Freedom Friends Tuath

[KBCraig]

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?

The "non-problem" is just that: how many of our number are seeking governmental help for redress of grievances?

The "non-solution" means the government will still exist.

Kevin

[KBCraig]

Romanticized is an interesting term to use for our hope to finally find true freedom through this method.

*shrug*

It seems perfectly appropriate, given that you cite the longevity of these models as proof of how your ZAP-based tuath can work. But you're forgetting one important thing: your examples were not ZAP-compliant! The penalties for non-compliance involved force!

[KBCraig]

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.

Read again what I wrote: the only way those risks are real is if the tuath becomes a quasi-government. Unless your tuath membership attains a significant portion of the population, social and economic boycott are meaningless. If the tuath has enough stroke to drive someone out, it must have a monopooly on social and economic influence. At that point, it's become a de facto government.

At which point it becomes... the solution to government monopoly? Or indistinguishable from it?

[KBCraig]

This is starting to sound heated, when I don't mean it that way at all.

As a network of friendship, and an arbiter of deals, I have no problem with the tuath. I'd probably even join!

But it is not the solution to government monopoly, because in order to have any effect, it must become a quasi-government monopoly. If there were a free market in tuaths, those not bound by ZAP would prevail. I maintain that threatening economic destruction for non-compliance is aggression. We already have a private organization that imposes strict economic and social penalties for non-compliance: the Mafia.

I didn't intend to start a debate about your announcement. But understand, if you're wanting people to join, you have to overcome their confusion and objections. I'm one of those people, and I remain unconvinced that the tuath will keep government out of people's lives.

Good luck with it, and I'l bow out quietly now. Respond to my points if you wish, but I'll shut up for now.

Kevin

[Michael Fisher]

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

Enforced by your desire to protect your trustworthiness, reputation, and honor.  If you have none, then you will have a very hard time in life, especially around members of the tuath.  In a free society, those people who prove themselves trustworthy will be successful in life.

Those who are dishonorable will be shunned miserable failures.

This worked before for 1,000 years in Ireland and 300 years in Iceland and it will work again.  1,000 years... that's far longer than the history of the US and Rome combined.

War seems to have outlived the tuatha, especially in Ireland. Iceland hasn't been at war, because no one cares.

What exactly is your point in saying this?

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.

You can be conquered by an enormous external army, which is what happened to Ireland when the English massacred the country, but there is a very low probability that a voluntarily funded army can afford to initiate force and pay restitution for the victims.

With 80 to 100 tuatha coexisting on a small island, this flawed logic did not apply.  In a free society with voluntarily funded militias and armies, there is no way to conquer each other.  It is simply too expensive to do without an extremely good reason and enormous support.

[Michael Fisher]

The "non-problem" is just that: how many of our number are seeking governmental help for redress of grievances?

A tuath is not a government.  It is a free market alternative.

The "non-solution" means the government will still exist.

Are you sure about that?

[Michael Fisher]

Romanticized is an interesting term to use for our hope to finally find true freedom through this method.

*shrug*

It seems perfectly appropriate, given that you cite the longevity of these models as proof of how your ZAP-based tuath can work. But you're forgetting one important thing: your examples were not ZAP-compliant! The penalties for non-compliance involved force!

False.  All aggression, including murder and war, resulted in judgements of restitution only.

[Michael Fisher]

Read again what I wrote: the only way those risks are real is if the tuath becomes a quasi-government. Unless your tuath membership attains a significant portion of the population, social and economic boycott are meaningless. If the tuath has enough stroke to drive someone out, it must have a monopooly on social and economic influence. At that point, it's become a de facto government.

At which point it becomes... the solution to government monopoly? Or indistinguishable from it?

If the tuath has enough power to drive someone out... of where?  The country?

There is no country.  A tuath has only private borders.  There are no governments, and thus no government borders in a free society.

Why must someone be forcefully physically injured or ejected as punishment?  That's not what banishment is all about.  Banishment is about a complete destruction of reputation.

[Michael Fisher]

As a network of friendship, and an arbiter of deals, I have no problem with the tuath. I'd probably even join!

Great!?

But it is not the solution to government monopoly, because in order to have any effect, it must become a quasi-government monopoly. If there were a free market in tuaths, those not bound by ZAP would prevail. I maintain that threatening economic destruction for non-compliance is aggression. We already have a private organization that imposes strict economic and social penalties for non-compliance: the Mafia.

Honor is very highly valued in a free society.? It always has been throughout history and always will be.

Honor, vigilance, and freedom go hand in hand.? If someone is dishonorable, you will be extremely vigilant in any dealings with them, or you will avoid it entirely.? To do otherwise would be foolish!

Therefore, "having an effect" in a free society means to affect someone's reputation through your judgements.? Restitution is paid in order to protect your reputation from a mistake you've been convicted of making.

I didn't intend to start a debate about your announcement. But understand, if you're wanting people to join, you have to overcome their confusion and objections. I'm one of those people, and I remain unconvinced that the tuath will keep government out of people's lives.

How many more historical examples do we need before you will believe it?

Thank you for bringing up many great points!  It helps us develop our concept of the tuath.   

[cathleeninnh]

Sorry Mike and Alan for not being here to help. Gee, did I break my promise already? You could have called on me, but asleep my reliability wanes.

Mike, your optimism gets you into these fixes. Implying that the US Govt will go away?!?!

We have small group of individuals who agree that dealings among themselves are not subject to any external authority. And to the best of our ability, these dealings will comply with ZAP.

There is no teeth to that. Shouldn't be any because of our desire for voluntary cooperation. En-FORCE-ability of it is not important. The VALUE is in the interpersonal relationship that is defined by membership. Benefits not unlike benefit societies, clans, large extended families, Amish, Mafia,... except for their acceptance of aggression in dealings.

Please note that this group ALREADY had informally established that kind of relationship. WE just voiced our commitment to what was growing already.

We aren't asking people to join but anyone who wants to and can make a written statement to that effect is certainly welcome.

Cathleen 

[Lloyd Danforth]

Restitution will be the focus of the Jury, not penal justice, though they may come up with a decision of shunning, or banishment from the tuath.

Okay... so let's say the tuath grows from five members to a dozen. Or, let's make it a hundred or more. Someone has a strong disagreement with someone else, and let's say Party A is completely in the wrong, yet believes he is the wronged party. Party A is already PO'd enough to not be reasonable, nor to voluntarily admit wrongdoing.

You threaten shunning, banishment, or expulsion on such a person, and their response is going to be, "Okay, WTF-ever!"

It all goes back to trusting those you do business with.

Kevin

I agree with Kevin. ?In the early days of this country and smaller towns, a person's reputation was everything. ?Even when you moved, you had to carry papers from ministers and others held in esteem in the town you left if you wanted acceptance in your new town. ?They even had a concept called 'warning off'. ?If you showed up in town with a half dozen kids , no tools and no obvious way of making a living, they would 'warn you off'. ? Unless you were squatting, they wouldn't force you to leave, but, you did not become part of the town and were not able to take advantage of the social welfare programs, such as there were.
As I said, reputation was everything. ?As time went on, towns became larger, people moved about and the reputation thing fell to the side.
This forum and the FSP forums are, essentially, small towns. ?If I paint a room in Mike's house and it does not meet the specs in the contract we made, he can bitch about it on the forum. ?I can counter that I did everything I promised. ?Mike can invite people over and show the gouges in his wall. ?I can counter with images I took of the finished job showing no gouges and how his table is the same height as the suspicious gouge, and everybody can decide wether they want my services.
I just don't see the point in starting yet another organization.

[AlanM]

As more and more people join Tuaths, in effect withdrawing from the existing Government in favor of voluntary association and conflict resolution, the need for Gov shrinks. Less need for courts, police, prisons, social services. Thus will begin the withering away of Gov. 

[Kat Kanning]

I wouldn't say this was unnecessary, Kevin.  We've already had a case of one member of this forum screwing another out of a bunch of money.  Most of us know who he is, and wouldn't do any kind of business with him again.

[AlanM]

I wouldn't say this was unnecessary, Kevin.? We've already had a case of one member of this forum screwing another out of a bunch of money.? Most of us know who he is, and wouldn't do any kind of business with him again.

I did not know about this, and do not know who is involved. My Tuath would apprise me of the details and judgement of the situation, thus making me more prepared.

[Russell Kanning]

I look at the underground as similar. Eventually I will join your little gang.

Hey Freedom Friends Tuath sounds to nice .... if we want serious banishment shunning and isolating ..... we need to called a click or gang. Gang works best. We could have colors, initiation rituals ..... turf warfare.... the works.