Trash is a funny business. There are poor incentives to treat it correctly. Once it's gone the customer is not interested, but the whole community/city is still expecting. A private trash contractor inevitably want to save money and not spend fuel - it's too easy to dump it somewhere remote and no one can tell where it came from.
A better example for good government is in the local grid. There's no violation of liberty, only cooperation. Everyone has to be on the same page regarding currents and appropriate treatment of waste.
Getting connected to these requires obeying some protocol and it's not a violation of rights to simply shut off someone, or reject new association, new connections.
Of course these could be used as carrots if these same institutions are also in charge of zoning, but I think zoning is a violation of liberty and allowing the power over this civic service to be used to violate an individuals liberty is going too far. That is an abuse of power, even if it is not violent.
I think you need to look honestly at yourself and ask, am I the asshole?
Who is harmed, by a property owner doing with their property as they wish? You don't have to go to this establishment.
This is called Not in my Backyard. NIMBYism. It's why affordable housing is difficult. People are permitted to build additional dwelling units which would provide plenty of affordable housing for everyone.
If what you're asking is in violation of the non-aggression principle or some violation of property rights and individual liberty, you should probably rethink things. You might be desiring the oppression of another and that is not compatible with true liberty.
Definitely, but you're responsible for that. Don't let tyrants take over your local systems. You're right there. Do something about it. It's yours. Get some people together and chop off heads. They live right down the street from you, those tyrants.
Modern government can be boiled down to insurance companies. They take liability from the public and in exchange they use violence to put into place systems that would reduce the risk involved in that liability.
A way to do this without the violence is simply to transfer the liability back to the industry and individuals that have the profit motive and the income streams to use their monetary power to do what a government would otherwise do with it's violent power.
Indeed. Anarchism is unfortunately a word with too much baggage.
I would also say that the main problem is the Federal/National State, not government of all kinds.
The best technology for the job should be used and for quite awhile yet, the best technology for the job will still be a few real people in meat space getting togther and pooling resources (voluntarily) and getting things done.
I'm happy to pay my city to haul off the garbage and maintain a sewer system.
Enforcement doesn't have to be violent and it doesn't have to be a monopoly. We each check the npub in our client. The client says, yep that npub who signed that message signed this profile saying this is who they are.
I think the most effective enforcement is nonviolent ostracization. Bitcoin does this with anyone that's mining an old fork. Ok, knock yourself out, but that's not my chain.
You see things like this, mostly, at the geopolitical level. Each agent being a sovereign and anarchistic entity. They don't use violence on each other. War costs too much to rely on violence at this level.
They threaten removal from trade arrangements, tariffs or refusal to associate to accept transactions over the boundaries. #[3] and I and other libertarians and anarchists, simply argue that this is how individuals should be treated. As sovereign. Each should be so costly to attack with violence that you must use legitimate voluntary association type responses to incentivize cooperation over conflict.
I recommend having an open mind. There are many ways to write the same program. No one says that you must accept sickness and poor quality building codes, a chaotic or ugly city, waste on the streets, etc.
I think the core argument bein made by #[3] is just that we don't need to involve a violent monopoly to have the same services and rules that we all would agree to. Just that it was done violently makes it illegitimate.
It matters how it's done. Do it the right way. The hard way. Allow people liberty and work to build systems that benefit all.
Incentives, not force.
Anarchism is truth. It is. It is nature.
We form tribes and nations to solve nature for our interests. Security and Health and the ability to specialize in skills, so not everyone has to know how to survive a brutally violent world.
However, I'd say we should be promoting Protocolism, if there is such a word. Not Anarchism. I want protocols that are open and free and anarchistic, but still provide the order. The rules that allow community and security, etc.
I totally despise most government, but I love my city's garbage and sewer system.
Rules without Rulers
Nice trick. Here I was typing things into search like a noob
You ate the veggies that your meat ate.