Bitcoin Forum

If forcing people to give a cut of their labor to a central authority and using it to provide 'non-profit' universal services to all worked sustainably and provided happiness and prosperity for all, I would happily condone it.

I disagree with the forcing part. It should be opt in/opt out.

Well, I think that's the ultimate goal of a welfare state supported by those of us on the left.  Sure, there are some bumps on the road that leads us there -- because nothing involving human beings is ever perfect -- but personally I think the destination will eventually be reached.

On a somewhat off-topic side note, has anyone ever told you that the motto in your avatar ("What survives is good.") is indicative of a naturalistic fallacy?

A naturalistic fallacy results from assuming that because something is natural it must be moral (ie, assuming that "is" dictates "ought"). Its dual is the moralistic fallacy, where people assume that because something is moral, then it must be natural (ie, "ought" translates into "is").  Both these two kinds of fallacies are indicative of confusing "is" with "ought", though interestingly enough they are a good indicator of where a person lies in the political spectrum.  Whereas people on the right tend to fall towards naturalistic fallacies, people on the left are more prone to moralistic fallacies.  Either way, they are logical fallacies that a rational mind should avoid falling prey to.

Sounds suspiciously like a government.

no. there should be the choice: pay or leave.
i don't like all them who says: i don't pay taxes, they are bad. only stupid people say that.
intelligent people accept the facts: either i follow the rules and get the benefits, or i keep totally to my self, not paying, and not getting any of the benefits.

If it is enforced, it is corrupt, because the funds the central authority are effectively a privilege, meaning they have no responsibility to properly distribute it to begin with, since they acquired it through force. Corrupt people seek privileges so that tells you who will be trying to take control over that central entity. Moreover, force as the tool of an authority is nonsensical. Authority means to derive your power from a group that bestowed it upon you voluntarily. The use force to enjoy the benefit of that authority on the very group that bestowed it upon you renders it moot by definition.

If it is voluntary, it will fail. In the worst case, only those who have not enough to survive will participate, meaning you won't have enough resources for all the members to begin with. At best, it'll be as functional as a non governmental charity, which can help, but won't be able to fix the problem properly.

You must live in a highly populated area with lots of wonderful infrastructure that was built completely with government tax monies.

Where is this fantasy land?

The problem is, values are subjective. I am the only judge of those things as far as how they apply to me. By taking money from me involuntarily and giving it to, say, a hospital, I'm worse off because I would have rather spent the money elsewhere. If I wanted to give money to a hospital, I would have done it.

So, the only way for me to agree with you would be to also stipulate that value is objective and then in those cases where I'm wrong about what I value, your correcting me would be a good thing. Since values are subjective, I have to disagree.

It's actually derived from Dmitri Pisarev, presumably socialist-inclined and admired by Lenin.

"Break, beat up everything, beat and destroy! Everything that's being broken is rubbish and has no right to life! What survives is good"

I don't go for moral games based on mere whims and desires. I go for what works and sustains itself through disaster, attacks and wear-and-tear. So far it has been shown that liberty may do this and has done so in limited scenarios.

What does it mean "work"?

If having slaves water your garden makes it grow does that work?

There is no reason that governments would not use bitcoins as long as they required people to register a public ID for taxation purposes and use them appropriately.

If the slaves feel fulfilled and by all means happy, sure.

So it only works if it is voluntary?

If the majority of sentient organisms must experience the illusion/or actually the freedom of association and freedom as individuals in order to be happy, so be it.

So you'll let me be free if you think I need to be free to be happy or if I think I need to be free?

denmark, amager.
but im paying nothing!
i get money(government tax monies) to study.

Dam Benthamite! ;)

Well, my permission isn't relevant. Think of societal structures.

Back on topic ......my take is: if you don't like taxes... then put out your own fires, fight crime yourself, get off the paved roads and teach yourself and your kids what we learn in school.

"Taxes" have a bad rep thanks to Kings of old and political scandals, but really, it's the way in which we all pitch in and it makes things more efficient when used properly. I feel a little honored and satisfied when I pay taxes.

Though, again, it's the scandals that make us wonder why we are paying them ...we need to strive for more transparent government and resource distribution.

That ignores the voluntary division of labor. I don't have to make my own shoes but I do have to provide something to someone that does so they will voluntarily make me a pair. If I want cable TV or food, I will pay for it. I don't need the government to provide me those things. If I want fire protection, security, roads or my kids taught, I will pay for it. Again, the government isn't required for any of that.

Maybe it doesn't matter about your permission/condoning, but you did start a thread about it.

Let me rephrase, is it NOT okay with you if I am NOT free when I want to be? Or do you only desire me to be free when some other entity (a societal structure?) thinks I need to be free to be happy?

What is this communism theme going on around the forum?!

Would there be an incentive for you to work all your life to improve the life of both you and your children, if the state would confiscate your assets when you die and you couldn't leave anything behind?

no one is talking about confiscate anything here... we are just talking freedom vs. happiness.
keep to the topic, and stop the troll communism-is-evil crap.

I desire that you are sustained happily and if it requires that you thrive on being able to sustain yourself, so be it. Try to see the meaning in what I am trying to do here.

That makes sense. I guess I'm at a loss for at what point a group of people co-existing with structure would be called a government.


If I have my way, everyone will get to have a vote on everything that is up for debate and some who do not wish to participate as much may wish relinquish their vote to an selected representitive of theirs. Is that a government? The internet may just be the key to this scenario  ;)

I'm trying, you seem clever, but we have some communication problem I think, and I don't know what you mean here. It seems like you are saying that nonconsensual interactions are fine with you if ____________ . But I can't understand the criteria.

It becomes a government, or more specifically, a state, when it becomes involuntary, for example, if I don't want to pay for welfare but have no choice in the matter because I'll be thrown in jail or killed if I resist arrest.

And what if it only provided happiness and prosperity for 80% of the population?  Piss on the 20% of malcontents?

no try to resolve it.

That's a very broad definition.
So you and your friends have a club with a membership fee. A majority of them want to raise this fee and you don't. You lose the vote and the fee is raised. You have no choice (other than leaving the club), but to comply. Are they now a state?

How about the taliban rule of force in the Swat valley. Are they a state? "Do as we say or we kill you". Is that also a state?

And as was said in another thread, you always have the option of leaving. Don't like the rules of my house? GTFO!

Not when the whole world denies the right to your life and the ability to voluntarily interact with other people.

Notice you said, "other than leaving the club". That's why it's not a state. You can leave the club and simply stay on your own private property and not go on their private property anymore. I can't leave the "USA" club without abandoning my private property.


The entire USA isn't your "house", nor is it society's "house". Oddly enough, my house is an actual "house". So, I should be able to live in it under my own rules without statists like yourself kicking my door in, demanding I submit to their rules or empty my pockets.

I really wish that was possible.

I live in Brazil, but I dislike Brazillian culture, I dislike the average Brazillian, and I really hate the government.

Yet, I cannot leave, all other (non-waste) lands of the world are claimed by a state, and most of the states are right now tightening control on immigrants.

For example, to get to Japan, I need a job, or a japanese wife.
The same applies to USA, Canada, nordic countries, all european countries that I checked (maybe one that I do not checked is a exception...).
A notable exeption is for example Bahamas, except they demand you to have 300.000 in a bank, before you get a house permit... (I do not have that).

So, where I go? To the moon? GTFO to where? I really want to know, because I am really tired of Brazil and its extreme violence and ruralist authoritarian government (although it is a "democracy" most of the voters just keep putting back the ruralists, that keep using bribes, coercion and other methods to perpetuate that... And the ones that know better cannot rebel because guns are forbidden... oh, that also means you cannot defend yourself from bandits too).

1) You can leave the US. There's nothing stopping you. Other than your will to live there. So you choose to live under the current rules. And you acquired property under the current rules. You knew them.

2) I was using the word "house" in a figurative way. I understand you're still in college(?) so I'm sure you know what that is. And try this as an experiment. Withdraw from society completely. Give all property away. Build a house in the woods somewhere far from civilization, not telling anyone where, have absolutely no contact with any other humans. Now it's "your house, your rules" and you won't have to pay any taxes.
It's easy. What's hard is trying to have your cake and eat it too. Either you're a part, and take part, or you're on your own. Completely.

So, you can either be a slave or resist? Right. Nice.

JA37 a person after leaving its country, go WHERE?

You see, he can't imagine society working without taxes. That's his problem.

There are several places without any functional state where you can go. Rather crappy places all of them though. Parts of Somalia, Swat valley, parts of Zimbabwe.
And someone brought up Seasteading. Buy a barge, move out to sea. Stay there.

That's like saying that I'm free to jump in the ocean and drown if I don't like being on a ship at sea. Even if there were someplace I could go, I have no means to get there or to survive once there.



Why do I need to not have contact with other humans? Are you telling me that just saying "hello" to someone is grounds for being taxed? That's absurd. Also, there's large swaths of land in the USA that are deserted but I would still be subject to taxes there.

Anyways, there's no reasoning with you so I'm just going to ignore you in the future. You're pissing Kool-Aid.

If you have sex with 1,000 people and 999 consent but 1 doesn't, you're a rapist. If you take money from 1,000 people and 999 consent but 1 doesn't, you're a thief. That's all you are, a petty thief and in an ideal world I'd be able to deal with you like any other thief. I wouldn't think twice about putting a bullet in your thieving ass.

Justify it all you like so you can sleep at night, thief, but we all know what you are, those of us that aren't self-deluded anyways.

That's rather extreme isn't it? Equalling leaving the US with almost certain death? And what are you saying now, that life isn't fair? I agree. I want to make it more fair to more people.

If you have nothing to tax you will not be taxed. You're taking what I'm writing too literal. What I'm saying is that to participate in society you have to contribute in the way that society has mandated. And society is us.


That's a shame. I've always enjoyed our discussion. I think you have a very simplistic view of the world, but I've always enjoyed reading your thoughts. I've learned quite a bit, although I admit I draw completely different conclusions from the things you present.

Now this just makes me sad. I've always considered you a level headed and rational person.
And what you consider theft is what I see as payment for services rendered. Agree about the rape part though.

I can absolutely imagine a society working without taxes. I just think it would be worse than the current system.
I think you'd see something like a plutocracy or a might makes right, kind of society. Simplified.

If that were true, I'd have the right to cancel these services. Stop dropping bombs using my tax money. Stop giving welfare checks to lazy parasites. Stop sending kids to be brainwashed by the state. I want these services to stop and I don't want to pay for them. By continuing to "render services" you're little more than a mafia Don that is rendering his protection "services" i.e. you're thief, a crook and nothing more.

Are there other areas of life where someone can provide services without permission and then demand payment without agreement? Is this behavior generally okay with you?

He's just going to say that remaining in a geographical region counts as implicit consent. Which leads us back to the point that remaining on a ship at sea isn't implicit consent when the only alternative is jumping in the ocean and drowning.

If the services were provided to you individually, but they aren't. They're provided to the group/community. Your community, in which you're a part, has decided that the services have value.

You know, I actually agree with this.
Agree or die isn't a valid choice.

So, if the community agrees to let Obama fuck them in the ass, even though I don't consent, it's not rape?


That's what you're advocating. You suggested to someone to go live on a barge in the ocean yet, who can afford that? Where will fresh water come from? Food? Maybe it's not instant death like drowning is but it's not much better.

Colourful example. However, it does go against article 3 in the declaration of human rights, which I hold in quite high regard.

I was referring to something called seasteading, something that should go well with most anarchists/libertarians I think. Keep to international waters and you can live under any rule you want.
Grow food, purify water. There are technical solutions. I didn't say it was easy, nor affordable for most people, or practical. Just that it was a possibility.

The declaration of human rights is just another set of rules created by another community. What if the global community agrees to get fucked in the ass but I don't, is that not rape?


If I can't afford it then how is it possible? You might as well suggest that I build a moonbase and live there.

I do believe it would be rape, yes. And you're right, it's just another set of rules.
Democracy, or its variants, aren't perfect. I never claimed it was, I do however think that all other alternatives are worse.
I can see benefits in anarchism, or whatever it is that you call that you're arguing for. I also see faults that I find it hard to live with.

It has to be available to you right now? This instant? Sorry, life doesn't work that way.

Then the fact that X number of people declare Y is acceptable isn't the principle you're operating with. So, the fact that X number of people say they can steal from me and you think it's alright has to be based on something else other than "the community says so".


Then you're back to the "agree or die" situation which you've already said isn't a real choice. In other words, because I have no choice, I haven't consented to anything. While I could go live on a moonbase or in the ocean if I were rich enough, I'm not. So, my staying put isn't consent.

Actually it is the principle, but I do also acknowledge that there are some things that aren't up for a vote. Rape being one of them.



Paying taxes doesn't kill you. Don't be such a drama queen. :P
Seriously though, there are places to go which doesn't require that amount of riches. I don't belive they pay tax in Bahrain, Kuwait, United Arab Emirates, and Saudi Arabia, if my google-fu is strong. Apply for citizenship. They are states, but places where there isn't a state around tend to be run by bandits.


And you are given the tools to change the world around you, if you're not happy with those countries. Not right this instant, but you have the tools. You can even start an election about never having an election again.

What principle guides you to abandon your principles?

I like how you can declare rape not up for vote but I can't declare theft not up for vote.


Again, how do I get there and how do I survive once there? How are these places better than the middle of the ocean?

You assuming "taxes won't kill you" is kinda wrong.

I live in Brazil, where I live, I pay for my own security, education, roads, healthcare AND then I pay the taxes.

But there are not sufficient money to do that...

So I have the choices: Or I hand my money to government, and die with lack of money to pay other essential things not provided by the government (like food, housing, security, etc...) or I pay for the stuff I need, and risk getting killed by the government (or arrested, not much better...)



Also, as I said earlier in the thread, to live in Bahrein for example, you need 300.000 in the bank, those nice countries with low taxes, all of them are really hard to get into them, if it was possible to easily there, I am sure far less people would be complaining about taxes.

I'd say that anything that has to do with security of person isn't up for vote.
If it has to do with social interaction it can, as in things that affect a group or population.

Because the choice isn't "agree or die", assuming we're still talking about jumping off a ship. If you mean seasteading instead I don't know if they're better, but more people live there already so it's been proved to be habitable. How you should survive? I don't know, you seem like a smart guy. You'll figure it out. How you get there? Save money, apply for citizenship, buy trip once you get it.

Do you suppose you could make a separate thread for your retarded "I own everything if you don't like it leave" philosophy and stop shitting up other threads with your endlessly-equivocating, moronic justifications for it?  Kthanx.

Because, I'm not going to spend the time to eviscerate your ridiculous logic unless I can just do it once and not ever have to see it again.

Frankly the rest of us should be charging you for psychological services, or family counseling or whatever.  If we sent you a bill, would you pay it?  Should we send it to the US Gov't instead and have the whole community pay for it?

On second thought, please don't answer that here.  Just make your own thread and the doctor will be with you shortly.

Don't think I ever said "I own everything". WE own everything perhaps, but that includes you. And actually it's not a philosophy and the suggestion came from someone here on the forums, although it was about their property. I just extended it to a country, but for some reason it stopped being valid then.

And I'm sorry that you feel that way, but perhaps you can draw some strength from all the "Taxes are theft" that also seem to show up everywhere. And do you really need counselling from having to read a different viewpoint?
I'm not saying that I'm right and you're wrong when it comes to world view, nor the opposite. But sometimes there's a little too much circle jerk in this forums, and not everyone think that taxes are theft and the government is the ultimate evil that is out to destroy humankind.
Admittedly I probably haven't spent as much time as you thinking about anarchistic philosophy. I learn by reading but so far all I've seen are vague hopes that things might be better and a love for anything that isn't a state.

Oh, and the patronizing tone is just juvenile.

Most of us believe we own ourselves and all of the labor we produce. We believe we have the right to sustain ourselves according to our own will. Simply put, taxes and government force infringe this.

Very simple. Very concise.

Believe it or not but I actually agree with most of this. Agreed it's very simple, very concise and also imho very simplistic.

I subscribe to a different theory of property rights than you.

Yes, I suppose you do.
"I own whatever I use" was it? Homesteading and stuff?
I'd be rich if I lived in your world.  ;D

I'm not sure if you're joking or if you are actually ignorant of Libertarian property rights. There's two way to obtain property, homesteading, which is mixing your labor with unowned property, land, natural resources, whatever, and legitimate title transfer, barter, gifts, gambling. It's hard to see how you'll be rich through mixing your labor with anything unless it's just through diligent hard work. You can't go plant four flags at the corners of Nevada and claim you own it. You actually have to do something with the unowned property you claim, farm, mine, or even study ecology by recording it but not altering it. So, how exactly would you be "rich" in "my" world? You'd be richer since you wouldn't be forced to give money to the government which does everything inefficiently and has little to no incentive to improve.

I'd claim all land and use it to increase biodiversity, study long term effects of global warming or anything else that would be very hard to actually check. I mean, how can you actually check what I'm doing? My forests might be in a growth period, no action required on my part. My fields might be resting for a few years to yield bigger crops in the future. How can you tell?
Or isn't that allowed?

And another thing that interests me. How do you keep track of which land actually belong to whom? A central land authority that registers all owners? Doesn't seem like something you'd like. Several registers? Something else?

Agree too simplistic.How is ownership of a common resource managed? Who will decide who gets what in a group, for a certain task? Your assuming that everyone will play nice and divide a community gathered resource up fairly based upon (Prob(Failure)*FailureCost) + (Prob(Success)*Benefit), naive....

Who will create the structures necessary to stop coercion?? The goodwill of all agents will somehow create it??

Yes I support taxes and a government that create these structures, the market can not exist without them. If the government and taxes aren't being used for these purposes then pull the government into line.

If anyone supports the notion of the free market then you implicitly support "being forced to work for 'non-profit' universal services to all worked sustainably and provided happiness and prosperity for all" , through your taxes, to create the structures necessary to stop coercion.

Do you really think that you, off the top of your head, can come up with objections that many great thinkers haven't (a) already thought of or (b) already offered solutions to?

At the very least, you need to fence in the land. There has to be some kind of visible border around your property. Also, if someone moves into land that you own, you can't just say "oh I own that", you have a burden of proof. In the case of ecology, it would be some kind of historical data, survey maps, a deed whatever.


How do you keep up with your credit rating? Is there a single government agency that does that? No, actually its several different agencies. I'm also not against central authority or even monopolies, as long as they are voluntary. If everyone decides to use Bob's Land Registration because they are honest and it's convenient to have only one, fine with me. However, if Bob's Land Registration starts getting abusive, the door is open for competition, which somewhat assures that abuses aren't that tempting in the first place. It's a sort of business suicide.

If I don't pay for the govt benefiots I have more money ior more time to make benefits for my neighborhood. Taxes destroy community.

I'm not sure which great thinkers you refer to, but I did read a few articles that was offered to me, and watched a few youtube films that people suggested, and if that represented the great thinkers I'm not impressed.

Fences? Really? Visible border? Go have a look at a large farm. They have no fences around their crop fields and it would be very impractical and expensive to have it. It becomes even more absurd with forests.
I assure you that I could claim enough land anywhere to go around and inspect it every 10 years or so, making sure it's doing it's job acting as a carbon sink. I see so many ways to abuse the system you're proposing. So you have to prove that you own your property to anyone who shows up?

Credit rating is a bit like IP isn't it. It's not "scarce".
I was in Greece not too long ago. I came across a guy who built a house there. He assumed that the road outside was a public road, which it wasn't it'd turn out. When his house was built some guy came up with a document showing that he owned the road and now wanted to be compensated. Our hero had nothing to do but to pay the fee that the man asked for. Then another man came, with another contract claiming the HE owned the road, then another and another. All with valid documents. And the fee was low enough to not bother going to court about.
He fully expects someone to come one day with a paper claiming to own the land that the house stands on, but then the stakes will be higher.
Turns out that this isn't uncommon in Greece. A country with a more or less failed state. That's what I'd expect without a central authority.

First that's not lack of authority, that's lack of protocol. Imagine me trying to send you a transaction without having signed it. It's a matter of protocol.

Second why central? Why not consolidated such as a decentralized council that anyone can participate in? Like here. Or USUncut.

Stop confusing form with function.

A few articles and YOUTUBE? Come on... Read some books. I'll suggest some if you don't know how to use Google. I think it's just easier for you to reject ideas that you are ignorant of.


The crops themselves act as a border. It's pretty obvious where a plowed field ends and the forest begins. It's pretty obvious where a wheat field ends and the forest begins.


So because owning a forest would be difficult you think that is a death blow to the entire system? There are many other ways to mark a boundary. Post some signs every half mile, stake the corners, have a radio transmitter. The common thread here is that this is a technological problem, not a theoretical one.


No just in court if you evict someone and they sue you or you use force against them and there is an investigation.


That's a non sequitur.


In other words, since there's no final authority that you can appeal to, no dispute is ever truly resolved. That's actually the same case with our current system. Even if you get all the way up to the Supreme Court the issue isn't settled because then you can just petition Congress to pass a law so that your case is won that way.

I asked questions. People pointed me to what they thought were good videos and articles. They weren't.
Feel free to suggest things to read/watch, I'll give it a shot. Bad/stupid things don't get much time though.

Or you could just use the current system which is both working, economical and efficient. Why replace a system, with some faults, with another with different but equally big or bigger faults? Why not try to improvements? Look, I can see some benefits to your way of thinking, and I can see how some thoughts can be incorporated into current systems, but your system as a whole just doesn't make sense to me.

I don't think it is. You can have different credit ratings with different organizations.  You can't have different owners of a patch of land. Not at the same time anyway.

I don't agree with your conclusion. And laws are seldom retroactive, and those who are are advertised in advance to let you react to them. Also, your solution to the problem above would be to make sure the person with the most resources wins? Hardly seems more fair to me.

Oh, look, I can also link images.

Who the hell are you to define destruction, rubbish, right, life, survival, and good?

You'd easily discard something you thought destroyed that you didn't value right up until it put a knife to your back.

Lenin was a coward.

Anything that tries to achieve its ends through such means doesn't deserve to live.

Life is defined by nature and nature has mostly achieved its goals through flow and the individual whims of its components in synchronous harmony. Humanity has been mostly a tsunami pushing with an endless foam upon the shore, destroying all in its sight in the name of the supposed common good.

Good is what survives in the face of all that opposes it. Good sustains and so far none of our attempts at civilization have done so.

Challenges only cause polarization. What you need is self-awareness. There is no survival of the fittest, but only the school of fish that looks like a much bigger one.

Who is achieving anything? You are attacking something based on your values.
Since you don't value a thing, you prematurely assume its failure.
Since you don't value a thing, you ignore it and fail to see it rise back up.
Since you don't value a thing, you laugh at its previous condition and fail to acknowledge your own vulnerability.
Since you don't value a thing, you attack it with insufficient opposition and fail to see the community turn against you.
Since you don't value a thing, it strikes along with Brutus, your best pal, and you're now a part of history.


Life is undefined. Nature is undefined. They are one and the same.


Life is an end in itself. Nature is the macro, life is the micro. It only seeks knowledge of itself. Survival is an inch away from death. Thriving is self-sustaining. You have no foundation upon which to judge anything which lives. Life is thriving at its own pace, It does not need your pompous ass challenging it.


You are quite the hypocrite aren't you, precious?


Only the dead survive. The living don't even take you seriously. Truly you wouldn't know the difference between a civilization thriving and a lifeless tornado destroying.

Go ahead. Let's take this to nihilism. I am a nihilist at heart but I'll have my preferences.

I know nothing. You know nothing. Fine.

I'm actually not a nihilist. I'm just a loud son of gun. I take destruction for the common good to be the same as destruction for the common improvement. The sickness is the same. The only difference is context. I do think corrective action is warranted, provided you pick up after yourself. But the purpose of an early challenge should be to prevent catastrophic collapse not induce collapse to discover the living. How can you value what is living if you are preoccuppied with destruction? That is a cognitive dissonance which further impedes objectivity.

Philosophy announced merely temps manipulation. All philosophies have cycled from the concrete to the abstract and back. In this list the numbers refer to the number of pivot points in the discussion. The evens tend toward the concrete. The odds toward the abstract.

0. Nihilism - Nothing matters. I am nothing. Politicians don't do anything important.
1. Solipsism - I am everything. Everything matters. Politics is all there is.
2. Materialism - I am me. You are you. My things matter. Politics is black and white trying to grab each other's stuff.
3. Relativism - We are we. Our things matter. Politics puts the guy in the center right as left, the guy on the far right as moderate and the news anchor quietly moves the center line.
4. Practicalism - We thrive. Living things matter. Politics avoids history as the backdrop that exposes political manipulation.

I tend toward #4. Also notice the thin line between 0 and 1.

You wouldn't know what the common good is even if it shoved itself up your prefrontal cortex.  

...and Ubi pus, ibi evacua.

You see the vacuum and you must smash it.

Jesus, you really like dividing by zero.

I got nothing better to do besides having sex and feeding myself.

I can't accept any system if one of its faults is that it allows for initiating violence against persons or property as being legitimate when done by certain groups. All human interactions should be voluntary. In my opinion, the current system has such a flaw and it more than outweighs any technical difficulties imposed by competing jurisdictions.

The system doesn't even work if it's not already clear. It's really that simple.

So where does parenting fall into this?

Parents are custodians of their children until those children demand to be free by leaving home and living on their own. Also, if you abuse a child or otherwise treat him or her in a way that he or she wouldn't want to be treated if he or she were a fully rational adult then you lose custodianship and someone else can take over that responsibility.

So a child is in the custody of a legal guardian, right. So who grants custodianship over an individual? A community of peers? That seems to violate two libertarian virtues: The individual is "entitled to themselves" and that no "institution" will decide the future of an individual.


Who decides what a rational adult is? Who decides what abuse is?

I don't think that you can use terms defined by peers to describe a libertarian society. A Libertarian vocabulary is restricted to using words that only concern the individual. To use words whose definition is defined by comparing individuals implies denying the individuals right to define what the word means. Also to use a word whose meaning is agreed upon by a set of peers(aka institution) is an indirect form of institutional influence. To describe an ideology in such a way, implies the need for institutions.


This is open to the points I made above.

This is why I don't like the concept of children.

nothing actually "work" in that sense, then.
people works, rest was rust.

Think of it like this. You see a person unconscious and bleeding on a sidewalk. The only thing that will save their life is a blood transfusion. Do you give them one? Well, that depends on what the person would want if they were fully rational i.e. conscious. For most people, the answer would be yes. If they are a Jehovah's Witness then the answer would be no. You treat people how they would want to be treated if they were fully rational.


Each of us does, by declaring ourselves to be rational and fending for ourselves.


Again, each of us does. If we aren't fully rational then we should treat them how they would want to be treated if they were fully rational. Obviously, that can't be done perfectly but that's what we should strive for.

This is illogical. So when an agent is unconscious, the external agent is suppose to treat them in a rational(1) way; and rational(1) is defined by the unconscious agent, the meaning of which is unknown by the external agent, therefore the course of action to be taken by the external agent is unknown. How is that suppose to work?

Lets say the unconscious agent has it's own preference on blood transfusion, but for the sake of argument lets include a premise into your scenario; In this situation it is okay for the external agent to revert to its own meaning of rational(2). Unfortunately both agents definition of rational are different resulting in the violation of the unconscious agent's liberties. How does libertarianism deal with this? It cannot restore the unconscious agent's liberties because no such structures exist. This also shows that these set of "libertarian rules" does not guarantee the liberties of all agents.

No, it's not up to the agent to decide what rationality is. That's presupposed. It's only up to the agent to declare that he or she is rational.

Which agent?

So your saying all agents have an agreed definition of rationality? That is peer definition(aka institution). A concept like rationality is a peer agreed term, therefore if you presuppose rationality then you presuppose the existence of institutions.

The topic of guardianship and the care for the unconscious is the Godwin's Law topic for libertarians.

Do unto others as they'd have you do unto them is an unworkable model.

If a person is conscious and asks me to kill them, am I compelled to do so? No. Therefore if a person is unconscious, I will do what is in my power to bring them back to being conscious.

There is a difference between definitions and meaning. A definition is which meaning we attach to which word.

Do we all agree on the definition of a dog? Maybe not. You could be using the word dog to refer to tables or salt shakers. However, there is a meaning that refers to four legged things that bark, have tails, sharp teeth, were bred from wild wolves, etc. So when I talk about dogs, that's the definition I'm using. You have to go beyond the words themselves to get at the meaning.

When I say rationality, I mean the ability to use reason, logic, etc.

This is stupid. In this "libertarian universe" the unconscious agent is lying on the pavement. The external agent comes along and is forced to interact with the unconscious agent according to the meaning of rational defined by the unconscious agent, the meaning of which is unknown by the external agent. Like I said before how is this possible??

Further I will say that is impossible to achieve. For this to work it implies that all agents must have each others set of meanings in order to correctly interact rationally( I mean the "completely shared" libertarian definition of rational). This is necessary because according to "libertarian rules" interactions between agents obligate each agent to interact with prior knowledge of meanings known by the other. And to obligate agents to share their meanings/intelligence is a violation of their "liberties". :)

In my last post I thought I explained that the meaning of rational isn't dependent on the unconscious agent. I think where we went wrong is when you asked "Who decides what a rational adult is?" and I took that to mean, "Who gets to decide if someone is a rational adult?"

The meaning of rationality is shared and normative much like the meaning of table, salt shaker, etc. To answer your question, nobody gets to decide what a rational adult is just like nobody gets to decide what a table or a salt shaker is. We all just settle on the definition by referring to certain meanings.

"How many legs does a dog have if you call a tail a leg? Four. Calling a tail a leg doesn't make it one."

Contradiction, your starting to talk s&$+..... In your first example it seems that everyone is entitled to their own meanings, but now your saying that the society has "shared meanings"........ Which one is it?

Can you explain how you come to that conclusion? The first quote you refer to makes no mention of meaning.

Also, please quit with the hostility. It adds absolutely nothing. If you don't have the patience for this then we can simply end the discussion. I have better things to do than be insulted.

(Scenario)

External agent sees an unconscious agent bleeding on a sidewalk. The only thing that will save the unconscious agent is a blood transfusion. The unconscious agent (may | may not) be a Jehovah's Witness.

(Notes)

(Note 1)
In your original example you state that there is an expectation upon the external agent to know if the unconscious agent is a Jehovah's Witness, if you include this then you implicitly say that all agents interact with one another knowing about all other agent's meaning of rational. This is not possible.

(Rules)

(1) Assume that the meaning of rational held by each agent is possibly unique.

(2) Interaction between two agents; Agent(Unconscious)  and Agent(External), expects that they treat the other according to the other's meaning of rational.

(3) This is a libertarian society, therefore it is not possible to infringe upon someone's liberties.

Well in this scenario it is not possible for the external agent to guarantee the liberties of the unconscious agent, therefore nullifying rule 3.

For rule 3 to be valid you need to nullify note 1.

What does knowing the religion of a person have to do with knowing their meaning of rational? Also, I didn't say there is an expectation that you should know the religion of a person. I said we should strive to treat people as they would want to be treated which could depend on a person's rationality. Obviously, unless they have some sort of bracelet or other identifying information on them, it's not possible to know their religion.



No, that's not what I said.


Again, that's not what I said.


It's possible but not legitimate.

I'm not trying to be rude here but is your first language English? There seems to be some kind of communication barrier between us.

Your kidding right? You don't think an individual's rationality will be shaped by their religion? So now it is ok to give the unconscious agent blood?



If the concept of definition is not used in a libertarian society then how is it possible to define "child abuse" let alone "rational adult" ? How is it going to be possible to not infringe upon the child's or the parent's liberties, when the external community intervenes in a case of "community defined" child abuse?

I love this thread; it's so full of bull.

Simple. If I need a blood transfusion and the Jehova's Witness sees me and has never seen a Mormon before and assumes all people should be Jehova's Witnesses and refuses me treatment, then how are my rights not infringed?

In questions of life and death, life trumps the debate.

Does he owe you your life?  Is it your right to demand others make sure you stay alive?

Would you take another's life to spare your own?

He does not have to help me. What he cannot do however is impose on me his selective decision because he thinks transfusions are wrong.

Yes he can. He can decide to deny you a transfusion because he believes your Xenu levels are too low. It's his goddamn blood. You can have it when you shoot him dead cold but not before.

I'm not talking about his blood. I'm talking about some JW trying to block paramedics from helping me.

hm, modern slavers fund truly masterpieces of propaganda.
in "source code"[isn't that really-really romantic one?] movie they debate people right to live and die, right to both control their death and body property after it. "for public/society interest".
isn't so frequently society interests and individual freedom quickly change each other in [poor attempts]to promote something on THIS forum on EACH sides ?

It isn't about "for all", as that's a silly standard. It needs to be, at minimum, for the majority, and ideally, to maximize utility.

Utility, from zee couch veeth zee Cheetos.

So, the minority can go fuck themselves?

How do you know you are maximizing utility?  Who's utility? How do you measure it?  Value is subjective.

Taxing the population decreases utility of those taxed, and is justified by the premise that it will increase their utility overall.  But how do you know it will?  How do you prove that?  Because value is subjective individuals are the only ones qualified to decide what will best make them happy.

You can opt out by leaving the country.

Also, opt in/out would never work because no one would chip in voluntarily, thinking everyone else would cover shared costs. Everything will devolve into a shitstorm, and then madmen and warlords, and despots would rise to power.

I'm not saying that there isn't crazy corruption and injustice in the current system however. Just pointing out what i see as a flaw in your statement.

I think this is a good statement.

I was discussing Utilitarianism with some friends and by the end of the discussion we agreed that Utilitarianism would be complete with the inclusion of the "Emotional Function".

The Emotional Function

http://life-engineering.com/files/2010/04/the-mastery-asymptote.png
This the general idea of an emotional function.

The emotional function would describe the response of one emotion to different stimulus. So there would be an emotional function for love, hunger, fear, etc. The most important property of all emotional functions is that they have a horizontal asymptote. This puts an upper and lower bound upon the experience of all emotions. This means that your experience love, fear, hunger, etc is not unlimited.

Also there would be a "Welfare Function", this function would take all the inputs from the emotional functions and return a scalar and based upon this people decide what decisions to make and is a reflection of an individual's overall welfare. This is just summarizing how individuals experience life, when faced with different paths to take people will imagine how they will feel for each path. In some paths they will experience more romantic love over economic fortune and other paths they may experience more satisfaction from economic accomplishment over spiritual satisfaction. Depending on the individual's welfare function then they will choose a path that best reflects their welfare preferences. People who seek economic fortune will choose the economic path over the romance provided by another path. But the important observation is that the "Welfare Function" is something like a weighted summation of asymptotically bound emotional functions. This means the "Welfare Function" will have an upper and lower bound.

We also assumed that the response of an emotional function will generally experience the greatest change closet to the base line. This means that, say your hungry, then you will experience the greatest increase in welfare from the initial meals you have and the change in welfare will have diminishing returns for each subsequent meal. This is a generalization for all emotions.

So if Utilitarianism defined welfare in these terms, then the community would choose a path that maximizes the summation of all individuals welfare functions. The beauty of using a welfare function in this way is that it allows to opposite ideas to exist in this Society, i.e "All for one" and "One for all".

In what instances would "All for one" be achieved? Imagine a group of people who are all over-weight, but one is not getting enough to eat. In this instance, food would be taken from everyone who is over-weight, they would all experience a negative change in their welfare and the under-weight person would eat this excess food and this would create a positive change in their welfare.

Overall the group would experience a positive change in welfare. How so? Look at the graph, let the horizontal axis represent the amount of food eaten and the vertical axis represent welfare. So all of the over-weight people's welfare would be to the far right, and removing a portion of their food lets say 10%, would cause their welfare  to change only slightly. But the under-weight person's welfare would be to the far left. When they are given this excess food this will cause a dramatic increase their welfare. And adding all welfare changes would result in an increase in the community's welfare.

In what instances would "One for all" occur? Imagine the same group in a hypothetical situation, except everyone is stuck on an island this island will become submerged due to global warming and there is a boat, but the boat will sink if everyone except one person goes on it. If they all stay on the island and die then all welfare functions will go to the left, resulting in the lowest possible welfare for the community. If only one stays behind, then this is the best outcome as everyone's welfare function will be somewhere on the right. So in this case one person should be forced to stay behind.

We believe that adding these concepts to Utilitarianism makes it more robust.

I like this idea.  You could say, for instance, assume that the scalar value is like rungs on a ladder.  And you just put all of the possible decisions onto the ladder and the one at the top is the one you choose!


I'm not so sure that I like this idea quite as much though.

What don't you like about this idea? Is that fact someone would be forced?

The problem is there is no way to quantify emotion and happiness, human emotions are subjective and cannot be measured with cardinal numbers. You can say something makes you more happy than something else, but not by how much. And even if you were to establish arbitrary measurements for yourself, they would not apply to anyone else. This is why I believe individuals are the only ones qualified to make decisions for themselves.

Of course, what I have written is built upon the hypothetical ideal scenario of knowing everyone's set of emotional and welfare functions. And I agree that there will never be a way to obtain this perfect scenario.

But just like my example is ideal, so is the idea that only the individual knows what is best. What about a baby? What about someone driving their car to fast? If the individual knew best there would be no reason to tell anyone what to do.

To be sure "letting individuals decide" isn't a panacea, and would not solve all problems. There will be gray areas as you point out, I simply think it is the best we can do. I think it maximizes overall utility, even if people make mistakes and don't always know what they want. Hayek (who was no anarchist) talks about decentralizing the decision making and how it is better for society in his book "The Constitution of Liberty".

I also have another belief that I have not mentioned, and that a sustainable society over a time period in order to reduce "exploitative behavior" will need to equalize it's agents in all forms of energy control. This is a completely separate idea that I have not bothered to write about.

But basically any intelligent agent will seek to dominate its environment. That includes other intelligent agents. If an agent is in a position of dominance, then there is a "evolution incentive" to dominate other agents. Look at humans compared to other life-forms. They are successful because they have the most control over the environment. Look at what happens when people are in a position of dominance in any period of history. And an intelligent agent is not smart if it does not seek to dominate more and more of its environment, that is a contradiction.

Anyway I'm sure there are plenty who will disagree :) .

Attempting to dominate and being able to are quite different matters. This is why I like decentralizing power: it makes it more difficult for any single agent or institution to dominate others. Whereas, with government, by definition, a single institution has a monopoly on domination in it's geographic locality.

Absolutely I completely agree. But lets say everyone worked for the government, then the power would be truly distributed. :)

...and nothing would ever get done.  :P Besides, there are many levels of hierarchy in government, no?

Well, it isn't as easy if the service you provide is a basic human right. If someone is dying in his blood in the street, is it acceptable to let him dying because he didn't pay?

I don't think so. In most countries, this is not even legal to let someone die without trying to help him.

Thus, you cannot really leave such service.

What about services that are hurting everybody if you don't use them, like garbage collecting.

You decide you don't pay the tax and burry all your garbage in your garden. This is hurting the whole neighborhood. As such, you cannot really leave such service.

And last but not least: you are benefitting from some services like walking on roads. You cannot simply choose to not use any road.

Yea maybe things wouldn't get done, but no one ever thinks:

Well given that monopoly of force is the problem, and the government( insert entity name here) has the monopoly. Why don't we make the monopoly bigger? Why don't we include more people in the monopoly therefore the entity with the monopoly is more likely to represent the communities interest?

I never hear that.

And the hierarchy is going to be evident in any system. BTW I do agree with distribution of power. I think the Welfare and Emotional Functions should be used to show which hierarchies are best at fulfilling these requirements.

There are ways to solve these problems without requiring a coercive monopoly, but they require humanity growing up and maturing which may not happen.

http://mises.org/books/boundaries.pdf

Great book on the concept of property rights and how it affects social issues (all rights are property rights). My friends and I are reading it and discussing over dinner and beer during this month. Beer and ideas are a great combination.  :)