Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
I didn't really expect anyone to give it a serious attempt. ?
I see. And from your standpoint a "serous attempt" means suggesting that the people elect a supreme leader and letting him dictate what is best for them.
.
I didn't really expect anyone to give it a serious attempt. ?
I see. And from your standpoint a "serous attempt" means suggesting that the people elect a supreme leader and letting him dictate what is best for them.
.
Not at all, Bripat seemed to put some thought into it, I hadn't really thought about a lottery.
I didn't expect a serious attempt because it would probably be better suited for a project in a government class than on a message board.
I just have trouble seeing a libertarian society existing in the real world but not because the idea is bad.
I think it has to do with the fact that I am more grounded in reality but good luck with making your dream happen. I will be the first to admit my error when it does.I see. And from your standpoint a "serous attempt" means suggesting that the people elect a supreme leader and letting him dictate what is best for them.
.
Not at all, Bripat seemed to put some thought into it, I hadn't really thought about a lottery.
I didn't expect a serious attempt because it would probably be better suited for a project in a government class than on a message board.
I just have trouble seeing a libertarian society existing in the real world but not because the idea is bad.
That's because you have swallowed the fascist/socialist bullshit that you need a government bureaucrat guiding your every step.
.
Nobody is going to be worried about the environment if finding your next meal is a concern.
I didn't really expect anyone to give it a serious attempt. Libertarians often blame the tyrannical established government for keeping them down so I intentionally made it easy for them... no government, vacant land, no enemies, resources, a population that was willing to travel together and probably share language, customs and beliefs. Shouldn't it be easy to find a libertarian solution?
The best way to handle that situation would be to divide up the land and then divvy up the parcels by some impartial method, say by lottery. The collectivist method was tried at Plymouth and Jamestown and it led to immediate starvation.
I am not sure that the folks in Jamestown eating each other quantifies as collectivism. The trouble seemed to stem from lack of shelter, supplies, trouble with natives, living in a swamp and most of all a lack of the proper survival skills for living in a untamed place.
Back to the island. I do appreciate your solution and the fact that it seems to satisfy the libertarian's moral code. I suppose a voluntary trade would solve the most obvious issue of people not getting plots that match their skill set. (e.g. fisherman gets the jungle, the hunter gets the beach) The people who received plots with no resources could either die off, making more available to the rest or could sell their labor.
My next question is who or how would they arrive at your solution? Would it be a vote or would a natural leader emerge (perhaps the captain) and make the decision for a lottery? Also who would decide the punishment for the inevitable trespassing and theft that would occur from the people with no resources? Would there be public pathways or would everyone be landlocked?
More than likely what would actually happen would be that a leader or leaders would emerge from the 80/20 rule (followers/leaders). They would most likely try and maximize the harvest of resources based on skill sets and try and spread the knowledge and skills based on need. Only after the most basic needs seemed secure ( hierarchy of needs ) would anyone probably worry about 'property rights'.
People who hate the idea of libertarianism are simply ADULTS who fear the prospect of making their own decisions.
The 80/20 rules says that on any given project 20% of the people do 80% of the work. It has nothing to do with "leadership."
The 80/20 rules says that on any given project 20% of the people do 80% of the work. It has nothing to do with "leadership."
Pareto principle - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
The best way to handle that situation would be to divide up the land and then divvy up the parcels by some impartial method, say by lottery. The collectivist method was tried at Plymouth and Jamestown and it led to immediate starvation.
I am not sure that the folks in Jamestown eating each other quantifies as collectivism. The trouble seemed to stem from lack of shelter, supplies, trouble with natives, living in a swamp and most of all a lack of the proper survival skills for living in a untamed place.
Eating each other is the end result of collectivism. Treat all land as common property and allowing everyone an equal share of the harvest regardless of how much they contributed to it is collectivism. That's precisely what the Jamestown settlers did. As a result, few people had any motivation to work, and they all starved as a result. The minute they discarded collectivism, they had an abundance of food. It's strange how shelter, supplies and living skills are always in short supply under collectivism.
Back to the island. I do appreciate your solution and the fact that it seems to satisfy the libertarian's moral code. I suppose a voluntary trade would solve the most obvious issue of people not getting plots that match their skill set. (e.g. fisherman gets the jungle, the hunter gets the beach) The people who received plots with no resources could either die off, making more available to the rest or could sell their labor.
since the plots would be assigned by lottery, the people who divvied them up would have a strong motivation to make sure the productive land was equally divided.
My next question is who or how would they arrive at your solution? Would it be a vote or would a natural leader emerge (perhaps the captain) and make the decision for a lottery? Also who would decide the punishment for the inevitable trespassing and theft that would occur from the people with no resources? Would there be public pathways or would everyone be landlocked?
More than likely what would actually happen would be that a leader or leaders would emerge from the 80/20 rule (followers/leaders). They would most likely try and maximize the harvest of resources based on skill sets and try and spread the knowledge and skills based on need. Only after the most basic needs seemed secure ( hierarchy of needs ) would anyone probably worry about 'property rights'.
The 80/20 rules says that on any given project 20% of the people do 80% of the work. It has nothing to do with "leadership." Apparently what you think would happen is that someone would establish a dictatorship and the rest of the population wold meekly fall into line. Of course, the dictator would be benevolent and worry about meeting other people's needs before considering his own selfish wants.
However, it really doesn't matter because your island scenario is totally unrealistic. We all know that in reality when agriculture began land was free for the taking. It had no intrinsic worth until some men learned how to make it more productive. There was no need to worry about how to divide up the land because there was far more arable land available then there was labor to plow it and sow it.
When other men saw the abundance the farmers enjoyed, they attacked the farmers, enslaved them, and forced them to hand over all their surplus production to their conquerors. That's how government came into existence.
People who hate the idea of libertarianism are simply ADULTS who fear the prospect of making their own decisions.
fear taking responsibility for their own lives you mean...
They don't seem to have a problem with making the decision to take authority over others by force.
Eating each other is the end result of collectivism. Treat all land as common property and allowing everyone an equal share of the harvest regardless of how much they contributed to it is collectivism. That's precisely what the Jamestown settlers did. As a result, few people had any motivation to work, and they all starved as a result. The minute they discarded collectivism, they had an abundance of food. It's strange how shelter, supplies and living skills are always in short supply under collectivism.
Eating each other is the end result of collectivism. Treat all land as common property and allowing everyone an equal share of the harvest regardless of how much they contributed to it is collectivism. That's precisely what the Jamestown settlers did. As a result, few people had any motivation to work, and they all starved as a result. The minute they discarded collectivism, they had an abundance of food. It's strange how shelter, supplies and living skills are always in short supply under collectivism.
Hunger and survival are probably the two biggest motivators in existence.
People who hate the idea of libertarianism are simply ADULTS who fear the prospect of making their own decisions.
fear taking responsibility for their own lives you mean...
They don't seem to have a problem with making the decision to take authority over others by force.
No, not at all. They fear having to make decisions on their own. The responsibility for the decision comes later.
If you MUST make your own decision, then you must face the fact that the decision will be either right or wrong. Liberitarians have no problem with doing such, most people fear it. They want the government to take that responsibility of self determination off of their backs.
What's the point of being an ADULT if your not allow to go your own way?
The 80/20 rules says that on any given project 20% of the people do 80% of the work. It has nothing to do with "leadership."
Pareto principle - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Your site basically supports what I said. It says nothing about "leadership."
That is only true when you are dealing with marginal utility not when you are trying to survive.Eating each other is the end result of collectivism. Treat all land as common property and allowing everyone an equal share of the harvest regardless of how much they contributed to it is collectivism. That's precisely what the Jamestown settlers did. As a result, few people had any motivation to work, and they all starved as a result. The minute they discarded collectivism, they had an abundance of food. It's strange how shelter, supplies and living skills are always in short supply under collectivism.
Hunger and survival are probably the two biggest motivators in existence.
People who have privately owned farm plots are more motivated by hunger and survival because 100% of their effort goes to feed themselves.
Under collectivism, you eat the same as everyone else regardless of how much work you do. So if there are 20 people working a collective plot, you get 100% of the benefit of goofing off while you only suffer 1/20 of the reduction in output. The scales are weighted entirely in the direction of goofing off, or more likely of devoting your time to other means of providing yourself with food.
Collective agriculture has been demonstrated to be grossly inefficient wherever it was tried. In the Soviet Union private farm plots, which were all under one acre, produced almost half the food for the entire country.
It's hard to believe that anyone in this day and age would defend collectivized agriculture. but that just goes to show the truth of the claim the so-called "progressives" are really just communists.
Your site basically supports what I said. It says nothing about "leadership."
It said that "roughly 80% of the effects come from 20% of the causes"
As in 80% of the leadership comes from 20% of the people.
It is not science but if you have ever worked with a random group of people more wish to follow than lead.
That is only true when you are dealing with marginal utility not when you are trying to survive.Hunger and survival are probably the two biggest motivators in existence.
People who have privately owned farm plots are more motivated by hunger and survival because 100% of their effort goes to feed themselves.
Under collectivism, you eat the same as everyone else regardless of how much work you do. So if there are 20 people working a collective plot, you get 100% of the benefit of goofing off while you only suffer 1/20 of the reduction in output. The scales are weighted entirely in the direction of goofing off, or more likely of devoting your time to other means of providing yourself with food.
Collective agriculture has been demonstrated to be grossly inefficient wherever it was tried. In the Soviet Union private farm plots, which were all under one acre, produced almost half the food for the entire country.
It's hard to believe that anyone in this day and age would defend collectivized agriculture. but that just goes to show the truth of the claim the so-called "progressives" are really just communists.
Leadership is hard work when the folks hold the leader to task. Dominant personalities tend to leadership, but they are not allways the best leaders.. Most folks don't lead but only some of those don't want to lead. There is a limited number of leadership positions. Saying the folks not leading just don't want to lead is what the leaders like to tell themselves in the board room as they give themselves bonuses for offshoring labor to china.
Your site basically supports what I said. It says nothing about "leadership."
It said that "roughly 80% of the effects come from 20% of the causes"
As in 80% of the leadership comes from 20% of the people.
It is not science but if you have ever worked with a random group of people more wish to follow than lead.
fear taking responsibility for their own lives you mean...
They don't seem to have a problem with making the decision to take authority over others by force.
No, not at all. They fear having to make decisions on their own. The responsibility for the decision comes later.
If you MUST make your own decision, then you must face the fact that the decision will be either right or wrong. Liberitarians have no problem with doing such, most people fear it. They want the government to take that responsibility of self determination off of their backs.
What's the point of being an ADULT if your not allow to go your own way?
Why go your own way if you don't want to? Some folks don't have good ideas. Some folks don't have desire for independence. Some folks are more social and just want to be a part of something bigger than themselves. Why should we force stupid folks to starve in the woods? Nah.. we should let folks be worker bees and followers if that's what they want.
from wiki:That is only true when you are dealing with marginal utility not when you are trying to survive.People who have privately owned farm plots are more motivated by hunger and survival because 100% of their effort goes to feed themselves.
Under collectivism, you eat the same as everyone else regardless of how much work you do. So if there are 20 people working a collective plot, you get 100% of the benefit of goofing off while you only suffer 1/20 of the reduction in output. The scales are weighted entirely in the direction of goofing off, or more likely of devoting your time to other means of providing yourself with food.
Collective agriculture has been demonstrated to be grossly inefficient wherever it was tried. In the Soviet Union private farm plots, which were all under one acre, produced almost half the food for the entire country.
It's hard to believe that anyone in this day and age would defend collectivized agriculture. but that just goes to show the truth of the claim the so-called "progressives" are really just communists.
It's always true. That's why the Jamestown settlers starved. They even recorded the fact that few people wanted to plow the fields or sow the grain. It's an historical fact.
