• sus
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    2
    ·
    edit-2
    7 months ago

    That group won’t exist in a vacuum. It needs to be resilient to outside interference. Even inside that group there are going to be people that only identify with it out of convenience rather than true belief. It is still possible for individuals to accrue social capital, form “inner circles” and individually stockpile resources - and stopping them would logically infringe on their freedoms to associate, freedom to dig holes, etc.

    • Drewelite@lemmynsfw.com
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      7 months ago

      So you’re saying that in whatever system is created for libertarianism there will be a potential for people to use their freedom to subvert libertarianism, right? That makes sense to a point, but it’s the same issue that exists in every other system. Socialist need to have checks and balances to ensure the government doesn’t subvert the needs of the people, capitalists need to bust monopolies to ensure someone doesn’t takeover the market, etc. I know I’m mixing economics and politics, but I hope you see my point.

    • db0@lemmy.dbzer0.comOP
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      7 months ago

      Stockpiling resources isn’t possibly without exploitation. Why would anyone let you stockpile resources they create? These assumptions don’t make sense

      • sus
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        edit-2
        7 months ago

        Why would anyone let you stockpile resources they create?

        the same reason people let it happen now: people aren’t actually a hivemind where every individual steadfastly holds to your chosen ideology and ceaselessly watches each other and keeps precise track of what everyone is doing. Surveillance states can’t root out crime and black markets, so I very much doubt a loose association of stateless communes can do it either.