Freedom Friends Tuath

[KBCraig]

Shunning can be a powerful incentive to abide by the decision of the arbitrators. Just ask the Amish.

Only in a society which has lived in isolation from the surrounding world. Like the Amish.

Shunning is done all the time in Society. Just look at Political Correctness. An example of shunning. Teenagers complain of peer pressure. Another example similar to shunning. If the teenager doesn't go along with the crowd, they are ostracized.

And are free to form their own counter-crowd. Have you never seen goths at the mall?

The only way to truly banish someone is to force them into isolation from everything and everyone they've ever known. America simply isn't the kind of place where that can be effective, because it is based in freedom. Only someone who has been completely isolated from the larger world (like the Amish, or religious cults, or small-town teenagers) will suffer from being banished.

I mean... I love all you guys. I count a half-dozen good friends here, and many more whom I respect but just don't know that well. But if the world went topsy turvy and I was suddenly unwelcome here, I'd miss you, and regret it, but overall affect on my life would amount to, "feh!"

There's a whole big world out there. I'm already leaving my comfort zone behind to move to NH, so there's nothing to banish me from. And most of our freedom-minded friends will probably feel the same, especially those who are moving across the country to be part of NH.

Kevin

[Michael Fisher]

The only way to truly banish someone is to force them into isolation from everything and everyone they've ever known.

???

Banishment just means you're not a member anymore, and can never become one again.? It would probably be extremely damaging to your reputation among tuath members, of which I believe there will be MANY!

[Michael Fisher]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_Ireland

"All men who owned land, all professionals, and all craftsmen, were entitled to become members of an assembly, known as a tuath. Each tuath's members annually formed an assembly which decided all common policies, declared war or peace on other tuatha, and elected or deposed their 'kings'. The tuath was thus a body of persons voluntarily united for socially beneficial purposes, and its territorial dimension was the sum total of the landed properties of its members. About 80 to 100 tuatha coexisted at any time throughout Ireland."


We don't have any members yet that own land, but it could be said that my property, which is an extension of myself, is now included in the Freedom Friends Tuath's territory. 

[KBCraig]

The only way to truly banish someone is to force them into isolation from everything and everyone they've ever known.

???

Banishment just means you're not a member anymore, and can never become one again.

One of my former jobs has a strict policy against re-hiring former employees. When I left there, it didn't concern me in the least.

I admire the "networking circle" that would come from such a group. And, the spirit of helping one another, because that spirit is in each member's own best self-interest.

But the only way banishment can carry any weight is the group grows large enough to control most aspects of society, where failing to live by the tuath agreement could carry real fiscal and social risk. You said it's part of a free-market solution, where others are free (and even encouraged) to start their own tuaths. But the only way banishment is a real threat, is if the tuath becomes a quasi-government.

I see neither the problem that prompts such a society, nor the solution served by it.

Kevin

[KBCraig]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_Ireland

"All men who owned land, all professionals, and all craftsmen, were entitled to become members of an assembly, known as a tuath."

Sounds like the rifraff were left to fend for themselves, or beg mercy from the tuath.

Each tuath's members annually formed an assembly which decided all common policies, declared war or peace on other tuatha, and elected or deposed their 'kings'."

Majority rule, eh? Even when the majority wished to declare war on other groups? Where's the freedom? Where's the ZAP?

[AlanM]

The problem is force used by Government. A Government cannot be voluntary. A Tuath is voluntary.

[AlanM]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_Ireland

"All men who owned land, all professionals, and all craftsmen, were entitled to become members of an assembly, known as a tuath."

Sounds like the rifraff were left to fend for themselves, or beg mercy from the tuath.

Each tuath's members annually formed an assembly which decided all common policies, declared war or peace on other tuatha, and elected or deposed their 'kings'."

Majority rule, eh? Even when the majority wished to declare war on other groups? Where's the freedom? Where's the ZAP?

We never said Ireland's example was guided by ZAP. Nor does the above statement ever say it was majority rule. It might have very well been that way, or it could have been by unanimous consent. We don't know. However, our Tuath is based on ZAP and unanimous consent.
Government is derived by the consent of the people, we are told, but our consent is never asked.

[Michael Fisher]

But the only way banishment can carry any weight is the group grows large enough to control most aspects of society, where failing to live by the tuath agreement could carry real fiscal and social risk.

You said it's part of a free-market solution, where others are free (and even encouraged) to start their own tuaths. But the only way banishment is a real threat, is if the tuath becomes a quasi-government.

It carries real fiscal and social risk. ?It's just not the type of "risk" we're used to seeing. ?We're used to the baton-swining, behind-bars, lethal-injection "risk", namely corporal punishment. ?Corporal punishment, an invention of monopoly governments, will not exist in the tuath.

I see neither the problem that prompts such a society, nor the solution served by it.

Problem #1: ?Monopoly government is an involuntary contract, and is thus always illegitimate.
Problem #2: ?Monopoly governments cannot be limited.

Solution: ?Tuaths of people voluntarily united for socially beneficial purposes, including mutual protection.

[KBCraig]

The problem is force used by Government. A Government cannot be voluntary. A Tuath is voluntary.

"Or we'll refuse to speak with you or trade with you."

You've all obviously gone into this with the best of intentions, with a romanticized notion of ancient Ireland and Iceland, but I don't think you've truly assessed what kinds of petty disputes can become major blow-ups. The only people who will be truly voluntarily involved are those who would be voluntarily involved with each other anyway. If someone abuses trust to the point that the tuath would shun them, no one should do business with them anyway.

So, a non-solution to a non-problem.

Kevin

[Michael Fisher]

Each tuath's members annually formed an assembly which decided all common policies, declared war or peace on other tuatha, and elected or deposed their 'kings'."

Majority rule, eh? Even when the majority wished to declare war on other groups? Where's the freedom? Where's the ZAP?

Read up on how these societies actually work.? You'll be surprised.

A tuath or individual which initiated force against another would receive judgements against them by reputable independent professional arbitrators and would owe restitution for each person killed and all property destroyed.

War became too expensive to carry out.

This is how a free society can work.

[AlanM]

Real freedom is not romantic. Real freedom requires constant choices and vigilance.

[Michael Fisher]

So, a non-solution to a non-problem.

Your "non-problem" comment is very strange. ?How is there "no problem" with the involuntary "contract" of a monopoly government?

And how is a voluntary association a non-solution?

If I restrict my business purchases to truthworthy tuath members, and I am more likely to trust a reputable member in any personal or business transaction, you can bet this tuath will help solve a lot of my problems.

Trust is the problem with today's world. ?People have very little concept of trustworthiness, responsibility, or reputation. ?People trust the government to protect them rather than their own judgement.

Caveat emptor.

[Michael Fisher]

Real freedom is not romantic. Real freedom requires constant choices and vigilance.

Exactly.

[Michael Fisher]

Romanticized is an interesting term to use for our hope to finally find true freedom through this method.  People often call me "utopian" for my belief that a truly free society can exist and prosper without monopoly governments.

I disagree.  I'm not utopian at all.  I fully recognize that freedom is like the crashing waves of the sea rather than a calm enclosed pool.

"Timid men prefer the calm of despotism to the tempestuous sea of liberty."
-Thomas Jefferson

[KBCraig]

[A tuath or individual which initiated force against another would receive judgements against them by reputable independent professional arbitrators and would owe restitution for each person killed and all property destroyed.

... enforced how, exactly? And note that word: Enforce. How would that happen, absent quasi-governmental power?

War became too expensive to carry out.

War seems to have outlived the tuatha, especially in Ireland. Iceland hasn't been at war, because no one cares. Funny thing about war... the winner gets to make the rules. The losers can protest all they want about initiation of force, but if the force prevails, it wins.

Kevin