Yep first thing that happened was shitcan the kids. They knew kids had very little relative risk but the argument was it's worth them losing an education, you don't want Grandma to die do you?
I lived in Rojava and they are quite capitalist outside a few sectors. Go someplace like qamislo and it's basically capitalism with street vendors and stark disparity of wealth and poverty. However you can get free bread by simply appearing at a few stalls.
The socialist (leftwing anarchism adjacent), mustache-jesus ("apo") stuff is far more revered in the military and certain communes.
The effectiveness of the state’s enforcement is orthogonal to whether you believe it is their responsibility.
Do you believe that the state should be trying to enforce justice for rape, or do you think it should be the responsibility of a “self-organizing” posse?
If we agree that it is the state’s responsibility, then we can talk about ways to improve it. But then, you are already not an anarchist.
I don't view justice as a responsibility but rather as a right for the victim. Whether the victim stops the rape with a 9mm hole in the aggressors head, sends posse, or sends a judge to do it are private matter for the victim to choose not for me to dictate.
The problematic parts come up with how you pay the judge (stealing from 3rd parties), jailers etc and much the other stuff the state does. It would probably be more pragmatic to basically privatize the judge/court.
> I don't view justice as a responsibility but rather as a right for the victim. Whether the victim stops the rape with a 9mm hole in the aggressors head, sends posse, or sends a judge to do it are private matter for the victim to choose not for me to dictate.
So again, think of murder instead of rape. The victim isn't going to enforce a right to justice - they already failed to do so. Now what? Do you just shrug and say "you should have defended yourself better"? In that environment, can you not see how much it would absolutely suck to be a loner who is both physically and financially weak?
Worse: Can you not see that you are in fact physically, financially, and socially weak? You're going to be the prey. So think very carefully before you advocate this "utopia".
The state in this case is merely your select buddies, who also murder and rob others and especially the weak.
While I acknowledge the difficulties in justice with murder you're just arguing over which group of buddies is the bestest, and picking the biggest murderer of them all. Not seeing any improvement.
Yep which is why I'm ancap anarchist not socialist anarchist which seems almost an oxymoron. You cannot take things from people, like means of production they've produced, and force them to share without aggression.
All anarchism stems from voluntary interactions, which depends on free trade .
Take away the state and I can self defend my capital from aggression with ak47. Under anarchism then what you going to do? Either you attack me, get someone else to attack me, or have a 'not' state do it.
Or just maybe leave me alone and agree to trade capital voluntarily. All options.
How would you defend your all 100 properties at once without a state? If by capital you mean your personal belongings, then they can easily stay with you. Anti-capitalism concerns monopoly on land, resources, machines relevant for production and intellectual property like patents. Some people don't have access to those and they have to either become slave workers or starve.
My permit says "NO building code or utility inspections will be performed."
I signed that "right" away with the county recorder, it was no problem. Been able to do that for 2 decades in my county. Turns out when people build what they like you get weird shit but little to none of the "but muh codes" fire hysteria came true.
Meanwhile California morons building with regulatory checks out the wazoo get ate up in wildfires. It's like watching actual insane people.
Yes, some places in the US DGAF, and in others there's not even a municipality to issue a permit, let alone enforce one. However, these situations typically are in places where high occupancy buildings don't exist.
The deadliest structure fires in history pretty much have one thing in common: people couldn't get out. There's something to be said for a homeowner who builds their own death trap, but it's a good thing that large commercial properties have to jump through hoops to ensure they don't create a death trap for hundreds of others, just to save a few bucks.
Wildfires are something else entirely -- forests are not man made and their creation is not subject to laws. You wouldn't argue that laws against murder are silly just because you could be attacked by a wild animal, would you? We regulate buildings because people build them.
Most forests today kind of are, in as much that the way a forest is 'designed' is down to a whole collection of active choices made by the forest owners to intervene or not intervene in different ways. There are lots of things that one can do to mitigate the risks of forest fires, and doing or not doing those things is a choice they make.
Yes, I'm aware, but you know what I mean. Trees don't have to file for a permit before they germinate. The vast majority of trees are not planted by humans.
My point is that there is probably almost as much that can be done to mitigate forest fire risks as there is to mitigate house fire risks. We know which forests have a high risk of forest fire and we know various techniques that can be used to lower that risk. If we choose to let forests close to where people live become an unnecessarily high danger for forest fires (or let people live close to 'dangerous' forests), then that is a choice.
The vast majority of trees are not planted by humans
The vast majority of trees close to large number of humans are however owned by someone who responsible for them and gets to decide if they grow up and become big trees or not.
I'm arguing it's a good thing California will let humans choose to man make a house wildfire trap (forest didn't pick you to put a house there) and they should apply their standard of "die in a fire if you like" to everything. I believe, counterintuitively, it will save lives.
Of course the building inspector sees the charred bodies he didn't prevent, but he doesn't see the frozen and exposed ones he created through his policies that handicap supply. The incentives of code and inspection are horribly perverse.
The point of building codes and code inspection is so that people don't put others in danger. And in the places that there is a shortage of housing, it is hardly fire code that is limiting supply. It's not as if we could leave out sprinklers and fire escapes from buildings, and all of a sudden, housing would be cheap. The limiting factors of building housing are not this.
It's not as if we could leave out sprinklers and fire escapes from buildings, and all of a sudden, housing would be cheap.
There's a lot more to fire codes than just sprinklers and fire escapes. If you could ignore all fire codes (and related requirements) then it would definitely be possible to build both more and cheaper apartments than you can now. Not saying it's necessarily a good idea, and they almost certainly wouldn't be nice places to live. But a lot of people would take unsafe, uncomfortable and affordable over safe, comfortable and completely unaffordable.
They absolutely are. Building to code costs a lot of extra money, and for good reason, because we don't want people to die. If we didn't have codes one could build a capsule hotel style lodging and easily fix the housing situation.
Have you ever built a house? It would not even be possible for me to build one with inspections, I would lose my day job. And my house was 40k to diy, do you have any idea how burdensome an up to code contractor installed sprinkler system would be against such frugal costs.
Having built my house the price and accessibility absolutely spirals out of control with code inspections. Remove this madness and let the masses do what I've done.
No US codes are going to require sprinklers in your single family home. But if someone is building a new medium-rise apartment building with hundreds of people sleeping in it, sprinklers are not a limiting factor in construction, and it is too much of a risk to build it without.
Our regulations often treat different structures in different places differently because they have different risks. That's okay. Your custom tiny home shouldn't be treated the same as an urban high rise.
Yes west of Chinatown. Cermak I think. Spice warehouse in days of old IIRC. Was used for raves decade+ ago. Place is a trip. I camped on top of it once when I was homeless.
I've forgotten of that place for years. Truly magical. Thank you for the memory. I almost shake recalling it.
It sounds like maybe 165 N canal if my recollection from when I was condo shopping is correct (it was a bit above my price range, but I seriously envied the large storage space). The condo I ended up buying (a converted office building in the east loop) has a similar hall of storage rooms but they are much much smaller and not practical for anything other than storage.
Sorry, it’s been a long time and I don’t remember. I know that we were looking for places that were within a 15-20 minute walk from the Loop offices where we worked.
Obtaining information through books is like trying to put out a fire by sucking water out through a straw.
The printing press was great but it's a slow and constrained way to get into from the greatest minds. I read voraciously as a child but when I came to university I pretty much stopped reading when the experts were there to teach in real life using all the senses.
If I were a 9 year old today I'd probably pick YouTube over reading. When I built my house I found myself learning way faster watching tradesmen and listening to them on YouTube than having to suck that information through a tiny straw that is reading a book . I find myself truly hating reading now, far too inefficient.
This is why I'm for total deregulation of healthcare. Government fucks it up so bad hamstringing access that some hack work with 15 minutes of YouTube training plus whatever pills drop out the dark web is often better than not being able to access it at all.
Right now we basically end up going to Mexico if we can help it, where there's basically no real oversight or regulation to raise cost so long as the doc/pharmacy pays off the cartels.
This doesn't really work. An unregulated market has every opportunity to undercut a regulated market in almost every dimension. Do you expect that a highly regulated market would become sustainable let alone affordable? You may as well just demand that regulations are removed.
The only way this works is if the government subsidizes the regulated market such that it is accessible (and sustainable) to an appropriate market. It also generally puts some populations at severe disadvantages, and usually those populations are disadvantaged to begin with.
This may seem good to you but, unless your fellow man is equally wealthy, it is problem detrimental to your fellow man.
If you play the idea out (I’ve thought about this for years, perhaps you have fully considered it).
I think this works for people of all economic backgrounds.
There would be multiple competing standards for lower cost businesses, will the low standards business exist if people get sick, or will a slightly higher priced but much safer low cost standard excel in the market?
I think many of the issues you bring up already exist in the current market.
That's why I am in favour of more city states like Singapore, or at the very least towards pushing more responsibilities from the federal level to the state level. (The Catholics and EU call that concept 'subsidiarity', handle everything as locally as possible and have the higher levels only there to help when the lower levels can't handle it.)
Eg the FDA ought be to dissolved, and replaced with state level agencies. The state level agencies are, of course, free to cooperate and coordinate. Comparable to how the traffic signs work already in the US.
It's good for Hawaii and New York to have the same road signs, but they can agree on that voluntarily. No need to have a central party force them. Similarly, it's good for both states to have the same or similar rules on drugs, but no need to force them.
See also how the recent wave of cannabis legalisation has been driven by the states. I want to see more of that innovation and experimentation.
> I want a market where I can choose a highly regulated healthcare system or a system with no regulations and a system somewhere in between.
In what I suggest each state would most likely still have mandatory regulation, but it's a lot easier to move between states to find a place that suits you best, instead of moving between entire countries.
I have lots of sympathy for your position, and I would hope that at least some states would take a more laissez faire approach. But the policies you get will ultimately still be decided by what's popular with voters, and they can be a fickle bunch.
> Similarly, it's good for both states to have the same or similar rules on drugs, but no need to force them
I can't wait for drugs having to be certified safe in 50 different jurisdictions, instead of one, with 50 different agencies, each with a different set of politicians putting their thumbs on the scale having their own rules for them.
That'll really bring down medical costs, and will not at all destroy the incredible economies of scale that a single 350 million person national market creates.
I also can't wait for the cross-state litigation when an upstream state's equivalent of the EPA will be paid off to allow a firm to dump toxic waste into a river, that will be poisoning the people downstream.
States can voluntarily choose to have a unified certification process, exactly to enjoy the economies of scale you are describing.
> I also can't wait for the cross-state litigation when an upstream state's equivalent of the EPA will be paid off to allow a firm to dump toxic waste into a river, that will be poisoning the people downstream.
How much is that happening between eg Canada and the US at the moment?
So, the best case outcome is a less-democratic version of status quo (just like how California unilaterally drives ~all automotive regulations in the country, with nobody else having any input on them, despite every state having the 'freedom' to make their own), and the worst-case is a complete collapse of the common market.
Is that really what you want? It sounds absolutely mad to me. Your ideology is driving you to ask for a monkey's paw.
I'm not talking about road signs, which is completely irrelevant to problems common markets solve, I'm talking about how California can unilaterally apply its emissions regulations to the whole country, by virtue of being the largest, and most discriminating market in it.
Other states get the choice between not having cars, and following California's rules, despite having no input into them. Because it's uneconomical for manufacturers to produce custom, per-state models.
You're still forced to follow the rules, except that in the case of federal rules, you have democratic input into them, because you elect both the federal legislature and the executive.
In the case of non-federal rules, the largest state will set the rules for you, and you won't have any say in it (at least, if you want to have things like cars and drugs). That's not a choice.
Or, you could always take a look at how abortion rights are currently handled. Texas is suing people who get abortions in Colorado. Truly magical stuff. I'm sure the people in Colorado 'volunteered' for that.
Yes please. We don't need to get rid of the FDA, just make it optional. If I want to trust the government's opinion of a doctor or drug, I can look for the FDA seal of approval.
> This is why I'm for total deregulation of healthcare.
Is that a good idea for an industry that seems filled with completely immoral bastards that'll screw over everyone ("they'd sell their own grandmother!") to make an extra cent, or save themselves a cent?
I could see it might be a good thing where an industry has a good reputation for fair dealing. US health care doesn't seem to fit that description though.
Covenant is the equivalent of a Eula poisoned into software you've purchased. If you own it you ought have the ability to disable the Eula. A covenant is weird because it more often than not is contract entered unilaterally by some dead guy with himself somehow under the fiction it is an agreement with the land itself, it's not clear who the counterparty even is.
The major problem with EULAs is the power disparity between the buyer and seller. It’s me vs Microsoft and I can’t practically opt out of MS Word. A secondary problem is that no one knows what’s in them because no one reads them.
A real estate deal is nothing like that. The buyer and seller have roughly equal power and everyone is represented by lawyers.
Equal power is if you had any control over the covenant. In most cases, it’s a take it or leave it situation. That’s not equal power, that’s a complete lack of it. I personally don’t see how a covenant on a property is anything other than the attempt to control the living world from the grave, and shouldn’t be allowed. Zoning laws can change with the times, they’re sufficient to protect the property owners from major nuisances.
Zoning laws require an entire legislature to enact or change. A covenant only runs between the parties to the covenant. This is such an absurd point that is repeated here.
But it is anti property rights to force someone to rent or sell to poc. Of course without government influence this becomes a dumb business plan because it depressed the utility of your property and hands business to competitors.
I would argue government should eliminate racial discrimination laws as it will just shake itself out in the market and it actually makes things harder on poc.
In a world where humans are have rational, then your argument would be correct. Alas that's not the world we live in, as history keeps telling us.
Firstly, let's consider "2 groups". This might be racial, or straight/queer or religion or immigrant status or wealth or whatever. This issue crops up all over history (think Irish immigrants) - society has a habit of splitting into us and them.
Ultimately the split is economic - one group contains much economic power, (which is largely analogous with political power) the other far less. The group with the economic power is seeking to preserve it, the other group is trying to move economically upwards.
So to your first point - exclusivity might depress utility, but it increases value. The free market offers high premiums to exclusivity. So far from being a dumb business plan, it maximized business returns.
Above all, rich people want to live in a bubble of rich people - and zoning laws, the free market, etc (controlled by rich people) work towards this goal.
Then we toss in the notion of "my home is an investment." When you see your home as a store of wealth, then you make communal decisions to preserve that wealth (at all costs.) Will that new bridge, school, office block, anything, make the value of my home go up or down? Pretty much nothing rlse matters.
From this arises push-back laws that try and regulate the worst of these tendencies away. They're almost always fighting the inclinations of the haves to the have-nots. They are often contentious because they go against the natural inclinations of the economically advantaged.
Fundamentally your argument is flawed because those with economic power work hard to keep it. Part of that is actively working against the interests of those without. The market is very much not free.
>I would argue government should eliminate racial discrimination laws as it will just shake itself out in the market and it actually makes things harder on poc.
Yeah, many people did, and then it turned out that it wasn't working!
