It's human nature to hoard resources to survive; and to create associations to aid in survival. It is these associations that have grown to compete for the resources hence the need for the rule of law.
You are viewing a single comment's thread from:
It's human nature to hoard resources to survive; and to create associations to aid in survival. It is these associations that have grown to compete for the resources hence the need for the rule of law.
Humans, adapting to a paradigm based on the illusion of scarcity, will hoard resources. Without the intrinsic fear of not having enough created by this illusion, hoarding is nonsensical.
Creating associations is not a negative thing, unless inside of a paradigm based on competition, coercion, and disregard for the well-being of all life.
Hoarding is absolutely sensical for humans to plan to survive natural disasters. And to compete for those resources is natural. Again, however only Humans are smart enough to swear fealty to a fictional set of laws to guide through arbitration. But without force there no guarantee of compliance with those laws.
There is a huge difference between stocking necessities of life for self & loved ones in case of emergency, and hoarding "wealth" simply because it is the social norm. This stocking of survival goods is also natural to many other animals.
Being "smart" and "swearing fealty to fiction" are diametrically opposed, and if humans sweared fealty to this set of laws, then there would be no force necessary. You're mixing up laws (violently enforced decisions made by someone else) and agreements (voluntary, and agreed upon by all involved).
So if I disagree that I violated a voluntary agreement who decides who is correct? Or did I just start a war?
That depends on the voluntary agreement, and what was written into it in case of a violation.
So it's not conceivable that force could ever be applied to a violator of a voluntary agreement against his will? How about violent crime, how should that be dealt with when everyone is a sovereign being?
The only results of a violation of an agreement, would be those that all parties agreed to when they wrote/made it. Thus, they could not be against his will unless he/she had been coerced into the original agreement, thus making it null & void.
That would depend on the agreements of the community in which the violent crime happened. In the community where I would be, violence would be seen as the symptom of trauma, something to be healed, not to be punished. Unitive Justice/Restorative Justice are better for the victim, the offender, and society as a whole.
It's also important to note that in a culture where force & coercion are not the standard way of dealing with each other, these incidences will naturally become more and more rare with each generation.
PS: I would highly recommend reading "Atlas Snubbed" by Ken Krawchuck. It is a sequel/parody/refining of what Ayn Rand put forth with Atlas Shrugged, and he does a great job of laying out possible ways different situations of crime/response could play out in a voluntary society.