Who would have the power over dawn defence?. What if they have decided to use force?. What if he was innocent? What if Tanna justice supported bill even after finding out he was guilty? What if it had resulted into a war? Who decides who is guilty in a free state? Then what do we call the person that decides ones fate?
Did you watch the video on conflict resolution within a free society? I think it covers many of your questions. If businesses don't provide good service or act in ways that are not in the best interests of their communities, they will no longer gain business. People will use competitors. That's what separates a business from a government in that a government has a monopoly on services and it supports that monopoly with the threat of violent force. Businesses have to earn trust voluntarily. Now, often, we see governments creating non-natural monopolies for certain corporate business interests at the expense of individuals, but that's not really a fault of business as much as it's a fault of the system made available to them through lobbies and regulations. For more on that see regulatory capture and revolving door politics.
Your questions display a desire to have an ultimate authority. I don't mean to offend you, but this is the same thinking children have when they need their mom or dad to define reality for them and set the rules. Adults figure things out via consensus. Laws are in many ways emergent properties of rational consensus on morality and human wellbeing. At least, from a common law perspective, that's what they are supposed to be. When we start thinking in terms of authoritarianism where some person gets to decide, we run into real problems. Instead, we should be relying on principles based in reason, logic, and evidence. Ideas which are morally sound and supported by the communities in which they are used.
I watched the video. And you answered my question with this
. If businesses don't provide good service or act in ways that are not in the best interests of their communities, they will no longer gain business. People will use competitors.
But i am not sure if it will work out in my country
But i am not sure if it will work out in my country
I'd love to know more about why not. Could it be because people are programmed from birth to believe the myth of authority and that programming puts rulers in place which end up harming people?
When I think about these things, I think the change has to happen first in people's thinking long before we can see it work in physical reality.
Any slightest chance we have here. We also overuse. We have a lot of ritualist in my country. Imagine this set of ppl been giving freedom. Allowed be behave the way they want.
I like your theory and it is beginning sound interesting to me. My belief can be changed through you but first i need to consider the pros and cons
Who would have the power over dawn defence?. What if they have decided to use force?. What if he was innocent? What if Tanna justice supported bill even after finding out he was guilty? What if it had resulted into a war? Who decides who is guilty in a free state? Then what do we call the person that decides ones fate?
Did you watch the video on conflict resolution within a free society? I think it covers many of your questions. If businesses don't provide good service or act in ways that are not in the best interests of their communities, they will no longer gain business. People will use competitors. That's what separates a business from a government in that a government has a monopoly on services and it supports that monopoly with the threat of violent force. Businesses have to earn trust voluntarily. Now, often, we see governments creating non-natural monopolies for certain corporate business interests at the expense of individuals, but that's not really a fault of business as much as it's a fault of the system made available to them through lobbies and regulations. For more on that see regulatory capture and revolving door politics.
Your questions display a desire to have an ultimate authority. I don't mean to offend you, but this is the same thinking children have when they need their mom or dad to define reality for them and set the rules. Adults figure things out via consensus. Laws are in many ways emergent properties of rational consensus on morality and human wellbeing. At least, from a common law perspective, that's what they are supposed to be. When we start thinking in terms of authoritarianism where some person gets to decide, we run into real problems. Instead, we should be relying on principles based in reason, logic, and evidence. Ideas which are morally sound and supported by the communities in which they are used.
I watched the video. And you answered my question with this
. If businesses don't provide good service or act in ways that are not in the best interests of their communities, they will no longer gain business. People will use competitors.
But i am not sure if it will work out in my country
I'd love to know more about why not. Could it be because people are programmed from birth to believe the myth of authority and that programming puts rulers in place which end up harming people?
When I think about these things, I think the change has to happen first in people's thinking long before we can see it work in physical reality.
Any slightest chance we have here. We also overuse. We have a lot of ritualist in my country. Imagine this set of ppl been giving freedom. Allowed be behave the way they want.
I like your theory and it is beginning sound interesting to me. My belief can be changed through you but first i need to consider the pros and cons