area, they'll be on you so fast it will make your head spin.

The people that refuse to abide by the rules that the property owners sets forth are booted from the park, at gunpoint if necessary.

And every move you make in that park has already been anticipated.

I must have missed the part where you stated anything different than I did. We both stated that they behaved through rational self interest to remain in the park and enjoy the money they spent. You also ceded that none of this required any government force, simply a private property owner, his rules, and his PDA (security).

 

[__27__]

It's a small world after all! you guyz crack me up.

pssst....your irrelevance is showing

 

[__27__]

Yes, I agree. Just because I support the Constitution does not mean I support aggressive violence. I'm tired of the two being juxtaposed.

The constitution exists only through aggressive violence. It purports to have authority over me, though I have given no consent to it's authority over me. If you believe that the constitution should have authority over me without my consent, then you support aggressive violence. If not, then you don't believe in the constitution.

So far as the constitution goes, Spooner was spot on. Whether it be one thing or another is irrelevant, this much is certain that the constitution exists and our current level of government exists; there by the constitution either authorizes the level of government we have or it is powerless to stop it, either way it is unfit to exist.

 

[tremendoustie]

I tend to think the subversion of the Constitution has been at the crux of our problems - starting with the Federal Reserve Act of 1913 which usurped Congress's authority to issue currency.

Certainly that has made things much worse. But it was the creation of a central government in the first place that enabled the abuse later on. And I'd say the subversion of the constitution started long before 1913.

You can't create a monster, write down some rules for it, and expect it to stay within them. A central, national government, with the capability to control the property of everyone is an insanely powerful entity. You can write down "insanely powerful entity X always will play nicely with others and never never become tyrannical, even though it has every opportunity to do so", but that doesn't make it magically occur.

It would be better not to create the entity in the first place.

My neighbors have the same potential for tyrannical behavior as any other human being has.

People are mixed. There are some who simply want to live peaceably with their neighbors and mind their own business. There are some who want to control the lives of everyone around them, or want the benefits of corrupt power. Which kind of person do you think is most likely to seek office?

There are some who speak honestly, even if it's not what people want to hear, and who will not violate principle even if it would personally benefit them, or allow them to succeed. There are some who are excellent liars who can fool anyone, who are willing to say anything to get ahead, and will take all the money that anyone will throw at them. Which kind of person do you think is most likely to succeed in obtaining office?

Then, once power is obtained -- what's that saying about power and corruption? How about absolute power?

Do you think politicians have reputations as scumbags for nothing?

Government as we know it creates an entity ready made for the worst, most power hungry, corrupt, and dishonest megalomaniacs among us, to wield power over all the poor individuals who just want to be left alone. It's like Christmas morning for them.

My freedom is dependent upon my ability to defend it. As long as I can do that, it matters not whether "the tryant is 3 miles away or 3000 miles away". (Borrowed from 'The Patriot' )

Try making a deal with a couple people in your neighborhood. Then, try changing your town politics. Then, try changing your state politics. Finally, try changing the national government, or the UN.

The farther up you go, the slimmer your chance of success becomes. The more local the government, the more accountable it is.

Yes, I agree. Just because I support the Constitution does not mean I support aggressive violence. I'm tired of the two being juxtaposed.

Does not article 1 section 8 endorse forced taxation? Heck, it didn't take long to see the violence -- take a look at the Whiskey rebellion.

I agree that at the least, the government should be restrained within the constitution -- it would be far better than what we have. But, the constitution still endorses immoral behavior.

 

[Deborah K]

The constitution exists only through aggressive violence. It purports to have authority over me, though I have given no consent to it's authority over me. If you believe that the constitution should have authority over me without my consent, then you support aggressive violence. If not, then you don't believe in the constitution.

So far as the constitution goes, Spooner was spot on. Whether it be one thing or another is irrelevant, this much is certain that the constitution exists and our current level of government exists; there by the constitution either authorizes the level of government we have or it is powerless to stop it, either way it is unfit to exist.

If a country agrees as a whole to the concept of a Constitution and the laws therein, then it cannot be construed to be violently aggressive except to those who are in disagreement of it - in which case they are free to leave the country.

 

[__27__]

If a country agrees as a whole to the concept of a Constitution and the laws therein, then it cannot be construed to be violently aggressive except to those who are in disagreement of it - in which case they are free to leave the country.

So because I am free to abandon my property and flee your aggression, you are no longer a thug? Are you a politician?

Your logic makes as much sense as saying that a victim of robbery consents to the robbery because they could have refused to obey the threats of the man pointing a gun in their face.

If you truly believe what you just said, you are a thug, perfectly content to force your will upon another human being and rationalizing their unwillingness to flee your oppression for anothers oppression as consent. If not, please clarify.

 

[Deborah K]

Certainly that has made things much worse. But it was the creation of a central government in the first place that enabled the abuse later on. And I'd say the subversion of the constitution started long before 1913. You can't create a monster, write down some rules for it, and expect it to stay within them. A central, national government, with the capability to control the property of everyone is an insanely powerful entity. You can write down "insanely powerful entity X always will play nicely with others and never never become tyrannical, even though it has every opportunity to do so", but that doesn't make it magically occur.

It would be better not to create the entity in the first place.

I do not believe the root of our problems is a central government. I've already argued why the AOC were ineffectual. I am, however, for a limited federal gov't, a limited state gov't, and limited county and city gov'ts.

I believe the root of our problems is the way in which we have issued our currency, and subverted the Constitution, especially as it pertains to the abuse and mis-use of the 16th amendment, which was passed in the same year as the Federal Reserce Act - that was by design. We have slid downhill into a cesspool of gov't expansion and corruption due to those two abominations. Repeal them both and watch the (central) gov't shrink.

People are mixed. There are some who simply want to live peaceably with their neighbors and mind their own business. There are some who want to control the lives of everyone around them, or want the benefits of corrupt power. Which kind of person do you think is most likely to seek office? There are some who speak honestly, even if it's not what people want to hear, and who will not violate principle even if it would personally benefit them, or allow them to succeed. There are some who are excellent liars who can fool anyone, who are willing to say anything to get ahead, and will take all the money that anyone will throw at them. Which kind of person do you think is most likely to succeed in obtaining office? Then, once power is obtained -- what's that saying about power and corruption? How about absolute power?

Do you think politicians have reputations as scumbags for nothing?

Ron Paul sought office. Peter Schiff, Rand Paul, and so on....this argument doesn't work. If we choose, as a people, to have elected representatives, then we should do a better job of holding them accountable.

Again, I don't think ratifying the Constitution is where we went wrong as a people. I think allowing its subversion is where we went wrong and where we are going wrong.

 

[Deborah K]

So because I am free to abandon my property and flee your aggression, you are no longer a thug? Are you a politician?

Your logic makes as much sense as saying that a victim of robbery consents to the robbery because they could have refused to obey the threats of the man pointing a gun in their face.

If you truly believe what you just said, you are a thug, perfectly content to force your will upon another human being and rationalizing their unwillingness to flee your oppression for anothers oppression as consent. If not, please clarify.

Your analogy is based on the wrong premise. If a society chooses a set of rules for itself that include a limited gov't funded through taxation, which was the original intent, then it cannot be considered violent aggression.

 

[__27__]

Your analogy is based on the wrong premise. If a society chooses a set of rules for itself that include a limited gov't funded through taxation, which was the original intent, then it cannot be considered violent aggression.

Society decides nothing. If you think that because you and a fewother people agree to something, and can therefore force me to abide by an agreement I never consented to, you are a tyrant. You have done nothing but rationalize and deflect, and you are every bit as responsible for the aggressive violence used against peaceful people as those you purport to stand against.

Tyranny by majority is no less oppressive or immoral than is tyranny by a monarh or oligarch. I would prefer if you keep your bloody contract to yourself and not feel the need to foist it upon anyone you wish at the point of a gun.