>Mad Max was anarcho-capitalism reaching its logical conclusion, a monopoly with a financed militia.
Authoritarianism comes in many stripes. Capitalism can be authoritarian, but forced socialism always is.
>So basically no health care system and no social security, and bartering for whatever you want.
Emergent systems exist all over the place. The very language we're using right now to communicate is an emergent system. There is not a central authority which dictates how we must converse, and yet here we are.
>Just say you want libertarian minimal government and we'd have saved 10 minutes of our lives instead of vague platitudes.
I didn't try to give you a platitude. You wanted me to define what is best for everyone and I tried to show you that your question implies that authoritarianism is best. I disagree with your implication.
> I didn't try to give you a platitude. You wanted me to define what is best for everyone and I tried to show you that your question implies that authoritarianism is best. I disagree with your implication.
Cooperation and synergy isn't the same as authoritarianism. There's a reason that civilization and societies reached all major advances and discoveries, and not hermits or tribes.
There's immense value in limiting overhead by delegating fundamental services into a collective pool.
But all that is besides the point. On topic:
I wanted neither you or OP to define what is best, I wanted OP to clarify what he was suggesting since he was suggesting something. I wanted you to clarify what you were saying, since I didn't understand how it fit into my response to OP. Apparently it didn't.
>Cooperation and synergy isn't the same as authoritarianism. There's a reason that civilization and societies reached all major advances and discoveries, and not hermits or tribes.
You explicitly asked questions like, "how do you get people to win the game?" "How do you win it?" "What's the reward?" "How do you distribute it?"
In other words, you wanted us to dictate what "winning" means, what the rewards are for winning, and how the rewards would be distributed. That's not cooperation, that's dictation. Each person may have their own definition of winning and as long as they're not infringing on the rights of another, they can do whatever they wish to accomplish their goal.
>There's immense value in limiting overhead by delegating fundamental services into a collective pool.
Please don't forcibly dictate to me what is valuable by forcing me into a system that maximizes what you personally find valuable. I will offer the same kindness in return. That is the crux of the problem with the set of questions you asked originally and why what I've said does fit into your response to OP.
Since you bothered to reply, and completely ignored the paragraph that answered your (now repeated) comment, I have to assume that you're not here for a genuine discussion.
Authoritarianism comes in many stripes. Capitalism can be authoritarian, but forced socialism always is.
>So basically no health care system and no social security, and bartering for whatever you want.
Emergent systems exist all over the place. The very language we're using right now to communicate is an emergent system. There is not a central authority which dictates how we must converse, and yet here we are.
>Just say you want libertarian minimal government and we'd have saved 10 minutes of our lives instead of vague platitudes.
I didn't try to give you a platitude. You wanted me to define what is best for everyone and I tried to show you that your question implies that authoritarianism is best. I disagree with your implication.