Hacker News Reader

Comment by TuringNYC | Hacker News Reader

>> And what do you do if someone disagrees with the crowd? How do you force him without coercieon? (hint those two words are synonyms).

I think as the parent poster was saying, this is possible with smaller groups. I think the best example would be townships in the US. Different townships decide on the level of tax and investing (especially into school systems.) Then, individuals self-select themselves into groups by choosing where to live.

I have friends upset about how not all schools are "top-tier" schools. I quote "top-tier" as it is in the eye of the beholder what that means. The thing is, not everyone wants their kids to have 5hrs of homework a night. Nor does everyone want to pay 20k+ in annual property taxes. Some would rather home-school or send their kids to private or parochial schools.

People often achieve this by joining a township that agrees with their appetites in spending and other political choices.

View on HN

Alright. It is a township then. I refuse to go by the collective will. What happens next if violence is not an option and private property is respected?

In general, you have the same three choices you have in any other situation where you don't like what's going on: loyalty, voice, or exit.

In the first, you decide to accept the general will in order to maintain your individual credit, hoping that by cooperating on this occasion you encourage people to encourage with you later. Alternatively, you can protest the decision, hoping in doing so to encourage your fellow townspeople to change their mind, or to raise the reputation cost to them of proceeding down that route. And if you don't like that either, you can leave (highly visibly or otherwise).

Not all collective decision-making processes are coercive, either, FWIW. There are systems built on unanimity where your issue doesn't even arise: if you dislike the decision of the other group members enough then you can veto the decision. This creates other issues (and doesn't scale very well) but it does happen.

Look. It is a very simple question. The township has a 1 promile property tax. I never pay it and refuse to leave my property. What happens next?

You guys wrote 5 walls of text just dodging the easiest question on Earth.

I gave you an answer. You can suck it up, complain, or leave. And yes, those choices are unpleasant.

If this was supposed to be a 'actually it all comes down to the threat of violence' gotcha then, sure - if you insist on your property rights, don't pay your taxes and then decide to fight the bailiffs you're going to have a bad time. Sorry.

You did not answer - you listed my options and I was asking for the reaction of the collective. Because I know that functional illiteracy is becoming a serious problem, I'll do my best to help you: "How exactly are they going to limit my options to those, what are they going to do specifically?"

Specifically, the township would put a property tax lien on your property. Eventually, the liens would pile up and your property would have so many liens you'd have no value left in your house. Then the township would take you to court to enforce their right to collect the judgements. At that point, you'd most likely be forced to move out. The township would sell your home to recover the tax liens and judgements. A sheriff would forcibly remove you from your home in such cases.

Presumably, you could buy another home in the same township, and go thru all the above processes again. OR you could choose one of the original options given by a parent post:

1. Go to town hall and influence decisions

2. Exit township, find one that you agree with

3. Bear with it and stay in the township.

So, violence?

" A sheriff would forcibly remove you from your home in such cases."

So, this is your "non-violent" collectivism?

Thank you very much. This is all I needed to hear.

You never leave your property and live a happy life in solitude there until you die of boredom or starvation. Everybody is happy to not have to interact with you anymore.

Now stop bringing up absurd examples. Just living in a state exposes you to state violence, e.g. for not obeying the (tax) law.

If you wanted a realistic example of non-violent society, there are only few, mostly small remote tribes in deep jungle. Not surprisingly, those are very collectivist societies. The standard response to repeated badly non-conforming behavior in such societies is eviction from the community. Yes, that can be done non-violently.

I think the person meant about how the few options available actually come to existence: how are they come to be the ones that would allow the person to pick one over the other? Is it common sense, is it because it was decided this way.. How?

I think there are a lot of options. Across US states, counties, and townships, for example, there is a full spectrum of political positions literally w/r/t how money is collected (or not) and spent (or not)

Well, for starters, you may lose important local services.

https://www.nbcnews.com/id/wbna39516346

This is perfectly alright and waaaaaay more libertarian than collectivist.

You will starve as people refuse to provide you food, or allow you to use collective infrastructure, unless you leave. Your property will then become collective property.

"Not all collective decision-making processes are coercive, either,"

The process is not coercive, but the product is. Laws tend have punishments and are enforced through various levels of force or violence.

Depending on the scenario, potentially nothing. There are certainly times and topics where people can break from the collective, with no hard feelings or repercussions on either side.

In rural areas, this is typically how it works. Laws are more of suggestions, and unless you are causing a big problem for someone you are likely to be left alone.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com