Oddbean

Here you go. A real world example, not just some theoretical model. It's really well readable, and interesting (econ) article diving into the problem of peacekeeping on the frontier in the Wild West. https://mises.org/library/not-so-wild-wild-west It's very much in contrast in

*very much in contrast with what people assume. People assume some for of universal governance is the most efficient, naturally emergent solution. I'd argue that pretty much by the definition, even if it would ever be efficient, it can't stay efficient without being exposws to a free competition of the other governance models.

I've read some of it and also bookmarked it. From what I've understood so far, it appears to be a very high-trust society. Everyone was working responsibly, even if it was for their own interest. Do you think this kind of system can also be applied in societies that are not high-trust? Is it universal human behaviour acting responsibly without laws? You don't have to give any scientific answer and just trying to understand your opinion.

Continuing your thought about high-trust. Seems like that would only exist in a society where work is rewarded. In the Wild West there likely weren’t many people getting a free ride through life. People are incentivized to do their best work, so you are able to trust people more. There will obviously those who committed crimes or tried to cheat, but overall high trust is built within a system that follows strong natural rules. In history when we’ve seen societies that depend on the community to provide all for everyone, they are paradoxically untrusting. In that society you don’t get your survival through work but through permission. So you are incentivized to police your neighbors to assure they don’t cheat the system. No trust.

I understand your perspective, but let me play devil's advocate. What if one of the province allows or engages in a child trafficking ring? Do you think other provinces should have the authority to intervene and shut it down? Should there be some minimum moral principles that everyone must follow, or would you advocate for letting them run it with no oversight, which side you will be? You don't have to answer it, it's also not a trick question, I am really just trying to understand.

Nobody intervenes outside their domains. Every community takes care of their own domains. That's how it's done in anarchistic regions. It spreads as a culture, not as an imposition. "Murica police of the world" is not a winning strategy.

Yes but the question was about morality. I think that in a natural state people don't care much about what others do, sadly. See for example Israel genociding Palestine and Adam Curry saying (literally) "I DON'T CARE" in his latest podcast episode. "Justice" in its natural state only spreads through culture. Effective boycotts take a lot of time to develop.

My personal take is you do what it takes to protect your province/community and your children, provide anyone outside interested with the knowledge to do the same, and have faith that other people will see the truth that your way of living is the best. People will do what they think is right, so many would engage in trying to shut down the sex trafficking by hunting down the people who do it. To ask whether people have the authority is in itself a slippely slope. Bc it entails that authority can/should be yielded onto other provinces I presupose people are inherently good. But specially while there are communities who are punitive and authoritarian around, it likely would take a while for everyone to come to realize they don't wanna impose their will onto others; whether it be trafficking children or hunting down traffickers. I believe that the end of Apocalypto exemplifies what I think ppl would - eventually - come to realize is the best course of action when put through horrible situations.