Bitcoin Forum

There are currently 5.49 million BTC in circulation, and 1050 reachable nodes running. Statistically, we should each have a little over 5228 BTC. Which one of you took my share?

This is a fact of life in any remotely free market system, there will always be a few who have the highest share of wealth. However with bitcoin it will be due entirely to fair, free market forces at play, instead of politics or government favors etc.

What really distributes wealth in an evil manner is inflation. The most poor are the most damaged by it, since they are the ones who tend to have a larger percentage of their possessions in the form of money.

...Do you mean including cracking peoples' online accounts, lifting their wallets with java applets, and trading in dark pools?? Do you mean "due entirely to fair, free market forces" such as those?

Dream on, dude! lol Maybe by Chinese standards it will be due to "free market forces" - not by the likes of Adam Smith's.

When dark pools were implemented on the main Bitcoin exchanges, the Bitcoin markets stopped being free by definition, because they ceased being transparent to all. It's the same Wall Street scams for avoiding the "free market forces"   to benefit wealthy insiders, rigged under the guise of "stabilizing the markets for everyone..."

The truth is that the legal and illegal scammers who are cheating the "free market forces" are already in the Bitcoin system. Next, imho, will be the consolidation of mining toward oligopolization, the same way that exists in the current banking systems...

The governments won't be far behind, using those same dark pools and mining oligarchies to make "fair, free market forces" in Bitcoin as much of a fantasy, as they are in the corrupt markets on Wall Street... :(

The amount of money you own is definitely NOT related to your wealth.  Rich people don't hoard large amounts of cash, unless they are stupid.

The golden rule in finance is diversification.  Rich people own things that money can buy, not money itself.

I'm a huge fan of bitcoin, and yet I don't own 5,400 BTC, though such an amount has probably passed through my wallet.

But bitcoins are things that money can buy...

Me too. I don’t like this at all.

I don't know why people considers dark pools as evil. It's like saying insider trading is evil.

What? I don't like dark pols either. But are people suggesting that if two people secretly trade coins then the bitcoin market is no longer free? Does it somehow make a difference if they trade secretly on mtgox or in their own house? Keeping your dealings hidden is prudent in many situations especially those involving large amounts of money. No one has any obligation to tell the world the size of their trades after the fact let alone before.

What's really ironic to me about dark pools, is that they weren't forced on Bitcoin by oppressive governments, or plundering corporations, or any other outside forces of evil-doers. They were instituted by leaders in this community, who espouse the benefits of the above-mentioned pure free-market fantasies...

 

+1

Tell me why it isn't free market thing to have dark pools?

+1.
There's nothing wrong with dark pools.

I've not understood why one would trade outside of the dark pools, since they are available.

There's nothing wrong with dark pools. The way a free market works is that you decide what it's worth to you to buy or sell, and if the market can match you up with someone else then you both transact to mutual advantage.

Why should people be forced to advertise their intentions in one specific way? That wouldn't be very free.

Anyway, dark pools at MtGox make little difference. Even if MtGox didn't support dark pools, there will always be people dealing outside of MtGox (e.g. #bitcoin-otc, or private trades) so you can't have perfect knowledge of other people's intentions anyway. There are always parts of any market that are unavoidably dark.

That's udder nonsense.  Transparency is not equatable to freedom, in fact, privacy in private exchanges is the definition of freedom.  If gay porn were legal in Arabia, but everyone had to register with a publicly accessible website to do so, how free would they really be?  Dark pools are just a formal manner of private trading, I've done the exact same thing via pm, email and cash in the mail.  None of those trades are recorded on any exchange metric either.

If you didn't have dark pools, you'd have people spending a lot of time obfuscating their large transactions. I don't see how that's desirable, really.

Funny how it is also true in almost any Commission Only Sales Job.  Its called "drive" "hunger" "desire" "will" etc....

Your house is a private residence; MtGox is a public market.

The key difference is that worldwide price discovery for any commodity doesn't happen at your house.  It does happen for Bitcoin at MtGox.

In any walk of life, there is a way to game the system to your own individual benefit, at the expense of others. Why don't you not do that, if you can get away with it?

...Or do you already do that as a matter of routine??   :)

MtGox is no "public" anything. It's private property, and if its owner wants to allow people to trade in secret there, nobody else has anything to do with it.

Reminds me of arguments I've heard for the stance that business owners should not have a right to refuse service to anyone for any reason. "Once they open their doors to the public, they have an obligation to do business with anyone."

Some BS right there.

Agreed. That's the way it works in a dark alley also.  :D In a genuinely free market, imho, the open exchange of any commodity is a place where all the participants have equal information about the balance of market forces, for the purpose of fair price discovery – not just transact to mutual advantage in privacy.

Dark pools hinder and distort the results of that discovery...


Why should a con artist be prevented from doing his thing by exposing his intentions?  After all, that would interfere with his freedom to con people...
I think you are confusing freedom with ability to harm others through your actions, if you feel like it would benefit you.  :D


Just because there are dark alleys in which all kinds of shady private trades are happening, doesn't mean that the main price discovery marketplace for any commodity should include dark alleys. That is, of course, if you want that main exchange to determine that price accurately...  :)

So, in order to be free, a market must be regulated?

No. A con is a form of fraud. Offering currency for trade without announcing it to the world is not fraud. No number of emoticons can change this fact.

What i think best reveals that dark pools are free-market forces avoidance and market manipulation tools for hypocritical free-marketeers is that there is an arbitrary lower limit set on participation in them.

If they were really for the purposes of trading privacy, that limit wouldn't exist. Let's all trade privately then, rather than just those above a certain arbitrary level of means. That would be great!  :D

The fact that dark pools are only available to large traders, really shows the privacy argument to be the red herring that it is...  ;)

Do you even know how a dark pool works? Once a trade is made, dark pool or not, it shows up in the recent trades. What does it matter if the trade offer was public or not?

I don't accept that an offer to trade can harm others.

Sorry i didn't make my  point clear enough here: it wasn't whether or not MtGox is a private or public place, or whether or not it has a right to run dark pools.

My point was simply that MtGox is the place of worldwide Bitcoin exchange rate discovery, and one's house isn't.

Imho, dark pools distort that exchange rate in a systemic way.

With respect to this issue, to me, a free market is one in which the rules are the same for all traders, the level of "trading privacy" is the same, and the access to information is the same, regardless of the size of the trade.  :)

imanikin’s right. This system (dark pools only allowed for huge trades) favors the big fishes at the cost of all others – ironically, this is not very much unlike the established we want to replace …
The "true" Bitcoin price is probably veiled this way due to misinformation, because we can’t see dark pool selling orders.

That's incorrect. You can't see dark pool offers, but successful trades are seen by all.

So what? The current selling orders are highly relevant to the current price. To hide the biggest chunks of it, means to decieve normal users, as they will think Bitcoins are worth much more.

Also, Mt.Gox just happens to be the biggest exchange place for this. The others do not matter so much, at least until now.

Why would that be?  The owner of Mt.Gox doesn't want to deal with the additional work for dark pools for small trades, that doesn't prevent anyone else from setting up dark pools without those conditions.

No he is not.  He has a right to his opinion, but that is all that it is.  Apparently both of you need some remedial economics education.

As dark pools are currently done at MtGox, trade data is public after the trades occur, so the pricing metrics are not affected.  The fact that orders can exist without public knowledge is not any different than if those same orders had been placed just before completion.  A script could perform the same function, waiting until the right offers hit the open pool before issuing counter-orders automaticly.  There isn't really anything special about dark pools other than anyone can use them without needing a script to do it.

The darkest pool of all is outside of MtGox. It is in people's minds. People have thoughts like "if the price rises another 10%, I might offload my bitcoins".

These thoughts will never be displayed at any marketplace, but they are part of the future price destiny.

There's no point worrying about MtGox dark pools when they make little or no difference compared to unvoiced thoughts and emotions.

Didn't make myself clear again there. Sorry. I was responding to the point above, regarding whether or not one should be "forced to advertise their intentions."

I agree with ribuck that one should not be forced to advertise their trading intentions in a free market. Yet, the small investor IS forced to advertise his intentions, while the large one is allowed to hide them in the dark pools.

No amount of rationalization can change the fact that this is rigging the system to prrotect from the "free market forces" and favor the large trader. ;D

It's pretty clear how it works, and examples of such cheating rigs abound on Wall Street. I sense that those of you so staunchly defending hiding from the free-market forces while praising their virtues know how dark pools work from personal experience. Been a pretty lucrative way for you to game the system, has it? :)

That's fine; no law against free-market hypocrisy...

So, if you contend that it doesn't matter if the trade offer was public or not, just make it public. The truth is it does matter, because it allows you to avoid exposure to the dangers of the free market forces.

The dark pool trader gets to avoid that exposure, while its stench and effect shows up in the market as that recent trade is revealed after the fact, as you said.

It's like quietly farting in a crowded room and leaving, allowing everyone else to enjoy your intestinal aroma... :D

The small investor can watch the market, and isn't forced to advertise his intentions, When there is a suitable ask or bid on the market, the small investor joins the market and makes a trade.

A dark pool just automates this process for the big investor.


This is the core difference. You believe in the sanctity of "free market forces". I believe in the sanctity of the "free market" and I don't care about it's supposed "forces", because in a free market I'm not subject to any forces. If someone else wants to trade at a price that suits me, I trade.

I've never used a dark pool myself, because I consider it in my interests to openly advertise my intentions, to increase the likelihood of making a trade. But I'm perfectly happy for others to use dark pools if it suits their purposes.

There's no stench from a voluntary trade.

I don't know about evil, but they both are used to manipulate markets.

It seems clear that many here do not wish to see fair markets or better information with which to make decisions. Pretty much the same situation as what exists on wall street seems to be emerging here. Another big scam.

Insider trading brings a price closer to the underlying asset's "true" value as soon as possible. By doing so, it protects outsiders who would otherwise be buying and selling at a "false" price based on their lack of insider knowledge.

Laws against insider trading mean that the biggest profits go to those who break the law, at the expense of everyone else. Legalized insider trading would minimize the profits that can be made by insider trading, because the market price would become accurate sooner.

Of course, an offer to trade can't harm others!

My point is that a large hidden trade on that hidden offer in the main exchange for a given commodity does affect and distort price discovery, and harms other market participants.

The term "price discovery" represents a fallacy. It suggests that there is some "true price", and if only the market can allow everyone to discover it we'll all be happy.

In fact there is no "true price" to be discovered. A "market price" emerges as the net effect of transactions that actually take place, and it has no meaning until after those trades occur.

 :) That's where i usually look already.

Look at the microscopic volume of Btc trade in those other exchanges compared to MtGox. It's obvious to me that the players in those markets mirror the MtGox rates.

It may not always be so, but for now MtGox trading activity is the reference worldwide price setter for Bitcoiin.

You are right that there will be exchanges without dark pools or arbitrary limits.

It's pretty lame if MtGox actually processes all dark pool trades manually. The "extra work", imho, is as much of a red-herring argument as the "trading privacy" one.  :)

 

Perhaps, but whatever the case may be, your opinions are worth about as much as mine on this matter, which is to say, none.  The only opinion that is of concern is that of MtGox.  Even if you could convince a large number of people of your position (which you cannot) there would still be nothing that you could do to compel MtGox to change his policy.  Even if he came out and openly agreed that dark pools favor large investors in an unfair manner.

It is, ultimately, his property.  That is the definition of freedom.

45K is not a large trader in the currency markets.

For those who need a re-adjustment of their perspective, many here it seems, over $4 trillion is traded daily in foreign currency markets.

...As is your opinion, except that IF you benefit from the dark pools and similar scams, your opinion is biased...  ;D

The economics lesson you are teaching us is one that is already being pounded into all of us by the hypocrites among the Wall-Street free marketeers though periodic financial crises: this education comes down to an acceptance of a simple double-standard.

The small investor is brain-washed to accept and embrace the infallible wisdom of the “free market”, because all participants have equal opportunities in it. Also to be accepted is that some are far more “equal” than others.  :D

For the small trader, it's the tough love, lack of trading privacy, full exposure to and full brunt of the market forces. For the large investor, it's the protection from all of that within dark pools, insider trading, and other “free market” shielding scams. If the crap really hits the fan, for the latter there is also the protection of the nanny state, which is not available to the small investor either.

You need remedial education of a far more basic kind: it's the kindergarten lessons, where we were all taught that any game works best if all players follow the same rules...  ;)

Agreed. They are not affected for that trade. That's the point: the pricing metrics for that trade would have been affected by the natural market forces , if the trade had been in the open. Dark pools are specifically set up for the large trader to cheat such unfavorable effects of the free market, as they continue to proselytize them as positive and unavoidable to others.

After the the dark trade, its public data does affect the subsequent pricing and trading decisions of all participants.


The truth is that not everyone can use them, because there is the lower limit. I do congratulate you though on your wealth in red herring with that script argument. If automation is so great in this case, then there is no reason to set an arbitrary participation limit on it. Let's all trade with dark pool automation!

Large dark pool dwellers wouldn't like that, because then the equal rules would remove their advantage...  ;)

Fantastic! No reason not to automate it for everyone then, in a "free market" where all have equal information and opportunities. Unless, of course, one would want some privileged group to have an advantage through cheating in a tried and true Wall Street way...  ;)

The large investor is just as capable of watching the market, and making the trade in the open. In fact, they have the resources to have a script do it, as creighto mentioned.

So, dark pools and their participation limits are not really about privacy, extra workload for MtGox, or automation for the few. Dark pools are simply about giving large traders the ability to cheat the free market and its natural forces through hiding market real volume and pricing information, until they make their trade.


 :D If you are "not subject to any forces" of the marketplace, i congratulate you, because you are the only one that can honestly say that!
The rest of us are subject to them; the large investors even have dark pools available in order to avoid and cheat some of those forces.


Agreed, if the trade is all about you and your transaction partner in some isolated place where only the two of you can smell it. When it's happening in an open, worldwide, price-setting exchange, all its participants have to involuntarily inhale it to some degree...  :D

And the Devil knows the Bible better than any preacher, and uses it to justify his position.  That neither makes the bible wrong, nor the Devil right.

The trade, dark or not, is affected by the market rate.  Once the dark trade is complete, it likewise affects the market price and therefore other trades, dark or not.


And you know this how?  Are you inside MtGox's head to be able to know what his intentions are, beyond what he has already stated were his intentions?  You may not believe his logic, but you don't know his thoughts.


The truth is that anyone can set up a market and set whatever rules that they desire.


I do mock you though, on your inability to present an argument at all.  Can you define "red herring" without googling it?  Based on how you are using it, "I don't think it means what you think it means".


You may not see any reason to set an arbitrary participation limit on it, but you are not he-who-gets-to-decide.

Well, if dark pools create “a more even playing field", then i want to play cards for real money with you, dude!  :D

You open your cards to me when we are playing, and i'll hold them hidden from you the usual way. That would make life easier for SOME participants, as you said...  ;)

The bot functionality would work just as well trading in the open then, if it were in place just to make life easier for some.

The bot functionality is not implemented in the open in order to shield  large traders from the natural forces of the "free market" – the same forces they proselytize to others as the economic panacea.

If that were not so, small traders would be allowed to trade in the dark pools also.

Right. I think that's an important point: if a perception – right or wrong – develops on Main Street, that the darkest and most manipulative practices of Wall Street are being implemented within the Bitcoin system, that sentiment would slow the acceptance and  damage the trustworthiness of Bitcoin on Main Street.

That would be a negative development for those of us, including me, who wish Bitcoin to succeed as no other currency has done before!

Wall Street is corrupted by more perverse forces that aren't touching Bitcoin at the moment.

Here is a example that makes a dark pool more useful than a bot.

Trader A is willing to sell at price X and trader B will buy at price X. If each is using a bot waiting for a matching sell or buy order the trade will never happen. However if each places a dark pool order the trade will complete.

I think the acid test of whether dark pools give an unfair advantage to big traders or not, would be to create a "open" dark pool with no minimum trade requirements.  If the big traders start to trade there, then there's no advantage.  If they stick to the "closed" dark pools, then there is.

I find it hard to understand how any rational person can disagree with imanikin - big traders will always seek maximum advantage.  If they end up trading in a dark pool, then there'll be a reason.  But, let me ask imanikin a question: suppose there was some advantage for small traders in using a dark pool with *maximum* trade limitations i.e. no big trades allowed.  Would you happily see big traders cut out?

It's really an age-old dilemma.  bitcoin is supposed to level the playing field, but it *will* sustain the status quo in that there will still be a separation between rich and poor.  In fact, it may well augment that separation insofar as taxes, supposedly impossible with bitcoin, are one way to transfer wealth from rich to poor.

Some people will think that's a good thing, some people will think it's bad.

The thing about "big" traders is that one day there were all "small" traders ... but not many vice versa.

Unless they inherited their money, which is the case for about 3/4 of the wealth in the US today.

No one inherited bitcoin.

Fairness is in the eye of the beholder....

Let's suppose that for each of the 1000-or-so nodes in the Bitcoin network, there are actually 6000 users of Bitcoins.  That's a ridiculously high estimate, of course.  But out of 6 billion people, that's still less than 0.1% of the population holding all of the Bitcoins.  (Well, ignoring the generation of new Bitcoins.  But it's obvious that not everyone has a "fair" chance to claim those.)  The wealth distribution of Bitcoins is, viewed in this manner, far, far more inequitable than stated.  It's nowhere near that Pareto 80-20 rule.

I believe that this is a big impediment to mainstream acceptance of Bitcoins.  In the long run, I don't think it's insurmountable.  But I worry that perhaps a significant fraction of the Bitcoin community has somehow convinced itself that technical superiority alone makes the adoption of Bitcoins inevitable.

We needn't fear inherited wealth, because within a generation or two the family inevitably procreates a playboy who blows all the family's wealth on hookers, coke, yachts, and fast cars.

What we do need to fear is a society that is structured to funnel the wealth of the poor into the pockets of the rich on an ongoing basis.

You can buy bitcoins with inherited money though. So in a sense, yes, anyone who has bought bitcoins with inherited money has inherited bitcoins, albeit indirectly.

Bitcoin - voluntary wealth redistribution   :)

There's only the haves-now, and haves-later. We rich folk got the first crappy first version of technology, while the poor use technology that are already refined.

Nice, catchy too.

Like "Voluntary Socialism" .... or decentralised communism.

Ya actually the economic condition depends on how well the wealth is distributed.
Redistribution of wealth can also be gained by property distribution and taxation.
The concept of Voluntary Socialism is really appreciable but was just wondering how it could be put into the action!!!

Some form of voluntary socialism could be offered by insurance companies and banks.

For example, a bank would offer to pay for someone's entire higher education upfront, including an allowance for the cost of living.

In return, the student would sign a contract promising to leave 50% of their income (in excess of $20k) to the bank for the next 20 years.

The advantage compared to regular student loans, from the bank's perspective, is higher revenues because a fraction of students would pay back the loan many times over.

The advantage from a student's perspective is less risk. The student would not need to take out a loan that they may struggle to pay back, in order to enjoy university or vocational training.   A higher education does not guarantee a higher income, it only increases the likelihood.  

In order to remain profitable, aptitude tests would be necessary to avoid too many free riders from joining who will never be able or willing to earn more than $20k.  That's the main difference to true socialism, where every member of society is included.

True, even then this scheme would still have a lot of free riders who take more than they give, but that is true for many insurance products, and that doesn't prevent them from being profitable either.




A similar scheme could be used for health insurance:  "We will pay upfront for a state-of-the-art cancer treatment if you leave us 50% of your income for the next 20 years".

For housing: "We will save you from eviction and buy your house from your creditors. You may live in there for free for the next 20 years but must leave 50% of your income."

etc.

The core fact is there are two types of interactions in this world:   voluntary   or    violent

Morality also lies upon these two types of interactions also.  (Moral) consensual iterations  or   (In-moral) violently forced actions

The big and small traders alike are not forced to use MTGox.  They both choose to use if out of their free will.

imanikin is declaring that the traders (big or small) committed a 'in-moral' act by using MTGox, however has not presented any evidence of violence.

Whatever happens on MTGox is moral! as long as there is no violent force to use MTGox.


sidenote//
(economically speaking dark pools are great!  They improve the efficiency of the market, making the trading price of Bitcoin many times more stable!  I am always amazed to see how stable the Bitcoin price is considering how low the trading volumes are).

Evidence?

What you describe is not a new phenomenon and "old money" families are well aware of this problem. Some have devised sophisticated systems to prevent this from happening.    

I know of one super rich extended family where all wealth is held by a trust and never inherited to an individual family member.  If a family member wants to access the money in the trust they have to work their way up in the corporate hierarchy of the family company.  The ones who make it to the top become shareholders, but even they don't have the power, individually, to blow it all on yachts and hookers.  As soon as they retire they are forced to return all their shares.  

This system has been working successfully for 6 generations now, and there is no indication that the family company will fail.  

I'm not sure if this kind of condensation of wealth is good or bad. Family companies often make sounder investments because they lack perverse incentives such as bonuses for taking excessive risks or boosting short term profits at the expense of long term sustainability.  

I am glad that they have worked out a solution!  It seems like they are happily existing without violence, in that case it is moral, I am glad for them.

The free market is based upon people having 'free interactions.'  A free interaction is not a interaction where you know everything, but rather an interaction that one choose to do on your own terms, (whatever they may be).

If both parties to the interaction are in agreement, then it is good.  If the parties cannot agree on the terms, they walk away.

imanikin prerogative is to control his (or her) own actions.   I guess it is a hard spot, declaring dark-pools as immoral yet unable to stop other people from trading (without the use of violence), I guess they only he  can do is shout louder.  However I'm not one to declare something a illegal just because I do not like doing it.

What you've described here is indentured servitude.

The idiocy here is astounding. I'm actually embarrassed for having read this.

I agree.  That some people view the world in such stark terms shows a strong lack of wisdom and experience.

The world is not so black and white.  I have already thought of a scenario involving a non-voluntary but non-violent interaction, I'm certain the forum could think of more.  If I tell you, da2ce7, will you soften your attitude?  I respectfully suggest that your kind of thinking does nothing other than polarise people, causing them to harden their views both for and against you.  Whatever it is you want, you'll never find a solution that way.

Will people like you actually rebuts the actual argument instead of calling your opponent unwise and inexperienced?

Really? I just did a search for posts by you containing either "violent", "violence", or "voluntary" and of the three posts, none of them contained this scenario. Care to enlighten us?

Yes really.  I just thought of one.  I didn't write it down yet - I'm sure I'm allowed to have thoughts without writing them down ;-)   I'm waiting to see if da2ce7 will agree to temper his (what I consider to be) extreme view of human nature before writing it.  How about you?  The example I thought of is actually quite a frequent occurrence.
But really, it's quite easy.  All you need is some scenario which involves unforeseeable or unintended consequences and, hey presto! you can have your very own non-voluntary, non-violent and unpleasant interaction.

I will.  I'm waiting for a response from da2ce7.  But let me ask you, do you think all human interactions can be put into one and only one of two possible classes: voluntary or violent?  Are there no others?

You are quite correct, the world is in shades of gray.

I used the black and white example to polarise people on purpose as the thread was going in circles with detail.

The case with MTGox is black and white, either people are forced with violence to use it, or not.   So my argument even when it is simplified to a black and white contrast, still holds strong.

However, often the world doesn't provide such clear cut cases.  The often there is a need for careful weighing and the balancing of actions,  this sort of thing requires a court or adjudication system.  However how a court system would operate in a free society, has yet to be defined and has been the argument of philosophers for the ages now and past.  Somethings are never quite worked out, until they are done.

Just a clarification, there are still only two types of actions, however in gray cases normally both parties have committed violent actions.  So it is hard to say one party is in the 'right.'
The other type of gray actions are actions that use a debatable degree of force, such as making threats.  These ones need some court of court system to work out if it was violent or not.

A free society is never going to be easy to achieve, and nobody really knows quite how it will work.  But it is a worthy goal to work towards.

Good luck changing people.

I'll pay you 5 BTC to change your avatar to Eeyore.

Even still I disagree.  Suppose there is some advantage to using MtGox.  Anyone who exercises their right to avoid it will lose and is therefore forced to use it to remain competitive even though they might not agree with MtGox's policies (e.g. the dark pools).  Let me give you another example.  I don't like cellular phones for several reasons, and yet it's essential for my work.  Nobody has violently forced me to have one, yet I must have one.  Society itself is coercing me to have a cell phone.  But no individual is responsible, it's just an outcome of the system in which we all operate.

To satisfy BitterTea's curiosity, my example was this.  Boy meets girl, girl gets pregnant.  Neither wanted a child, nobody violently forced them to have a child, yet they will have a child (let's say neither boy nor girl will consider abortion, for whatever reasons).  There's a simple (if unwritten) contract: "let's have sex".  But it has unintended consequences, not foreseen in the contract, and that's all you need to make the wonderful utopia of anarchism & free-market crumble, one conflict at a time.

Yup. Externalities: what anarcho-capitalists (libertarians) fail to understand or will simply ignore.

Anarcho-capitalism or libertarianism doesn't magically prevent human beings from making mistakes or being unwise.  The point is just that no-one has the right to prevent people from acting according to their freedom just because of that.

In your example of sex between a boy and an girl:  what do you want to do?  Prevent them from seeing each other and have sex?  Punish them very hardly if they do?  Who the f.ck do you think you are to mess with other people's business and private life?

Read the thread grondilu, and try to maintain your usual politeness please.  I was posing a problem, not a solution.  da2ce7 stated that all interactions were either voluntary or violent.  I gave an example in which this is not the case - raising the child was neither voluntary nor violent.  Neither of them wanted the child, nobody forces them to have it.  And da2ce7 agrees, in fact, that life is not all black & white.

What part of 'lets-have-sex' doesn't have the implied possibility of having a child, everyone knows that condoms brake.

However that isn't the point, with unintended consequences you just have to deal with it.  Life is full of uncertainty.  A better way of looking at this problem is did the people having sex voluntary do it or not.  Because if it was voluntary there is no issue.

Finally, the woman voluntary decided to keep the child, and the farther voluntary decided to help care for it.  The mother could put the child up for adoption, or a host of other options.  I'm sure that if she didn't want it at all, there would be somebody else in the society wanting to look after it.

Other than self-defense, there is always a voluntary option.

Unintended pregnancies can have serious sociological effects (though I admit some are probably more to do with a misguided society).  But if you doubt that, then I hope you'll at least agree that they can cause real problems for the new parents.

This question is for grondilu as much as for da2ce7:  Like I said in my last post, I don't propose a solution to this problem.  What solution do *you* propose?  Would you have everyone sign a contract before hopping into bed, with clauses specifying the responsibilities of each party should a pregnancy occur?  How about STDs?  Another clause for them?  What if you're drunk when you sign - are you still responsible?  What if the guy can't get it up (failure to fulfill the terms of the contract)?  da2ce7 - you're absolutely right, life *is* full of uncertainties, and no contract can foresee them all.  Therefore, unpleasant circumstances and conflict can always arise, even though all actions were voluntary and non-violent, and *there will always be conflicts that cannot be solved by enforcing the terms of the contract*.

And if there's a conflict over who should do that - who should "deal with it", then what?  Do you run to your private police and force someone to do something they didn't specifically, contractually and voluntarily agree to?

But there *is* an issue, even if the sex was voluntary.  Who pays for the child?  Who pays for the mother's welfare while she can't work?  These things *cannot* be ignored.  And talking about adoption might work for some, and not for others - be assured that women develop a very strong emotional attachment even to an unborn baby, so giving a baby up for adoption might cause *other* problems for the mother (health, depression etc).  But even adoption doesn't solve the mother's problems during and after the pregnancy (e.g. hospital bills, post-natal depression, other stuff...).

Are you insinuating that only a state, with amonopoly in the use of force, can answer these questions? Nobody is saying that there won't be law without a state, just that the law will be poly centric.

That's an interesting statement.  Let me repeat, in answer to you, that I am not proposing any solutions.  Unplanned pregnancy can be a serious problem for people, and I am posing the problem, not suggesting any solution.  I'm still waiting for the libertarians and anarchists of this forum to explain how they would improve on the current situation.

But you say the law will be poly-centric?  Firstly, my (perhaps incorrect) understanding of anarchism is that you're wrong - there is *no law*, no law at all.  For corporations, there are no regulations.  Any person or corporation can do as it pleases.  Street justice, private policing and the free market will see that any abusers are punished.  A fine utopia I agree, but, I think, not functional in the long-term.  But what I think is not relevant here.

I assume then that this "poly-centric" concept of law pertains to a libertarian society.  Can you explain what a poly-centric law is please? I know what poly-centrism is, but I can't understand what a poly-centric legal structure might be like.

Must we devise solution to every little problem in the world?

He's not proposing any solutions, but he wants the "libertarians and anarchists" to propose solutions! HAHAHAHAHA.

The only "solution" necessary is for you to accept responsibility for your own actions.

No.  But it would be nice.  And it might win you converts.  But if you can't improve on the current situation, then you must admit failure in that area.  Also, I think alot of people would disagree that unplanned pregnancy is a little problem.  As a matter of fact, I'd bet that the majority of unplanned pregnancies present a big problem to the mother.

Well, look back a bit and you'll see that grondilu's language clearly forbids me from offering solutions.  But you want to change the status quo, so the onus is on you to explain why.  Right now we have laws that forcibly oblige people to be responsible for their actions, and despite that, many people behave irresponsibly.  Why would they suddenly become models of responsibility if the law is eliminated?  Do you seriously think that all (say) young men, on the day law is banished forever, would suddenly start manning-up and taking responsibility for their unplanned children?  It's my turn to laugh now.

And, really, this discussion is not just about unplanned pregnancy.  It's not just about "little problems".  It's about what libertarians/anarchists/whoever will do when there is a conflict arising from unintended and unforeseen consequences of a voluntary contract.  Right now we have a justice system which allocates responsibility according to certain (very very complicated) rules.  Apart from simplifying the rules, how can the elimination of law (or the introduction of poly-centric law, whatever that is) improve the situation?  That's what I'd like to see you answer.

[maybe we should start a  new thread - this is gone way beyond the distribution of wealth.  Can an admin please see if it would be appropriate to start a "politics" section in the forum?]

I can't tell you how things would be, for if I could, I would advocate centrally planned solutions. I can however tell you how things could be.

The problem you propose could be solved by one of the many dispute resolution systems, one of which is poly-centric law.

Poly-centric law is where no one entity can dictate the law for everyone. An individual must agree to the law in order to be bound by it. If you want to see an example of how this can work in today's world, look at international law. Each country has its own set of laws, and they resolve disputes between those legal systems in various ways. A stateless legal system could be similar, but I think would tend to operate with much less violence.

Socialism has got all the answers and makes everything better, if you don't like our "better" we send you to re-education camps or prison if you get real uppity.

Oh please.
If socialism is such an hell on earth, why are the scandinavian countries so successful? How many Norwegian re-education camps have you seen? How many political prisoners are there in Sweden? How many Finns are taken away and shot by the secret police?

Socialism has its share of problems, but so does the anarcho-capitalism that people here seem to love so much.
Want to experience the result of a weak government? Go to Somalia.

I believe that a free market needs to be regulated to be efficient. How much is a matter of opinion.
IMHO a complete laissez-faire economy would be catastrophic for the large majority. As would a planned economy.

Then explain why Norway is a successful country. Surely you have a theory of why these countries are so successful.

Then explain how your conclusion fit the evidence? Don't forget that people will claim that foreign intervention is the result of the conflict.
 
An opinion supported by no theory and no cause and effect of any kind and no empirical evidence of any kind.

moa's argument may been a bunch of snark backed with nothingness, but don't respond with such a weak counterargument.

How about you let people choose what they want  ? Its not about one system or the other its about freedom of choice. If youre FORCED to live under it rather than CHOOSE to live under it. There is nothing wrong with any system that is voluntarily chosen - even slavery and communism . Its not the system that is the problem its the use of force to make you  live under one particular system.

That was the original intent of the United States. To supposedly create differing systems and experiment. The problem now is the feds forcing their will on everyone rather than allowing freedom of choice. If socialism is worldwide and universal and everything else is disallowed then moving just replaces one slave master with another. All we ask for is free will not forced choice.

+1

I have nothing against regulations, as long as there are several sets of them, and you can chose which one seems to you to be the most fair.

Otherwise it is just like saying that Poker is the only allowed card game, that other games such as  black jack, bridge etc. are forbidden.

I think a more important point is that regulation does not necessarily have to be statist regulation, and does not necessarily have to be enforced through violence. In fact, I would argue that statist regulation almost always ends up causing problems, not fixing them.

The fact that they appear successful compared to other countries in the world is a statistical artefact.

Scandinavian countries are tiny and have a very homogenous population.  Finland and Norway only have approx. 5M inhabitants.  That's a similar scale as some counties in the US.

If you are going to compare Scandinavian countries to the rest of the world you have to choose a similar granularity.

For instance, the state of Massachusetts is just as successful as Sweden by most measures.   The state of New South Wales in Australia is just as successful as Finland.

Also, because of their small size, relative isolation, and uniform culture, they were historically very community-oriented societies, even before the introduction of state socialism.  Most Scandinavians are inclined to voluntarily share their wealth even if the state didn't force them to do it.

My personal experience from visiting friends in Sweden is that quality of life is exceptional.  However there can also be dark sides to living there, in subtle ways that are hard to measure.  The degree of intrusion by the collective into your personal life can be a little disconcerting and scary, especially if your values and lifestyle diverge from the societal consensus.

You can be happy in a cage, if they treat you very well... but you will still be in cage...

”Then explain why Norway is a successful country. Surely you have a theory of why these countries are so successful.”
Probably a combination of natural resources, a skilled workforce, a proper amount of regulations by the government and luck. I’m sure you can find resources about economic history if you google for it, as I did.

“Then explain how your conclusion fit the evidence? Don't forget that people will claim that foreign intervention is the result of the conflict.”
This has to do with Somaila then. Foreign intervention could very well be the cause of the conflict in Somalia. The result however is a very weak government that has virtually no power over the country.  You have anarchy in many parts of the country, both political and economical. In the political void you have organizations like the Islamic al-Shabab who quickly step in to fill it, using violence to enforce their view. In the economical void you have the pirates and other criminals with money and weapon who take charge.
In both accounts it’s the people with the biggest guns who run the show. And in the absence of policing of any kind, crime is often quite profitable, so most often it’s the criminals who have the biggest guns. Replace guns with “threat of violence” if you like, it’s the same thing.

“An opinion supported by no theory and no cause and effect of any kind and no empirical evidence of any kind.”
The USSR tried planned economy. It wasn’t very successful. While most people weren’t starving to death, they were certainly not doing well either. And the goods produced were substandard and expensive. In China, where they tried a similar thing ‘The great leap’ people actually died of starvation. That should take care of the empirical evidence for planned economy.
How laissez-faire has failed is harder, since it hasn’t been tried in such a grand scale. Mostly where this has been ‘tried’ is where governments fail and this becomes the de-facto standard of doing business. Somalia is one example. Nigeria is another where a weak and corrupt government ignores all regulations and its own people to give Shell Oil benefits.
In poorer countries in Asia, children are put in factories to produce goods, instead of going to school. This ensures that they will stay poor as education is a prime factor for moving up the value chain. Again, a result of no/poor regulation or observance of the rules.

Taking some quotes from other answers as well.
“How about you let people choose what they want  ?”
Ok. How do you propose to do that? How should a child, forced to work 12h/day to help their family put food on the table choose to live under a different system? How can it be bad to have a law that sais that children should attend school and factories must give out a salary that people can survive on?
In Mexico today people are choosing to not live under their economic system and choosing another. What do you think about the current climate regarding immigrants in the US?

All that said, I’m still a believer in a free market. But I do believe that in order for a market to remain free, there must be regulations and oversight. I don’t believe having a monopoly in itself is wrong, but someone must make sure that I don’t abuse that power by preventing competition.

Because they remain far from being socialists, and they were way farer than today for a long time in the past. Even today, although being victim of insane taxes, they suffer very few coercive regulations when compared to most countries. And yes, regulations are much worse than taxes (http://translate.google.com/translate?js=n&prev=_t&hl=fr&ie=UTF-8&layout=2&eotf=1&sl=pt&tl=en&u=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.mises.org.br%2FArticle.aspx%3Fid%3D271).

In this blog post there's a list of articles you should try to read: http://mises.org/Community/forums/t/5616.aspx
The first one detailing Sweden history is quite good. You can't just look at the current state of a country and determine that the quality of life there is a result of their current balance of freedom vs violence. Changes take years, frequently decades to happen.


Same silly mistake you've done above, not considering history. Somalia has always been a crappy place to live in. During the short period they had with no state (which is over, by the way), they've managed to progress more than ever, yet remaining poor.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_Somalia_%281991-2006%29
http://namcub.accela-labs.com/pdf/Better_Off_Stateless.pdf
http://fee.org/media/stateless-in-somalia-by-benjamin-powell/


If it's regulated it's not a free market. What you say doesn't even make sense. You're advocating violence, not freedom.

Imagine what these scandinavian countries might have been without a government. You cant see the opportunity cost of the state .

Without government regulations the computer industry follows moore's law. Imagine it heavily regulated......

+1
That's an important point that even so called minarchists frequently fail to understand.

There's an old saying.
Every country has an army; your own or someone elses.

Same with the government. Without an elected government we'd have different kind.

proof ? or is that just an assumption ?

You dont need an army when each person is allowed to protect themselves.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_politics_in_Switzerland
 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_politics_in_Switzerland)

Hitler didnt invade them for a reason.....

Socialist governments disarm their citizens which leads to more opression and then people buy the idea they need the state for 'protection'.

Yeah, yeah, right. Same excuse used to defend the practice of slavery during 19th century: "It exists everywhere, since always. It's part of human nature!"

And by the way, an army doesn't necessarily need to force people to pay for their protection.
And even without organized armies, a nation of armed people can already offer strong resistance too. Search about medieval Ireland, and how they've managed to repeal both Viking and Normand invasions. It took the English a strong effort (and carnage) to gain control over them, even England being a much larger nation at the time.

Proof that there are undemocratic forces that wants to rule countries?
There has been many coup d'état against democracies that should serve well as examples.
I mean, there is no shortage of dictators in the world.


Ohh, a Goodwin. :-)
I think you overestimate what you can do with a gun against a well armed, motivated and ruthless gang.
Studies show that you're basically alone if attacked, even if there are observers around. Can't recall what the phenomenon is called.
And I'm sure Hitler would have taken care of Switzerland eventually, given enough time. He just had other priorities.

I'm not sure what you mean with the first sentence.

How do you keep an army without paying for it? And I'm sure that a nation of armed people can offer resistance. But there's a reason countries keep an army. They're better.
And there's a difference between medieval warfare and modern warfare. Back then there wasn't much difference in military equipment. A peasant had a fighting chance against a knight. You or I would have virtually no chance against an Apache Heli or a Tank.
Yes, I know there are other ways of fighting, but that's not the point.

But I feel that we're drifting way off topic here.
The army quote was more of a way of saying that there's no shortage of people who wants to rule you.

people in  afghanistan seem to be managing. they have destroyed countless imperialistic war states including USSR ,England and now the US is going down in fail.   They have guns from world war 2 ffs ..  :D

With that I agree. That's the main reason why we have states everywhere. And you seem to be among these tyrants, since you support such brutality.

“Because they remain far from being socialists, and they were way farer than today for a long time in the past. Even today, although being victim of insane taxes, they suffer very few coercive regulations when compared to most countries. And yes, regulations are much worse than taxes.”
Interesting read. I’ll have to come back to that one and read more about it. However, the market in Scandinavia is regulated. Like it or not. And it’s a fairly well working market. Rules have been setup that the companies have to follow, and the state monitors the companies to make sure they all play by the rules.

“In this blog post there's a list of articles you should try to read: http://mises.org/Community/forums/t/5616.aspx
The first one detailing Sweden history is quite good. You can't just look at the current state of a country and determine that the quality of life there is a result of their current balance of freedom vs violence. Changes take years, frequently decades to happen.”
Not to be impolite here, but reading Cato papers about economy is about as unbiased as asking the Pope about religion. The papers are interesting, but quite biased. Having read papers that are equally biased on the other end of the spectrum I’ve formulated an opinion of my own.

“Same silly mistake you've done above, not considering history. Somalia has always been a crappy place to live in. During the short period they had with no state (which is over, by the way), they've managed to progress more than ever, yet remaining poor.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_Somalia_%281991-2006%29
http://namcub.accela-labs.com/pdf/Better_Off_Stateless.pdf
http://fee.org/media/stateless-in-somalia-by-benjamin-powell/”
They have a state yes, but is it a strong state? It doesn’t even control the whole country yet. And not all of Somalia is crappy to live in. There’s something called Somaliland where they’ve managed to setup a functional government, which has been working for a few years.

“If it's regulated it's not a free market. What you say doesn't even make sense. You're advocating violence, not freedom.”
It’s free to operate within the rules.
And how am I advocating violence? I'm suggesting that it's better that the government sets the rules than letting the CocaCola Company do it.

Again, I don't understand how I suddenly became the posterboy for socialism here. I'm just suggesting that "no rules" is a very bad form of governing anything.

Sure, let's go for ad hominem attacks here. That'll keep the discussion civil.

Technically they're only forcing their will on those who freely choose to live under US rule. Since all of the world is already spoken for, the only realistic way to get properly free land would be to pool together and buy a small island country or similar. There are way too few liberalists in the world for there to be any chance of changing a rich country, and whining about things that will never happen is just a waste of time.

It's not ad hominem, I'm just basing myself on what you've been defending on this thread: the use of violence to force people to adhere to your regulations and taxes. You're defending the state, so by definition you're supporting violence.

And who said "no rules"? Freedom is about no rulers, not no rules. This has been said more than once on this thread too. This is such a repeated topic when discussing libertarianism that when I had the chance I wrote a text about it myself. It is in Portuguese, if you don't mind an auto translation: http://tinyurl.com/6jplv8u
Of course you can find better material than that. The short book Chaos Theory, from Robert Murphy, is easy to read and good. There are also plenty of videos like this (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KXNRzI64L9Q) (very good video this one).

Since I'm giving links, one that you shouldn't miss is this nice short animation on ethics: http://www.isil.org/resources/philosophy-of-liberty-index.html
It was actually this animation that made search for more answers concerning libertarianism. When I first saw it, that put me in a sort of contradiction, since I couldn't disagree with its fundamentals, but at the moment I couldn't agree either with the conclusion of such fundamentals. So I went on reading and learning about ethics and economics, until I changed my mind in many aspects.

hehe, yeah, pretty much like this: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EfQdw2K59x4

You need to merge your labor to a piece of land in order to ethically claim that such land is yours. Might doesn't make right.


That's the goal of the seasteading project: http://seasteading.org/
It is just not that easy though.

That is a made up rule, just like the rule of states. It only works if everybody agrees with it, and even then there would need to be regulations about how much land you can claim for a particular amount of labor, how to measure labor, someone to solve disputes, and so on.

Interesting. I still think it would be better to take over an already recognised country, though. I think for instance that transfering money to or from an entity that does not consider itself to belong to country will be difficult at best.

It's "made up" with logical deductions out of axioms from human nature and basic ethic definitions such as "every human being should have the same set of fundamental rights". Saying this is "made up" is almost like saying mathematics is "made up". It doesn't prevent it from being true.


Yes, and there would be such "regulations", only voluntarily.
It's not necessary that absolutely everybody agrees though.


Bitcoins solve the problem of transferring money. ;)
Taking over existent countries is probably harder. People don't easily accept a bunch of foreigners coming in and trying to change everything.

No, claiming that I support violence and dictatorship when I in fact do not is an ad hominem attack. What I'm saying is that if you want to live under the rules of the current contract that the US has with it's citizens (or any other state) you have to adhere to the rules setup by that entity. Either that or you can leave, or try to change the rules/contract. Perhaps you can't find somewhere to move, or the rules won't be changes to suit you. Well, that can happen in a libertarian society too.  There's no gurarantee that you can find someone who'll offer exactly what you want, so you'd have to make compromises.

I glad to see that you agree that rules are needed. That's what I've been saying all along. Without rules in the marketplace it can't function. And rulers doesn't seem to be such a big problem either, since you applause the Cheiftains in Iceland and whatever the other were called in Ireland.  Seems to me that they are just what you protest so much against. Elected leaders.  Your text was interesting though, and I enjoyed reading it. The auto-translate wasn't too bad.
The video however was quite bad. It was very naive, full of misrepresentation and distortions and hopes that things would just "work out". Not all of it was bad, and he does have a few good points, but in all it isn't a very good video. I'm hoping that the book is better.

The flash-animation was a nice introduction, but nothing new. And it does describe an ideal world, a theory. While I also agree with the fundamentals, I'm not an idealist.

The premise of the contracts everyone is supposed to agree to is that all parties are equal. I reject that as a false premise. And if you enter into a contract as a weaker part and being exploited, how is that not comparable to the force that the state imposes on you.

I don't think we're as far apart as you might think we are. I believe that the state does good for the most part, that it should lay out a few basic rules for how the society should function, and then move out of the way, to a more controlling function where it monitors and punishes those who break the rules. And, like I said in a previous post, how many rules there should be is a matter of debate.

I'm glad to see you took the time to read even my text and watch the long video. That shows you're not just some troll, rather someone really interested.


That's the thing. There's no such contract. I never signed any contract giving total control of all my properties (including my body) to any armed group. And yet I've been forced to do so since birth. That's totally authoritarian and violent. (This piece (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EfQdw2K59x4) of the video you didn't like satirizes very well this wrong idea :))

And no, you can't say that by using the services this violent group monopolizes I'm agreeing with anything, because, for a start, the way such services are provided is already criminal (from an ethical definition of crime, obviously not from a state definition). They use stolen resources to provide such services, and they coercively forbid competitors to provide them. There can be no valid contract there.

The only way a state could claim to have the right of doing all they do is if they were the legit owners of all the land they control. And that's obviously not the case. To be legit owner of anything, you either need to acquire it legitimately (voluntarily), or you build it out of your own labor, using only resources you legitimately own or that nobody does (original appropriation, the principle behind homesteading).
Every state territory in this world is the outcome of plain brute violence. Maybe tiny territories like Monaco would be an exception, but I doubt it.


No, it's definitely not the same. Elected leaders in modern democracies use violence to impose their rulings. Chieftans did not force you to agree to theirs, although in Iceland there was this problem of a maximum number of chieftans, the freedom of choice among the existent chieftans was already enough to make that system way different from current monopolized states.


It's not "hopes that it will work out", it's more a "certainty that it will work better", even though you don't exactly how it will work. That's the result of solid economic knowledge that shows that freedom brings a much better structure of incentives than monopolies, in any sector, from telephony to laws.
Maybe the most important part of that video is the one where he tries to describe why the government is incapable of making economic calculations. He should have spent a bit more time on that explanation I suppose.


That was my first reaction to that animation too. :)


No, people are not equal. The main ethical premise is that people should have the same set of fundamental rights. Denying that is supporting a sort of cast society, pretty much like aristocracy did. That's the only way I can see one could argue for a state, actually.


It's very different.

If you life is miserable because you're directly or indirectly forced to remain miserable, that's not only a criminal action perpetrated by this conscious agent who attacks you, but that's also something you'll never be able to get rid off without getting rid off the aggressor, or at least decreasing his level of aggression and increasing your level of freedom. It's both ethically and economically "bad".

If your life is miserable "just because it is" (bad luck, poor/bad parents, natural catastrophe, inability in being productive, whatever), then, first of all, that's not the result of an aggression perpetrated by an individual. There's no crime there. Then, for example, if an individual proposes you something that, for outsiders' standards, is something humiliating or degrading, but for you it represents an improvement, even if minimal, you'll certainly accept it. You would not accept something that would make your life even more miserable than what "nature" already does. So, naturally, you see a possibility of improvement there coming from this "exploitations", as people who haven't being under your skin call them.
And if you observe the economic incentives of such framework, you'll see that the possibility of profiting from these miserable people cheap labor will drag lots of investors, allowing such miserable people to improve their life faster and faster. It's a virtuous circle, not a "trap" from which you can't get out, like the scenario of coercion.
It's the typical sweat shop (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hjsshqyAFh8) scenario, so criticized by leftists who don't really see the entire picture.

As you can see, there are major differences, both from an ethical and an economical point of view.

You keep protesting that you don't, but then you keep saying you do. No less than twice in this very post.



It's not an ad hominem attack when it is TRUE. I can't take you seriously as long as you continue to advocate violence, whether you realize that that is what you're doing or not.

I'm going to read these links you sent, 'cos I really can't understand how you can have rules if there's no ruler to enforce them, *also* when it's a poly-centric system and adherence to any set of rules is voluntary.  Thanks.

The middle class only evolved very recently, but, really, they're just in a cage with glass walls, right?  The vast majority of people have lived in a cage for the vast majority of history.  There's no clear reason to me why that's gonna change any time soon, bitcoin & anarcho-capitalism or not.  The way humans are constructed, there will be, by default, few wealthy & powerful people, and many poor people.  If the system is good, it will allow opportunities for poor people to display their skill, and become wealthy.  But *not everyone can be wealthy*.  That's the Great American Dream, and it's a pile of horse-manure.

This is absurd.  Everyone gets to choose which set of rules to obey?  So if I decide not to be bound by any of them, then I can do whatever I like, right?  And, what, can you change your mind when it's convenient for you?  "Oh, you know what, today I'm not obeying those laws."  And then, in order to transact with anyone, do you have to know which set of rules they adhere to?  How many sets of rules will there be?  You cite "international law" like as though international law is simple? It's a mess even when countries *want* to cooperate.  The lawyers would have a field day.

And that is why most people can't understand libertarianism.

I'm going to assume that you're not trolling me here and explain to you that I do NOT advocate violence, or that YOU advocate the same. Call it violence if you like, but I think you'll have to be very anal retentive to do that.

First of all I'm going to assume that you agree with me that there can be long term contracts. I will provide a service for you for one year, and you'll pay me an amount of money at the end of the year. I'm also going to assume that  you agree that I should get paid weather or not you used the service or not, since we have a contract.
Now, if you don't pay me at the end of the year, am I advocating violence if I try to get my money that you owe me? I mean by legal means, court, chieftains or whatever means are availible to me?


I'm going to assume you're not stupid and know what an implicit contract is too. You know, if I let you live in my house for free for a week and then say "These rules will be in effect by next monday, if you want to live here you'll have to follow them". If you don't move out the day before you've accepted the contract. Right?
Here's a little shock for you. Your parents, guardians, whatever you call them, accepted the rules of the state they live in, while they were taking care of you. Whenever you got old enough to take care of your own life and make your own decisions you had a choice. Accept the rules of the "house" you were living in, or GTFO. If you didn't GTFO you implicitly accepted the rules, and the state is no more violent than the example above. You accepted the contract and the service provider have every right to collect the money from you for the service provided, weather or not you used them.

Sorry for taking so long to answer, I'm abroad and don't have access to the internet all the time.

JA37, it is a basic root premise that the state, and by state I mean any persistent political structure that a citizen doesn't explicitly opt into, is based upon violence.  Violence is both it's reason for existence (national defense being the largest part of that) as well as it's means of support.  Taxation, even by representative democracy, is the use of force or a credible threat of force to extract wealth from someone who (presumedly) honestly earned it.  In any other context, this would be theft.  So when you openly support the state, or the taxation required to support the state, you are (indirectly) supporting violence against others.  I'm not an anarchist, myself, and generally agree with you that there is a minimum degree of government required to maintain liberty, order and prosperity in any society larger than the average church business meeting, but I also understand that I do advocate the judicious & minimum use of violence to achieve those ends.  This is, at it's core, the primary function of law enforcement.  This doesn't necessarily make such support bad, but you do need to be honest with yourself and others about what your support of the state actually means.

This example of an implicit contract is really interesting.  I agree with your example above that if Caveden doesn't leave your house he is implicitly agreeing to follow your rules.  But what if your rules were "If you don't leave my house by Monday next week, you agree to be my slave for life" ?  Furthermore, if Caveden then replies: "No. I am a self-owner and will not agree to be yours or anyone's slave."  But then he stays on past Monday.  Is he then your slave?  I'm not trying to lead you into a trap, I just want to clarify my understanding of your point.

The other thought I had was that while I agree with your example, I don't agree with the analogy you draw to living under The State.  You, presumably, own your house.  Therefore it is YOUR private property and you get to set the rules for it.  By saying that The State can set the rules for everyone in its jurisdiction, you are saying that it OWNS ALL of it.  This necessarily negates all private property.  From previous posts it seems that you are not against private property, so I'm not sure how you could agree with the concept of an implicit social contract with the State.  Am I not understanding your point?

I don't really subscribe to the root premise you give above. Or atleast I don't see the difference from any other "persistant (political) structure". Whatever is said about the state can be said about any such structure. If I setup a commune/society where you "opt in" I will need some sort of protection from outsiders if I manage to draw wealth into my community. I will also need to "extract wealth" from those who live there. Call it a tax, fee, contribution or whatever you like, but the fact is that if the people living with me wants to use my services they'll have to pay for it, and there will be a "threat of force" to extract it from those who think they can avoid it.
It's not "theft" to get the money people owe me for using my services.

So you can say that I "advocate violence" if you like, but the matter of fact is that I don't advocate anything else than anyone else on these forums. To say that I do is either dishonest, ignorant or just plain stupid.

But like you said, I think we're mostly in agreement here.

This example of an implicit contract is really interesting.  I agree with your example above that if Caveden doesn't leave your house he is implicitly agreeing to follow your rules.  But what if your rules were "If you don't leave my house by Monday next week, you agree to be my slave for life" ?  Furthermore, if Caveden then replies: "No. I am a self-owner and will not agree to be yours or anyone's slave."  But then he stays on past Monday.  Is he then your slave?  I'm not trying to lead you into a trap, I just want to clarify my understanding of your point.

The other thought I had was that while I agree with your example, I don't agree with the analogy you draw to living under The State.  You, presumably, own your house.  Therefore it is YOUR private property and you get to set the rules for it.  By saying that The State can set the rules for everyone in its jurisdiction, you are saying that it OWNS ALL of it.  This necessarily negates all private property.  From previous posts it seems that you are not against private property, so I'm not sure how you could agree with the concept of an implicit social contract with the State.  Am I not understanding your point?
[/quote]

I think that there are some contracts that are unenforceable, like slave contracts. I think that the UN declaration of human rights has it mostly right. In the example above a contract which sais that he will be my slave is is void. A contract has to be "reasonable". Lifetime slavery for housing isn't. I do however think that I have the right to use "force" to either evict or "extract wealth" if he doesn't leave. What reasonable is should be set by the market, limited by certain basic human rights.

I don't think that the state owns everything, I think that "we" own everything, but that it is governed by the state. That way someone can buy something from us, through the state, and use it as their private property. And "we" set the rules, by proxy.
I'm absolutely not against private property, quite the contrary, but I also don't subscribe to the idea that "every man is an island" and that there has to be rules to be followed, even with regards to your private property.

I think that there are some contracts that are unenforceable, like slave contracts. I think that the UN declaration of human rights has it mostly right. In the example above a contract which sais that he will be my slave is is void. A contract has to be "reasonable". Lifetime slavery for housing isn't. I do however think that I have the right to use "force" to either evict or "extract wealth" if he doesn't leave. What reasonable is should be set by the market, limited by certain basic human rights.

I don't think that the state owns everything, I think that "we" own everything, but that it is governed by the state. That way someone can buy something from us, through the state, and use it as their private property. And "we" set the rules, by proxy.
I'm absolutely not against private property, quite the contrary, but I also don't subscribe to the idea that "every man is an island" and that there has to be rules to be followed, even with regards to your private property.
[/quote]


Try not paying council rates or "school taxes" if you are in the states  and claim you "own" your house when the sherriff shows up to collect the dues.

You'll have it sold for what you owe not for what its worth. There are numerous cases of beauracrats foreclosing on people for minor amounts of overdue rates and getting a sweet deal for their mates who know exactly when the tax auction is.

How about indentured servitude contracts?

If there are "school taxes" then there's a service that you pay for, ie schools. And if there are dues on your house, you don't own it.

And the next thing you're talking about is corruption, that happens in all organizations and should be abhorred and fought by everyone everywhere. Start by voting for more transparency in the state, you know, the way you can't do in private business.  :P

Looks very much like slave contracts, but I don't know enough about it to really have a strong opinion in the matter. Gut feeling is however that any contract that puts you in ownership of another person is wrong and should not be honored.

Thats because councils are corporations now. The council here has a corporate headquarters and a general manager,just like any other business.

They also have two sets of books - one is the budget and one is the comprehensive financial report where they have "investments". Digging further into this you will find out they get enough return on  their investment that they could not collect rates at all and still provide all the services. rates are just a way to keep you in line as a householder from that point.
   http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comprehensive_annual_financial_report   (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comprehensive_annual_financial_report)

While they cry poor in the budget which is just a projection for the following period they are actually raking in the cash on their investments.

 :)