There are no perfect actors and no perfect systems for them to perform in--100% would never/have never claimed otherwise. There are systems that can work, and check/balances to keep them in line. A representative democracy is meant to select the best among us and have laws to keep those selected representatives in check--the inherent and evident failing of that system has as much or more to do with human nature as it does with flaws in the man-made system.
(Also, we don't need government because people are bad, we want it because our (idealized) collective society functions far more efficiently when resources are pooled, leaders appointed, and experts acknowledged)
Greed, abuse of power, etc will take place in any and every system, writing a set of rules to keep those abuses in check appeals to me more than the idea of telling people to abide by the NAP.
re the meme: people will do evil, regardless of any system/lack of system. social contract, or potential consequence, no doubt. throwing away the system doesn't change human nature.
That there are plenty who follow the ten commandments (selectively) ONLY because they believe it affects their afterlife is evidence that consequences motivate behavior. (moral compass,/moral landscape is its own tangent but is potentially very relevant to this conversation).
I wasn't try to be insulting or uncivil--sarcasm doesn't come through sometimes. My intent with that comment is to distinguish "bart simpson anarchy" from "capital A anarchism." the cops/vodka/racing bits were all references to denver cops in those two recent stories I posted. As far as I understand your position, the only just rule is the NAP, any other law typically requires "force" to enforce, so any rule beyond the NAP is at odds with your system.
You and @misteravenhave covered what I would have said here regarding scaling consequences, no point in dragging that out anymore.
This time? Luckily nobody.
In ancapistan is drunk driving a non-offense until someone gets hit?
I understand that drunk drivers do this regardless of consequence in our current system, where I cannot agree is saying there has to be a victim for there to be a crime.
If someone points a loaded (or perceived to be) weapon at me I am justified in killing them. If he shoots first and misses me, I'm still justified to kill him. If he doesn't kill me he has still committed a crime.
If a drunk cop hops in a loaded weapon and drives it around my neighborhood, I ought to be able to act with the same defense. If he misses the neighborhood kids at the bus stop in the first pass around the block and passes out (in the middle of the road) he has still committed a crime.
We could open up a can of worms with intent/consequence if you'd like.
I've passed out in my car three sheets to the wind, woken up a couple hours later only two sheets to the wind and driven home. Bad behavior doesn't need a victim to have a negative impact on society.
I'm including my original quote to clarify this point without making you scroll back two pages to figure out the context
I'm not spending my way out of this one--I'm spending more wisely, more thoughtfully, more pragmatically, but not spending more dollars. All of this being idealized, of course. Not utopian, just better.
I know you aren't justifying a bad system--but I do believe you declared it logically sound. That was all.
_________________________________
I am never defending status quo as perfect, near utopic, or ideal. I do believe the framework for a more functional system can be constructed within existing parameters.
As long as humans are involved in a system, cancer will be present. There is no utopia; there is better and worse, there is functioning and failing, and it is a razor's edge between those states.
Don't have time for a real linked response, but the differences between sugars is greater than stated (nobody is getting the 'betes from too much fresh squeezed oj), but most importantly high fructose corn syrup isn't in your list of sugars, @Mercer. That specific sugar is where your poverty piece comes into play heavily--cheap to produce and in everything. Shaming families who are often working multiple shifts or jobs a day for not taking the time to cook a meal is a bad look. After a 10-12 hour day I'm often not motivated to cook more than a frozen pizza, if I were working 14s to 16s, I fucking promise I wouldn't cook a real meal, and I highly doubt any of you would either . (Of course there are fat fucks without jobs doing this, too, but in a ton of ways this is a chicken/egg conversation, but I'll try to stick to sugars and food deserts ). I cook 80% of my meals from scratch, and I watch my budget with such. I feel successful when I can get a healthy meal down to $3 or less per serving, but most sit around $5-6 per serving (not beans and rice, usually organic meat, conventional veg, organic or natural dairy/eggs). That is with a car to access grocery stores, time to cook said meals, and the know how required. Not everyone has those, and the cost efficacy in both time and dollars of fast food is fucking insane. Now if the next argument is about why people should stop breeding I'm 100% in, but let's not conflate these two. (My ex wife's master's thesis was on sugar addiction and food deserts so I'll try and dig up her work for related links. That was also 2012 and I know the science has come even further, meanwhile subsidies for corn and corn syrup have not changed at all. ) Waaay longer post than i intended, good night.
