Getting rid of government is the solution. They sell it to you as a protection against big business, but in reality it's the tool big business uses to stave off free markets and consumer choice.
Markets don't exist in a vacuum.
They are created and regulated.
They need contract law, and enforcement.
The argument to get rid of government is really an argument for anarchy, to go back to having war-lords.
Do you really want Amazon coming around with enforcers asking for payment. And since there is no Money (since gov is gone) they take your goat and give you a chicken back for change.
Lol, there was commerce without government regulation for the longest time and international commerce is still largely regulated by private arbitration courts (e.g. https://fee.org/articles/the-law-merchant-and-international-...). There was money well before there was centralized government in nearly all moderately developed places. You should really try to know the first thing before you pull such claims out of wherever. If you think government is anything but a ploy to get to your money, you got duped.
"You should really try to know the first thing before you pull such claims out of wherever."
Sigh. Another armchair economist trying to extrapolate history.
You are re-defining all societies in terms of our modern idea of government to push some libertarian view. Yes, you are correct, societies had money before there was a modern elected government with 3 branches. That doesn't mean there weren't rules, there weren't concepts like enforcement of contracts, like debt and how to 'sue' over recovering debt'.
You can't go back in history to when we were tribal, say 'look we didn't need a government', and then extrapolate that to todays world and promote anarchy.
Money before 'central government'? Central to what? My tribe? You are just re-defining what a government is. You are going back to when we were exchanging shiny bits of shell.
I think 'anomy' is implying that we would trust social norms, or that people would behave as expected by force of society's norms. You would behave so others would continue to do business with you.
I think we've seen a lot in recent years how this doesn't work when people are free to break away from social norms.
Other point, I think this is missing that in large global economies, we have both very little recourse on our own without laws. If we trust purely market forces (if you sell me junk I just wont buy from you), then bad-actors can just move on to next mark, or change names. We have started making purchases in anonymously online from other anonymous sellers. There is no longer any social norms to prevent cheating.
really good illustration of trust. which is needed for market pressures you describe, but don't scale well. hence needing laws to track down bad-actors.
https://ncase.me/trust/
You are simply replacing laws and courts from a government to some other body.
That is how society progress on many fronts.
Society grows, and those rules become 'laws', and those courts become 'the courts'.
If you were to magically break up and get rid of government.
It would just re-form as a new government.
Every revolution just forms a new central authority. A new government.
Because who are you going to call when some company says "you know what, I don't agree with this informal court set up by the local tradesman, I'm not paying".
""In its early days the Law Merchant relied entirely on private adjudication and enforcement. Merchants conducted much of early international trade at fairs throughout Europe. At these fairs local authorities performed regular activities, such as preventing violence, but they didn’t normally adjudicate disputes between international traders.
Nor did authorities enforce the terms of private commercial contracts. International merchants formed their own courts for this purpose and applied their own law to these cases. Merchants’ courts came to be called “dusty feet courts” because of the condition of merchants’ shoes as they busily traveled between commercial fairs. In these courts merchants acted as judges, deciding the disputes of fellow traders on the basis of shared customs. Merchant courts enforced their decisions privately by threatening noncompliant traders with a loss of reputation and merchant-community ostracism""
""Since 1958 compliance with many arbitration decisions occurs under potential threat of State enforcement. In that year a handful of countries signed a multinational treaty called the United Nations New York Convention on the Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Arbitral Awards (NYC). Over the last half-century many other countries have also joined the NYC. According to the convention, signatories agree to enforce international arbitral awards brought to their courts.""
Yeah rules are important. I was making the point that rules and enforcement mechanisms do not require the kind of exploitative constructs that are ruling over you right now, and for whom you are little more than lifestock.
Don't get me wrong.
I agree. I'm being ruled by an exploitive construct.
It's just, it always comes about. It's made of people, and whatever mechanism you are contemplating, it too will be subverted.
I haven't come up with any alternative. Just think reducing regulations would mean more pollution, more stealing. We've done less laws, less regulations, and the world was pretty awful. It's a balancing act. You need people to drive on the right side of the road, and obey traffic signs, but you also don't want government telling you how to set the dinner table. How much control do you give up?
