Bitcoin Forum

Let's start this by considerations. What are and how were societies formed? As it happened in the pre-historic times we can only speculate and theorize about the "Birth of Society" (and Civilization by inheritance).

Societies appears to be formed by an exchange of services. Raiders who found pretty accommodate to steal now and then weaker tribes, at some point found it to be a way for them to settle too; those weaker tribes would provide them goods paying for protection. Yes folks... at birthplace society and civilization were nothing but protection rackets. So if you happen to be descendant of "great kings" you're saying something as «my ancestor ran a protection racket with loads of thugs»  ;D

At some point some lacking arm strength but wanting power came up with a scheme to subdue the strong; Religion.
«-Look, I'm strong!
-But I've a friend that's stronger and loves me much so he will kick your ass if you harass me!
-Where's your friend?
-In «some place you can't go, usually Heaven, but also other places as Mt Olympus», you'll meet him when you die! Ahah! See the thunderbolts? That's my friend farting!»
Roughly however, those scammers managed to create the initial rational society - mind over body ones.

As societies evolved they became more and more rational up to where we stand now and, hopefully, it will continue such evolution process.

Who rules?

The ruling power was always addressed to Aristocracy, the ones that are "Aristos" (Ready or apt to rule). An "Aristos" depends on the kind of the society, in a brute force society it means the stronger in a rational social society the most intelligent or the smartest. No other than the "Aristos" will ever possess any power over a society.

The "Struggle of Classes" fallacy

There was no bigger fallacy than invent a conflict where there's none. "Struggles" happens for common goals, classes have different goals therefore they will just "struggle" with their peers, not with other classes. In a way talking about the "struggle of classes" is as ridiculous as to state a game between a basketball and a football team; they both will score at will, once they have totally different goals and see no reason or way to stop the others' intent.
However everybody seeks to know how much the society values his presence and job, so there's a constant "bargain of classes", each one trying to be more valuated, and therefore waged, by the others.

Equilibrium and abuse of power

If we pick for example Athens and Rome to the end of regent abusive societies and Sparta to the other end, we will notice the principal difference between them was the number of "Aristos". Athens and Rome were rational societies but most of its people were pretty much ignorant, Sparta was a brute force society and most of its people strong, specially because they kill the weak.
In the end Athens and Rome have pretty few people with education enough to be "Aristos", making the rule class a rare material and the ruled as common as bananas, this granted a high value to a cast of despotic rulers. As for Sparta, and since strength ruled on a place where everybody was strong, any abusive king would probably be "packed up to delivery", as there were many people else able for that position.
Just like in a regular market, the more abundant the good the lower the price.

Put this considerations to our days

We live, at least on the West, in highly rational societies. Everything has to have a reason and coercion is an unacceptable way to make someone abide by certain senseless rule. In this societies the ruler has to be way cult and intelligent, this alone doesn't mean such society isn't up to abuse - if you see Papa Doc on Haiti for an instance, he was cult and intelligent, but ruling over an overall ignorant society which he easily exploited.
The key to prevent abuse in our kind of society is in education, the more educated people you've the more "Aristos" that society have, the more disposable an abusive ruler can be.

"Unfortunately" (for tyrants), "Aristos", being able to rule themselves are way hard to be ruled and demand their representatives to actually represent them instead of just claim to be doing so - as in Communist dictatorships, where the "ruling class claims to be representing the people" when it is indeed representing nobody but itself. So the best ruling model for this society appears to be Democracy.

Democracy as we've it now is becoming however outdated, it has been designed for a World with deadly slow communications. That World is no more! In that past Democracies we've chains of delegations (like the one that elected Bush on his second run for president, even thus he didn't got the majority of the American votes) which are today unacceptable. Yes... in the old days one locally elected member would pick his horse and will go for days until reach the central government where would meet with other representatives elected by their locals to cast the vote... but that was on the old times. Today you can be anywhere in the planet within hours psychically or within seconds virtually.

So it's time to think on push Democracy to more direct levels, more direct representation, without dissolve it into delegations and parties. It wasn't possible up to not so long ago, but now technology and an overall educated population allows it to be true, so we can elect the best without have to elect "the whole packet" that comes along with the party of the one we believe to be the best for the place.

I would argue that we have more senseless rules now then ever before in the history of the world.


Rule implies force. You can't have rules without enforcement.

How about we move away from these ancient traditions and have no rules (or rulers), only rights. A rational society should be able to accomplish this, no?


The United States (which I assume you are referring to with the example of Bush) has a representative republic, not a democracy.


Do you want your neighbors telling you how you can and cannot live your life? This is what you will get with a direct democracy. Mob rule. I don't trust my fellow man to make my decisions for me. Nor do I want to make decisions for my fellow man.

I trust my neighbours (and myself) more than I trust some elected, or appointed, or born into it, ruler.

I agree that making decisions for others is wrong. Making decisions with others doesn't seem so bad, however. A good sight better than having decisions made for me, anyway.

The US is a republic, meaning that it is comprised of a limited set of public resources that are commonly owned and governed separately from private resources.  These common resources are managed democratically, via elected representatives.  So, while I think the idea of more direct democratic control of the US is a great idea, please don't confuse it with direct democratic control of all private resources in the US.

Sure, I wasn't talking about Fascism or have others voting for personal lives, but for the common areas for which we use "Governments".
As LMGTFY said, make laws and social rules with others, as we're living with them anyway.

Indeed, so do I. But I wasn't talking about trust. I was talking about them making my decisions for me, which I certainly do not want. I don't want anyone making my decisions for me, regardless of how much I trust them.

As far as making decisions with others, well that's fine if you like doing what the majority decides to do. Ultimately the decision will be made for you though. This might work out until you find yourself in the minority again and again.

As long as there are rules, there is force.

You're assuming that there's a vote and the majority wins, which I'd certainly regard as just as retrograde and reactionary as representative democracy. Consensus would - for me - be much preferable to majority voting. At least in my household, we discuss where to go on holiday each year, and arrive at a decision via consensus (the family would kill me, otherwise...) Consensus is easily scalable to a community-level. Intra-community decisions can easily be made by delegating, where a delegate passes on consensus choices made by the community.

I don't believe that rules require force, but I acknowledge if rules are made by some at the expense of others then force isn't just likely, but has already been applied.

No, this system isn't much different from what you already have, is just an upgrade and yes, you're meant to abide by the majority and yes it has coercion.

BTW, in the anarchic utopia what would you do with guys like the one in Brazil and the other on NL last week? Sit and wait him to run out of bullets? Get real!

No. What a silly idea, where on earth did you get that idea from?

Anarchists have a long history of resisting violence, and "waiting until the other party runs out of bullets" hasn't featured highly in that history.

I'm also not convinced that anarchism is quite as utopian as you suggest. It strikes me it would be a lot of hard work - no elected (appointed, etc) ruler to take decisions for us, we'd have to provide many of the services we currently take for granted (defence, education, etc).

Well, that anarchy already have a lot of rules  ;D
Listen to anarchists I aways end up with the sensation that I'd been speaking to a "Selfcratic" other than anything else. After all everyone paints it differently.
As for coercion, in your version of it, would still exists then. But that's ok, taken coercion exists everywhere, in and out of your house. Try saying to your wife you just became muslim and want to marry more 2 or 4 gals and see what happen.  ;D

Delegated voting solves a bunch of the problems in direct democracy: http://www.communitywiki.org/en/LiquidDemocracy
 (http://www.communitywiki.org/en/LiquidDemocracy)
I wonder how a more direct democracy would handle foreign policy, though.  On the aggregate, people don't seem to be willing to push the fat man off the bridge - https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/wiki/Trolley_problem (https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/wiki/Trolley_problem) - and they tend to revile those that do.

Corpse cleanup: the single remaining problem anarchist thinkers have yet to solve.  In case you hadn't noticed, Brazil and NL already have states, and sitting and waiting until the shooters ran out of bullets was about all they did.  Like it or not, the only viable deterrents to this kind of shit is either an armed populace, or a total police state.

Sounds interesting dejayl.

I see the current issue, the representative parties, as let's say John is "the guy", you really put faith and trust on his judgment and ability to deal with the current situation, so you'd definitely vote for John.
Peter on the other hand is a good for nothing low life who just lives at any shadow he can find. You wouldn't vote for Peter in a million years, unless for president of the bum association.

Now... happens Peter and John are of the same party. You vote for John and get Peter along.

The world is a dangerous place, which is why I exercise my right to self-defense.

Nah, you just aren't talking to anarchists. No rules. No rulers. Human rights.

Actually, I disagree in that there can be rules without rulers. For example, the Bitcoin protocol/network has definite rules, but there is no single person or group in charge of the rules. They can be modified and codified through community consent.

Yes you can. I've played thousands of games of chess and cannot remember a single rule violation. Rules can be agreed upon and followed voluntarily.

When force is involved I see rule violations everywhere. Are speeding and murder not happening in your country since those rules started being backed by force?

I bet you'd never played chess with a thug. There's a difference between... nerd World and real World.
Imagine that instead of a normal and civilized chess player you happen to face a thug drinking beer, knock you now and then to make you move and insisting that his tower can go on diagonal. You show him the rules and get a punch in the face... so you "voluntarily" come to agree that towers can even fly if he needs to.  ;D

Without force, just multiply the crime you already have for 1000... and probably the result would be too generous for reality.

I admit there is a reason none of my games have been with thugs.

Having another thug watch us and force his 'interpretation' of the rules on us isn't my idea of good living.

I don't know about this nerd vs real dichotomy, but there certainly is a civil vs government dichotomy and I know which side I want to be on.

Is one of the problems that the government views its country as its property which means everyone has to follow the rules set by the property owner and it will violently protect its property with lethal force ?

Can you have a government that doesnt try to claim property rights over the country it claims it serves ?

If the government owns everything it explains why you can never actually own your own house and even if you pay off the mortgage you still owe property taxes.

If you actually own your own property you shouldnt have to pay another entity anything.

You seem to be talking about a contract:

-an agreement between two or more parties for the doing or not doing of something specified.

When I say rules in this thread I am referring to:

-a regulation or bylaw governing procedure or controlling conduct

Not one of it's many other definitions.

Obviously words have different meanings. This thread was about government. In that case, a rule without enforcement is meaningless.

I can see that you want to be sneaky with words again. :) Thank you for proving my point. If a rule is not enforced, it doesn't exist. The murderer who does not get caught does not have to obey the rule. Without enforcement, it's meaningless.

I don't want to be sneaky with words. I have no problem with contracts, but I wasn't talking about them.


I think the rules of chess fit this. We both submit to the rules of the game and there are no problems. If someone breaks them then there isn't a chess game anymore and if I don't want to play whatever the hell it is now I stop. 


Without force there will be no crimes whatsoever.

You think chess rules are equivalent to regulations or bylaws in a discussion about government? It's clear that we are unable to communicate properly. Here is my final attempt.

Chess doesn't fit. I don't have to play chess. Force isn't required because either one of us can walk away. Therefore the rules are only an agreement between the players.

I have to live in society. When there are rules governing what I can and can not do in society, there is only one way to ensure that I abide by those rules: force. There is one way I can choose to walk away: suicide. I never agreed to the rules. I never agreed to pay or be imprisoned, etc. I don't want to play, but I'm forced to play. These are the rules that I'm talking about. These are the rules that imply force.

I don't think we disagree all that much. I was using chess as an example of rules without force. I'm completely aware that force is involved at every level of our society.

Finding ways to interact with people without force and threats should be the goal of every civilized person. Seeing a problem and thinking "ah, let's force everyone to do X, that will make it better" is wrong (as in incorrect, it doesn't make the world better) and barbaric and it'll suck hard if you lose control of this violent game.

I would say that Democracy is power of giving the right to people . In democratic countries like, USA,Britain. People have the equal rights then there is complete justice in that countries which is the beauty of Democracy .When people will have rights then there will be happiness everywhere .

Not to piss on your parade but I think democracy is an abomination. Do you think some random guy that lives on the other side of the planet should have a word in what you can or cannot do with your life and property? No. Then why should your neighbor have such power? To be free is to have the right to refuse to interact with others, no matter who they are and where they live.

Bunch of fruitcakes want to vote away they property rights and share all of their belongings together?  No problem go ahead. But why do I have to go to jail because I don't want to join you in your insanity?


You're missing your own point. If you walk away from the game as your opponent starts cheating, you're not enforcing the rules of the game, rather you are giving up on the game altogether. To enforce the rule in that case would be for you to be declared winner by an outside entity, which will then proceed to fine the cheater. You seem to forget that rules aren't enforced by individuals but by entities.

Listen to anarchist is somewhat funny.
goatpig, I don't see anybody forbidding you from go to the middle of the woods, without interaction with whosoever.
Or... you do like the commodity of society, which relies on interaction - people working together - but still come up with all that bs?

More like you force me out in the woods because out of the 100 of you 51 thought I should give them half of what I produce so you can go war the 100 guys living in the next village, and I am left with the clothes on my back and the woods. But guess what? Once I've established myself in the woods and I'm doing fine, you and your 100 buddies will be back to take from me again, to war some more. Good job there chief.

I don't care about society for one single bit. My problem with society is that it won't allow that. Show me one piece of dirt that has no nation controlling it and ima consider apatriating myself there. Hell, even Antartica is under UN legislation.

What woods? All of the land that is not privately "owned" in the area we call the United States is owned by the federal, state, county, or city governments. There is nowhere to move to.

http://usgovinfo.about.com/od/moneymatters/a/No-Free-Or-Cheap-Government-Land.htm

I say privately "owned" because your land will be taken unless you pay your property tax. Additionally, there is the issue of Eminent Domain. So really, the owner of all land is the Federal Government. They merely allow individuals to live on their land so long as they pay their rent (property tax), and there are no more economically viable uses for the land.