Bitcoin Forum

Open your mind for a moment and imagine a few hundred people on an island starting with no laws.

With no laws and no way to enforce them they start to run into problems, some murders, theft, property is taken, people build a house and assume they own the land only to have their neighbors think that they own a different part, etc...

People start arming themselves and try to protect themselves and their property but most find that they have to go to work, they cannot stay at home all of the time so a private police force offers to protect peoples' properties for them, some people like it and pay for this police force to protect their home from intruders. The police force is given boundaries of peoples' properties and disputes are worked out to come up with clear property lines.

Some people do not agree with the lines and go with their own police force, a few police forces pop up and pretty soon there are property line disputes between police forces. One guy says an acre is his while another says it is his. They both call out their police forces to keep the other off of their property and soon there is a stand off between forces. Both are right, they are protecting lawful property and a firefight between forces breaks out.

The next time funding for the force comes up, both forces raise rates for those home owners to deal with the extra cost of a firefight with the other force. After some time both land owners realize it is cheaper to come to an agreement on property lines than keep paying higher costs to the police. So they make compromises and the rates go down.

Now imagine one group of people really hates gays, they pass a 'law' against gay marriage. Basically they authorize their police force to go in and kidnap and punish a gay couple. The gay couple is paying another police force to protect their property from intruders (including police) and protect them from kidnapping. The gay law police come to kidnap and imprison the couple and the kidnap protecting police are called to protect them. Another stand off and possible gun fight ensues...

At this point the people who hate gays are told their rates will go up in order to pay for gun fights with other police forces. The battles are costly so the gay haters have to decide if it is fiscally worth it to have such a law. Over time it would not make sense to pay for gun fights.

After a while, the cheapest route for all users of the police forces would be to agree on what 'laws' to impose, and it would gravitate toward such a common agreed law of the land with very few subtle differences. You would also have to factor in people who do not use a police force and protect their own properties and lives. Any outside force used against them or their lifestyle would bring with it a cost that would likely not be worth the higher rate.

Thoughts? With no laws and people willing to pay for competing police protection, how do you think things would end up?

The gay haters would push through a scheme that allows them to compel homosexuals to pay for the very police and courts that enforce the laws against homosexual marriage, but eventually common sense will win out and their courts will hold that marriage equality is a fundamental right.

With no laws, all your left with is anarchy. The strong and rich will survive, the weak will perish or band together to survive. Its everything before the industrial revolution basically.

Monarchy and slavery = anarchy?   ??

Anarchy is preferable to chaos/status quo.

In large scale yes. No one had to really follow the rules, but if they didn't there were some people with force. You weren't forced to be a serf, but everyone had to eat... So alternatives weren't very good.

How would they be compelled to pay for the police?

Assuming everyone is using Bitcoin, their money cannot be stolen at the point of a gun.

Actually, in such a scenario the rich would be a target of the police forces of the poor. While it may not be financially beneficial to get into gun fights with your neighbor over an acre of land, and thus an agreement would need to be made. The rich would need to hire much better police forces because it is financially beneficial for the poor police forces to bind together to take land from the rich (assuming such land is the source of the riches, or even contains wealth that can be taken). The rich would be obligated to pay more for police protection.

Anarchy forces an order and society to be built
Utopia is only as determined as the mindset
Given a charismatic leader in this scenario we could see dictatorships ruler-ships or a just society built
The question is what bias do they have originally entering into this experiment and whether they can over come those instincts together as a society

Then again this is the social covenant and their is only the island can't assume the geography so not sure if their is a mountain or if a Moat is possible to guard your house even when your away,  and the time it takes to build these fortifications before getting assaulted by others what the tech level and knowledge levels are as well are interesting variables as they could impact they fortifications security and design.
Left handed entrances so you can fight with your right hand maze type designs to get to your house with traps to dissuade visitors
All on an island of course ^^

Need more input to make a rational decision
In your case for all I know the gays are evil or the gays are good is it Roman based ideal or is it Puritan based

Either way couple of ideas
Isolationism
Protectionism
Or Mutual Reliance will occur
A fourth case can be made that one group will kill off the other group till hegemony is made so these type of issues are non-existent or the island is split into two as well with one group on one side and the other controlling that part with a strong border
Assuming resources to be the same else scenario 1 occurs

The only law we need is the law of karma.  What you emit comes back to you, all your actions have a reaction and you feel each and every one.

If people really understood this, we would not have people racing to gain the most wealth but rather to gain the most inner peace, for that is the most valuable thing in life.

What are you trying to say? Anarchy is chaos, and the status quo isn't chaos.

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/anarchy
absence of government

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/chaos
complete confusion and disorder : a state in which behavior and events are not controlled by anything

The latter definition applies to the status quo.

Anarchy is not synonymous to chaos.

You tell them your keys or they put you in jail until you do.
http://blog.zwillgen.com/2012/01/26/no-fifth-amendment-violation-for-compelled-disclosure-of-password/

Hence why you hire police to protect you from kidnapping.

Right, but they can't afford to protect you from a majority. More likely, they'll just tell you that you have to accept what that majority wants until they change their mind.

In any system that considers homosexual marriage comparable to murder, homosexual marriage will wind up effectively prohibited if murder is. In any system that considers homosexual marriage a fundamental right, homosexual marriage will be protected if rights are protected at all.

So if you want to get something recognized as a fundamental right and protected, what matters is that you convince a majority of people, weighted by how much power the system gives them, that they should be. The system really only matters in two respects:

1) The system decides who or what you have to convince because it determines how rules are made and enforced.

2) The system decides what avenues will be available to you as you do the convincing.

But otherwise, if the majority of force wielders want something, it will happen. If the majority of force wielders are willing to prevent something, it will not, or at least it will be retaliated against.

Similar to the medieval feudal system. There will be battles between forces when competing for natural resources until the population got tired of conflicts. Peace for a short period and then history repeats itself.

The incentive to fight only exists when the funds to do so are forcibly taken from the populace.  The violent method of obtaining something is never the most efficient method.  For example, why don't the citizens of Maryland pile all of their money together to create an army to sieze the oil fields in North Dakota from the corporations that own them?  For the reason that it's much cheaper and more sensible to use their own resources to trade for the oil, much more than the threat of the military/police force that would try to stop them.

Conflicts only end when they become too costly compared to gains to those who decide... This can be seen very well in current world situation...

True peace isn't here until we conflicts are too costly compared to any gains...

The way I see it, conflict always will be too costly.  But as long as the money is coerced out of people, that won't matter.  War will happen if it the people who take the money say it will.

Yes, conflicts end when "those who decide" can no longer gather support. When too many people died; when costs did not justify cause, population will get tired, leaving grudge but no physical conflict. Hence, no true peace.

People wouldn't be enslaved anymore, that's what would happen. The rich would no longer be able to control the poor.

Umm, why you say so? I'm pretty sure they still need to eat...

What is the fundamental difference from 6 000 years?

In the end someone gains an edge and then it's downhill from there...

You can grow your own food and don't need others to do that for you.

Where? And if someone comes and take that land?

I think something that is underestimated in an anarchic system is fear. The majority of people will have elevated fear levels which will lead to all sorts of problems.
Illnesses related to stress, more people going postal, a poorer quality of life in general.

Ruthless and powerful gangs may dominate, the sort who will kill anyone at the first sign of conflict, before their opponents  'police force' is even aware there is a problem.


Compassion and karma in the majority is unfortunately outweighed by greed in the few.

Like with insurance, fear is quenched by spending more money on protection.   Unlike the current system, you get to decide how much protection you think is necessary in an anarchist society.  

The state is essentially the most ruthless and powerful gang around but is "limited" by a piece of paper which they can choose to obey or ignore.  The majority of people do not get what they want by using violence.  Businesses don't threaten other businesses with their own personal armies if they're not satisfied.  You don't threaten your employer with violence to get a raise.  Organized aggressive violence only happens under a power-hungry and empathy-lacking sociopath, which must build their army with funds that are taken by force.  Imagine what kind of military Bush would've had if he had gone door to door raising funds for Operation Iraqi Freedom.

A great rebuttal to this would be how locals in "anarchic" Somalia invest in weapons which the pirates use to sieze trade ships.  I read that a woman invested an RPG into a pirate operation and got $75,000 in return after the heist.  In reality, it is the government which makes these investments worthy since trade ships are not allowed to bring weapons to port, and this incentivizes these operations.  In a stateless society the sailors would be free to defend themselves from such small pirate groups, and thus they would never try.

How does the rich control the poor without force?  If there's no centralized bank destorying the poor's currency, or tax system stealing all their wealth, or welfare system keeping them dependent, or minimum wage destroying employment, or regulations denying any opportunities, what's to stop the poor from rising up?

Larger amount of weapons and disposable manpower holding those... Where would the force go? Rich would just give up using the old style force?

Property is something you can defend. So if someone comes and wants to take it, just prevent him from doing that.

Well right now the rich don't have any physical weapons, the governments do.  So the rich would have to acquire these weapons first.  Then they would have to build an army of disposable manpower which is willing to die for them and kill others for their agenda, somehow.   Remember, people must join voluntarily because there is no conscription in anarchy.  And even if that does happen, who is going to take care of this army's logistical needs?  There is no nationalism, so these rich people would have to convince SOME population that what they're doing is worthy so that they will be feed, clothed, maintained, and have their medical needs served.  In a stateless society there is no pot of funds and resources to grab from.

There are lots of problems and shortsighted assumptions in this story.

There is a problem with majorities, since they are susceptible to loudmouths, fanatics and sociopaths swaying the "public opinion". Most correct, or just solutions to ethical problems or problems to do with justice are complicated, fairly difficult to explain, and not spectacular or cool to talk about. Most wrong solutions (like killing all the Jews, whipping the gays, going to war with something or someone) are easy to understand, easy to scream at an angry mob, and capitalize one peoples anger and fear.

"justice" would sway in favor of the rich, the fanatics and the stupid.

Economic incentives are not a suitable base for a decent society, they never have been, they never will. Economic incentives have a place, but definitely not in this role.

Sorta like how it is now?  People living in fear of being blown up by a drone, people living in fear being spied on by their government, people living in fear of a nuclear holocaust.



Anarchy is not chaos though.  Anarchy is nature, a perfect equilibrium of forces.  An anarchist world is controlled by the universe rather than man.  Just because there is no man made law does not mean there are no laws of physics.

1. In an possible in the real world anarchistic society, you'd get ransaked if you possesed anything of value. Surviving a day without having lots of goods/currency to hire and maintain armed forces would be an achievement. The stringest would win.
2. Anarchy where every person respects and helps each other is a utopian idea. It's due to the violent and selfish nature of man and the fact that a small group of psychos can ruin the whole situation

1) Non-aggressors who could defend themselves (and be defended by other non-aggressors) would win, if we were no longer subject to innocent victim-only disarmament laws.
2) The last sentence is government in a nutshell - sociopaths, protecting themselves and psychopaths, from innocent victims.

1. So those defending would be more important thus making descisions thus it is anothef government, possibly totalitarian or authoritarian at best.
2.You elect the government, you choose who you want to be ruled by. And yes I understand how limited choice the two-party system is, however, it can be changed. In my country, there are lots of parties competing for getting seats in the parliament. If you don't like the current politicians, become one and be better.

1) Immediately defending your fellow man against murderers, rapists, and pillagers does not make you "the government"
2) We elect nothing, it's only who counts the votes, not who votes, that counts.

That's the fallacy about anarchy.  The fact of the matter is that, as you said, only a small percent of people are psychopaths and wish to go and take people's stuff.  As it is now, these psychopaths are in charge and protected to ransack anyone and anything they desire with the power of armies.

If we were in a true anarchist state, with no government or money, the 2-3% of sociopaths would have no way to leverage their powers, thus, if they continued with their ways, they would be killed as the numbers are astronomically against them.

+1

And to add, I think the far-fetched "utopian" idea is one in which a society could elect people who supposedly know better than themselves what's best for everyone, and who will uphold their "duty" to represent the people's best interest.  There is absolutely no incentive system in place for this to be the case, where as in a voluntary society providing for others is the highest incentive.

However you look at it I guess. However, it being a utopian idea, it's impossible to implement due to the ill nature of humanity. Many people seek power, sometimes at any cost. Also, zero control brings out the worst in people.

Precisely why it's a bad idea to have a monopoly on force.

Guess so. Are you referring to gun control laws in the US? Since I don't live there, I don't really know.

https://i.imgur.com/ywn0PD8.jpg

The top sheriff in a rural part of northern Nevada told residents this week that one of his deputies acted appropriately by confiscating tens-of-thousands of dollars and a handgun from two men who were never charged with crimes.

Humboldt County Sheriff Ed Kilgore defended his department during an open meeting on Tuesday this week in Winnemucca, NV, where around 40 residents of the region turned up to talk to law enforcement about two headline-making lawsuits that have propelled the area into the national spotlight as of late.

The federal suits — both filed last month in United States District Court — allege that Deputy Lee Dove of the Humboldt County Sheriff’s Office acted unlawfully when he pulled over two drivers in September and December of last year for routine traffic violations, only to confiscate large sums of money and, in one instance, a handgun, without ever charging either individual with a crime.

In each case, the plaintiffs were stopped by Dove for minor infractions and eventually released without being booked. Both times, however, he came upon large amounts of cash in their vehicles and confiscated it by evoking a controversial “civil forfeiture” provision that lets law enforcement take money if an officer thinks it was either obtained illegally or will be used for illicit means.

Both cases attracted the attention of Associated Press reporter Scott Sonner, who profiled the lawsuits earlier this month in a story that set the stage for Tuesday’s meeting in the county center.

“Two men who were traveling alone through the high desert last year offer strikingly similar accounts of their stops by the same Humboldt County deputy near the town of Winnemucca, about 165 miles east of Reno,” Sonner wrote last week. “Neither search produced drugs or an arrest, but in one case Deputy Lee Dove took a briefcase filled with $50,000 and in the other he seized $13,800 and a handgun, according to the lawsuits filed in US District Court in Reno.”

Attorneys for Tan Nguyen, 37, filed their suit on February 12, and in it they alleged that Dove pulled over their client the previous September for driving 78 miles-per-hour in a 75 mph zone.

“Dove stopped Plaintiff in a ‘profile stop,’ suspecting that Plaintiff was transporting illegal drugs, which he was not,” they wrote. Upon inspecting the vehicle, however, the deputy came across a briefcase containing $50,000 in US currency and two cashier’s checks, which were promptly confiscated.

“Plaintiff was neither arrested nor cited for any violation of the law in relation to this encounter with Dove,” attorneys wrote. “Rather, Dove gave the plaintiff only a warning.”

According to the suit, Dove told Nguyen that he would be arrested unless he “got in his car and drove off and forgot this ever happened.” The fifty-grand — winnings from a Nevada casino, according to Nguyen’s attorneys — was never returned.

http://rt.com/usa/nevada-lawsuits-forfeiture-kilgore-610/?utm_source=browser&utm_medium=aplication_chrome&utm_campaign=chrome

Guess that's the other side of the coin: both the lack of control and too much control yield problems. And as I have seen the superpowers like US, Russia and China are skilled in mass control.

Instead of balancing the scale, why not remove the possibility for an abuse of power?  With the current incentive structure, people must rely on their own morality to not abuse power.  But the very nature of obtaining a position of power attracts those with poor morality.

The government has a monopoly on force.

How are laws imposed?

Force.

How are taxes collected?

Force.

Everything will always be controlled by force since it's the most primal way of control. And the only way to control everyone  including low-lives is force. Nothing really new much.

Well, making people stupid through propaganda is another way to do that. Countries all over the world use this method now.