Bitcoin Forum

Hello, i'm not american (Sorry for my bad english) but i'm curious to have opinion of others about a subject i find intresting.

If this has already been debated ( probable) please refer e to the thread, i do not know what to search for...
I always had a problem with elections because

1) REPRESENTATION                     : i never feel like voting for someone who represent me.
2) CORRUPTION/STRATEGY            : They keep lying as this apear to be a good strategy to be elected. As a general thing, Strategy looks like a key point on election. Just like in a war. They want to be elected, re elected ect (or their political faction) this is a big corruption of the rôle they should play ...
3) SUPERFICIALITY                       : after voting you are powerless. You might vote for such a big bad ass, just like i gave a few btc to nefario because glbse looks like working ... voting is a one shot game that left you powerless.
4) GRANULARITY                          : I feel like giving more power than i am willing to. This problem is still hard to think of for me, maybe it s just a consequence of point 2...

So i do not vote very often.
Then i understand that what i do not like is aristocracy, wich is i think the root of those problems. For me there is a big contradiction by saying that we are in democracy and having 10% of women in the parliament for example.
I do not see our "modern democracy" so far from the chinese system.  Yes we do vote, no we are not represented.

A few time ago i read about this idea of random representant.
So i keep thinking about the idea of a new parliament chamber.
1) This chamber would have X representant selected RANDOMLY (X would have to be big enough to represent the country).
2) Those representants would be selected every, lets say 2 month. So the chamber changes its members VERY REGULARY. To maintain stability the representant would be changed like 12% per week (so that in 2 month every body has changed without brutal shift)
3) The representant can refuse to participe for any reason. They cannot be fired or anything because of this task. They wil receive a minimum salary for this task


Point 1 would solve the REPRESENTATION problem, while point 2 solves the STRATEGY and SUPERFICIALITY.
CORRUPTION is left half solved as those representant would not seek reelection but they can still be influenced/ helped by lobbys... The rotation of point 2 will probably limit the damages of any external corruption.
point 3 is important to keep ppl free. Probably because of point 3 ( minimum salary/ possibility to refuse) the poor might be more represented than the rich. Maybe not so bad?


This is just some kind of naïves thinks on the subject. Do you feel bad too when you go vote?

[EDIT] This is inspired about a few actual french thinkers, mainly Etienne Chouard

Why do you want a gang of thugs to rob you and threaten you with violence?

Yes the jury is the closest thing i know in application at a wide scale.
I guess some nice diagram would help. If i have courage i ll do it...

I feel like this is the most important and key aspect of the whole conversation.  If the goal of voting is to empower such gang of thugs (it is), then the conversation should be about removing the need for these thugs, rather than finding a new way to select new thugs for the gang.

That said, a rapid and random shuffling of the thugs would keep them from doing much damage.

Your consistent defense of the government coercion paradigm seems like:
a) Defeatism and
b) a seriously bad case of Stockholm Syndrome (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=93868.0).

We're just calling it like it is. They're the mafia with a flag.

TIL: I never knew truth could be "slanderous".

"Communication" aka "give me free money or else someone will put you in a cage".

Somebody answer the phone!

This is a good concept and I always thought it might help resist corruption. The problem with it I figure tho, is it will turn from a back door bribery game to an in your face violence and killing opposition kind of game as randomly selected representatives act against what they know to be existing powerful interests. Sooner or later people will begin to not want to participate and or will be coerced into not changing the status quo.

I don't know what you mean by "your case".  As far as I remember, I came back to this thread and you were accusing certain people of "cynical name-calling" -- off-topic for this thread -- when they tell the truth.

Now, in case you somehow managed to post without reading what we're talking about here: what we're saying here is that democracy is lousy.  Having accepted that premise, some of us are proposing a better mechanism to select who will have maniacal powers, and some of us are saying that we'd better off not giving maniacal powers to anyone at all.

That is the topic of this thread.

If you want to stick to the topic, your contributions are welcome.  IF instead you just barged in to yell "CYNICAL NAMECALLERS DERP", then please use the door and remove yourself from here.

Thanks!  :-)

Now, steering this convo back on topic.

Myrkul, I fully agree with you.  The damage that people in power make would be indeed significantly limited if the people who get to be in power were fully randomized.  That alone would have the impact of diminishing the amount of good-for-nothing-but-lying sociopaths in power, since we wouldn't be doing a stupid ritual to select the best liars every X years.

Hahaha.  Did anyone else read this raging, intolerant, abusive reply and was instantly reminded of the following GIF?


Blahblahblah seems to have some anger management issues.  I've seen him constantly insulting and hurling abuse at people who think differently from him -- quite a lot of his participation in this forum consists on that.  He seems to have a finely honed bigotry for people who express views different from him, ranging from calling his targets "tards and bullshitters" to telling them "go fuck yourself".  I wish some of us could help him adjust his reactions to new ideas, but clearly he's not in an emotional condition or state that lends itself to listening calmly.

In short: it appears that blahblahblah has chosen this forum to be his pet playground where he angrily throws sand at everyone, without consequences for him, in pure Internet Brave fashion.

He is now on my ignore list.  I encourage everyone else who appreciates polite conversation not punctuated by abusive tirades to just ignore him as well (as I'm sure quite a few people already did).

Have a great day!  :-)

Now, going back to topic.  So, what other benefits does random selection of thugs have over electing liars?

What did I say? Stockholm Syndrome.

This is a great idea (OP), one championed by the famous Democritus.  I have not found that his government "by the people" had reference to what we call "elections".   

Random selection has a lot of advantages.  Random sampling is a great way to sample an unknown distribution (e.g. political opinion).
Consider for example evaluation of an integral of y=f(x) over a range dx with the monte carlo technique with k sampling points.  Compare that to evaluating the integral by taking Mean(floor(y))*dx.  You don't need to get k very large before the monte carlo integral is most likely way better.

The logisitics and corruptibility behind each method (election or random) are not simple however and the details here are probably most important.  There are of course different ways to run an election or a random sampling, I am encouraged by new ideas in these ventures.   

   

Bingo, 100%.

Yah, good point.  Our good overlord Stalin once said that it's not the winner of the popular vote who wins the elections... it's the one who counts the votes... and I guess this applies to random sampling as well.

Is there justice today?  Police arriving at a murder seen does not prevent it from happening.  Here's a concept though:

Every human has a consciousness, which are one of the same.  Every human is a good person, deep down.  People do 'bad' things, like rape, murder, theft, because it is their best option, from their perspective.  The only way to prevent these occurrences is to change their perspective, to get them more in tune with love (consciousness).  People whom harm others have lack of control over their ego, this is noticeably evident in many child homicide cases, where the child uses a form of pharmaceutical that negatively increases their ego, often antidepressants.

So how do you instate justice?  Do you kill the murder's closest loved one to make it fair?  If so, where does the cycle of violence end?

Or is it possible nature has the full capacity to serve justice?  We know nature is an equilibrium of everything, it's perfect, naturally.  What if, rather than reacting with more violence, we allow karma to govern disputes and injustices?  What if we work at solving disputes from the source, ego?  We're all the same person after all, there's no reason we should disagree other than lack of understanding or personal opinion.

The universe has created a perfect system of life, as comfortable as it may seem to have an army out to protect you, any bit of control, power or violence disrupts nature.  There's no enemy to fight, we're all together, as humanity.  The only way to create a society of peace and justice is to increase the awareness of your neighbors, by spreading the understanding that acting out of ego (greed, hate, power, control, violence) is never justifiable and always an unwise decision.

Having seen people being destroyed by child abuse, I am positive that people are good by default and they only get dedtroysd by abuse so I agree with that.

Indeed. AnCap justice system would likely work like this:
You're rich, I'm poor (relatively speaking). You commit a crime against me, say, assault. In order to hear the case, we each select an arbitrator. You have more money, so you can afford to pay your arbitrator more than I can. If you're allowed to set the costs of the proceedings, you may be able to push me out simply by forcing the costs beyond what I can pay. So I won't accept your arbitrator. You probably won't accept my arbitrator, either, since he's cheaper, and will probably be on "my" side. So what we do is we both hire those arbitrators, and they pick a third, whom we can reasonably assume will be neutral.

But that's the ad hoc solution. Much more likely, we'll each already have arbitrators picked out via our defense agencies, much like we now select our doctors through our insurance plans. Who knows, they might even be the same guy, or at least the same firm.

What about when people choose to stop using money?  Must we always run to mom and dad, or is it possible we can resolve situations ourselves?

The mom and dad thing is quite interesting, because that's exactly what people do today: they run to Mom or Dad Government and grovel to them to solve their problems.  As anyone who has voted or has sued someone knows, this Mom/Dad don't really give two shits about the people who believe themselves to be their children (mentally, spiritually and physically so).

I feel a bit like that. thus i have no certitude, so i would not recommend to remove straight forward the election process. I think we should at some point find a way to try other systems.

I agree with that. Civil war and revolution looks like a very dangerous path. Now i am wondering if election is the best way to guarantee democracy. I can see every day how poeple only vote "against", how nobody trust our politics and how we have been betrayed on loads of subject, after loads of elections. Election is baised on faith, i am afraid that loads already lost that faith wich mean that if they express one day it will be trough conflicts. If really poeple loose faith in elections during enough time, and if no solution is find, dictatorship might appear again. In france i know so many poeple who are not concerned about politic because they are NEVER represented. This is how Extreme Right managed to do 20% in some elections...

Today (in brazil) in the bus poeple sayed "This would not occur during dictatorship" refering to a manifestation in the street.  

So this is why i think that just ONE chamber should be randomly selected, to see wich of the RANDOM chamber or the ELECTED chamber is more representative. It is true that maybe the most important question is not WHICH system, but HOW TO try new systems without civil war.

Note, random selection might be "ancient concept" but election is probably a MUCH older concept.

Who's talking about revolution?  If you increase the awareness of those in power, you might actually be able to convince them to relinquish their power.

I agree that any attempt to institute any new form of organizing society (mutualism, anarcho-communism, anarcho-capitalism) by way of violence (revolution, coup, mass expropriation, whatever) will be ultimately self-defeating, destructive and hypocritical.  Every time such a course of action has been attempted, the result hasn't been the institution of the new desired order, but rather a more ruthless form of government.

So let's be careful about suggesting anything like that.

Step 1: Sound money system. Sorry Banksters, gotta earn your interest from now on.
Step 2: No more gun control laws.
Step 3: No more tax laws. Sorry, IRS goons, maybe you can find accounting jobs.
Step 4: Anyone who wants to can start a military or police force with which to defend their fellow citizens.
Step 5: The court system is dissolved. Arbitration, not government courts, decides cases.

Congratulations, peaceable dis-assembly of the State.

This is hard to do.  One in two people living in any contemporary society gets their bread buttered from the teat of the State.  Chances are, these parasites will revolt and murder others just to keep the sweet stolen milk flowing to their mouths.

Well, I never said that the welfare programs had to stop... Just that they had to support themselves. I wonder how Food Stamps would do, having to compete against Goodwill?

I know I wouldn't give my money to Food Stamps, if I had a choice.  I'd probably give it to Goodwill.

This is, after all, just the broad strokes. I actually moved that tax thing around a bit, had it first, then last, finally settled in the middle. Those last three would probably have to be done simultaneously. Cut the tax laws, Open the market, and let everyone know that they can continue to pay for their police, or they can take their defense into their own hands, or seek a market alternative. It boils down to removing the current government monopoly on the defense and justice industries. Once that's done, it's only a matter of time until your country looks like an AnCap society.

Sadly, some of those criticisms are far too on-point, (which is, of course, the reason I'm an agorist (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Agorism), and not an inside-the-system activist) almost none of this stuff would ever get through Congress, or past the president's desk, if it somehow managed to. Of course, Dank did hypothesize a power structure actually aware of it's nature.

Only law we need: Love

You must have some good stuff. I prefer a slightly more formal version (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Non-aggression_principle).

The question for me is not wich law should or not be voted.
The Question is how to involve pple in the law process. And ultimately how to make laws more representative of what the poeple want. More democraticy.
Just like bitcoin doesn't solve the question "wich is the best currency" but "how to have a improved currency"

The market is the ultimate proportional democracy. Everyone is represented.

Market do not decide at the end, it doesn't promote laws... Plus if i understand you right, poeple who have more decide more. Wich is really not democratic...

Well, first, you don't want the market to decide laws. You want the people to decide laws, yes?

Let me ask you a question: Who has more purchasing power, 1 person with 1 million dollars to spend, or 1 million people, each with a dollar to spend? A second question: If poorly treated, which of those options would be able to inform more people via word-of-mouth that they have been poorly treated?

Law is an industry, like any other. if left to a monopoly, the customers will get poor service. If left to the market, the best service providers will do the most business.

I suggest you read Gustave de Molinari's "On the Production of Security," available in English (http://www.panarchy.org/molinari/security.html) or French (http://www.panarchy.org/molinari/securite.html).

All the time. Do you? For instance, I strongly suggest that booklet. If you have any suggestions, I'm open.

Well i confess i have no courage to read the all thing you linked, would you be kind enough to make a sum-up?

Well i'm not sue where you want to go with that... 1 person with 1 million dollars surely have more purchasing power... 1million dollars start to be a good budget to make noise, but 1million poeple is surely more effective to spread the word-of-mouth. And what?


On the other hand i belive that competition would be good for government. I liked this (kind of yes we can do it, hypothetic, anybody have the link?) project where X island have a population, they vote their laws independently and every year or so, they mix and everybody can decide on wich island they want to live the next year. Now i'm not sure this is where you want to go, and i belive it's really really hard to implement...

I already have, essentially. Justice, security, law... Having a monopoly provider of these services is counterproductive to those services being provided well.

You're almost right... 1 million people with 1 dollar to spend have the same purchasing power, collectively, as does the one person... $1 million. And yes, one million people make an awful lot of noise when you piss them off. So... In a market economy, who has the most power?

Nah, AnCap's easy to implement. Remove the monopoly on the provision of justice, law, and security. The market will take care of the rest.

1 million poeple have a much less purchasing power as they have to agree together if they want to buy a 1million $ item. Yes they all will surely spend a million $ but if they need a million dollar item they probably wont be able to do it (as 1 folk will say no i don't want). not sure if you follow or if it as any importance + it depends on how you define "purchasing power". I can't answer to the next question...

I quickly read what the guy is saying, even if it is intresting i must disagree on some point.
1) He admit poeple will always make the best choice for their own sake, for him, poeple only select something based on the property of this thing. This is really false. If not marketing would not exist...
2) If the productor of security enter in war, the result will be a very similar world as we know it.

Consider this scenario:
A productor one day say "this land is MY LAND" i have enough ressources to defend it, every other productor is forbidden here. Every Consumer that disagree on this land will be killed. He actually did had enough ressources (through the fees he received before) to create a nice army. He defeated all the attempts of other productors to defend their customers on this land.
This is the rise of a nation as e know it. If you are in it, you should shut-up and wait this traitor is weak enough to change everything (revolution)this might take years and years.
 If you are out of it, you should give some power to your productor of security, if not, the first one will expand. But at some point, this productor will betray you and just do the same as the first one. This is the world as we know it...

Thoose perverted communist governement as the author says is for me the very same thing as the security provider, just in a much more evoluted form...

Please note that the island project suffer from this problem too, what happen if an island decide to control another one...

"purchasing power" is defined as the ability to use your money to influence the market. You said earlier that the market would let "people who have more decide more," Since the 1 million people have the same amount of money, they can influence the market the same amount as the one person. Since they can make more noise when angered, they can influence the market even more through that than can the one man. So, who has more power... who decides more?

These are fairly common objections, but they show that you're thinking about it, and not just rejecting it out of hand. That's a good sign.
1 - True, not everyone is a perfectly rational actor. People make mistakes, and get swayed by advertising. But on the whole, people tend to make the right decision - the one that best serves their interests.
2 - It's possible, but it's much more profitable to peacefully offer security services than to try to force people to give you money. War is expensive, war is dangerous, war is dirty. Guard duty is easy work.

This, too is a pretty common first sticking point. First off, this is such an off-the-wall unlikely situation that it's hardly worth considering. One security company gets so good at peacefully providing security that it feels it can just take over everyone.

But let's set that aside for the moment. Ignoring the fact that it goes against the very business model that got them where they are now, and the fact that they would have to beat everyone - including some of their own customers - in order to win that particular prize... the correct answer to a feared concentration of force is not a concentration of force. (You shouldn't give someone a monopoly because you fear someone else will get one.)

purchasing power in my language is your ability to buy things. Note that it is NOT the money you have. If you have 100euros but for some reason the meat where you are cost 10 euros/kilo, you have less purchasing power than someone who as 50euro in a place where meat is 2 eur/kilo.  It is at some point very hard to compute. But price are generaly coherant so ... In that case the 1million poeple surely will have problem to agree buying the 1 million dollars Tank they'll need to defeat the other guy... So things starts to be complicated and not so black/white.

2nd point
Even if your situation might be better. This particular case is a black hole, once you get in it, you can't go back.
Just like once a better currency is created it is utterly hard and expensive to go back (stop internet???).
So yes it will happen, and probably faster than you think.

The best exemple is probably Gangs in Favelas or Somalia.
Let's look a favelas.Poeple need a home so they just gather in a place where state never pop-up.  Everything there is just like you are promoting.
Consumer live and need to be protected. They can choose to defend themself, create a new "corporation" (basicly a gang) to "defend" themself, or pay the local gang to defend... The gangs just has 1 objective, make profit (if not it is a comunist system as your author states). So it will take a tax, it can also start some very profitable business like selling drugs, or even start to racket poeple.
So during a few year, in the same area you might have different system that coexist: a few folks with guns. A milice patrolling at night, 2 groups of drug dealers (they need protection) and a group that just racket poeple.
Quickly drug dealer 1 (D1) makes huge profit, so his little army start to be very very strong.
He can afford to push out the other drug dealer by just killing him. The other ones start to fear D1 and they have to react. So the little war start in our nice Favela...
Now it s over, D1 has taken the monopole of drugs in his area. He managed to kill the racket group.  He can choose to racket too or not ( depending on the profit), the milice is over too because they are far too weak and has been taken down... Now he will continue selling drugs, but in the favela he is the boss. Yes you can choose alternative system to defend, but the result is surely your death. Until Army pop's in and clean everything out.

Favela exists before the gangs ( they appear because poeple need a home! ). Security is competitive there, but not for long...



Now to make a simple sum-up, if you think that war is unprofitable, you are wrong.
War is the most profitable activity.It is because you have to sell gun AND because at the end there is less poeple to share the same amount of ressources.
So this kind of anarchy, nobody will make war because it is not good is for me VERY dangerous. And as a preventive measure i will quickly start to make a war.

You have the right definition of purchasing power. Don't forget that with every purchase (even small ones), you're sending a message to the market about what is desired. You buy a steak, the market is informed that steak is desired. You buy hamburger, the market is informed that hamburger is desired. Each dollar sends a message. One person sending one million messages, and one million people, each sending one message, all send the same amount of messages.

This is a great example, except that violence upon your customers is a great way to be considered criminals, not a defense agency. For instance, if the army started shooting the people instead of the gangs, how would they take that, you think?

War is only profitable because governments can pull money out of thin air, or squeeze it out of their people. Take those options away, and suddenly war becomes very draining to the coffers. (Even just taking away the ability to pull it out of thin air makes it very expensive... look at medieval warfare, and you'll see what I mean.)

Buying something influence market doesn't mean that influencing the market is the same thing as buying something. One is consequence of the other. SO buying power is NOT your capacity to modify the market.  one is consequence of the other ( but this consequence ca have other causes )

For the more intresting subject.
We just disagree, without inflation, even without a proper state, there will still be poeple to sell weapon. If we stop to make war, this guy loose his job. So if i was him i would do whatever i can to stimulate fear or hate or greed.
 He is the most obvious but not the one who has the biggest intrest in war. Other reason i think make war very profitable  is
1) Defending your communitarist values, communism for your author. (profit in this way is not just money)
2) Stealing consumer that chooses a poor protection service. (generally the main reason)
3) Showing that your protection service is the best. This can easily derivate in racket
4) Preventing any other outsider to arise by just killing them poeple don't even have to know you killed them.
<-- thoose last 2 leads to a stable statuts quo. There might be other reason.

Now without war i agree any anarchy system would be very good.  


In this exemple the one that use violence upon its customer is the Racketer. This one get killed by D1 because he was effectively weaker. Once D1 has a monopole, he might racket. But as he is a dealer and as dealing was the most lucrative thing he did, he will probably just continue dealing. He has no intrest in robbing poeple around him, the profits are small, the risk huge...
Now note that in this scenario at the end you can't choose any protection provider other than buying your own gun because there is no protection provider. D1 will prevent any armed formation to arise in his area as this will be seen as a treat. If you have no value for D1, and someone try to stole you, you'd better be good at shooting poeple and hope that they were not friend with D1.
 This is actually what happen in loads of favelas...
The dealer is not always the winner but in favelas it is. what is important is that poeple will always try to use the cheapest way to grant the greatest profit. Sometimes unfortunatly it is war. face it.

[EDIT] Maybe the only question is, Do you really think that we need agency with gun to defend us, BUT nobody will try to team up to stole you with guns (unprofitable)?
...

AnCap is predicated on the concept that no one has the right to initiate the use of force, threat of force, or fraud against a person or their property (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Non-aggression_principle). People generally live this way naturally, and only governments inherently violate it. If people respect that, and those that don't are considered criminals, then society is peaceful.
Even without war, there will still be people to buy weapons. Personal defense, or running a defense company, you still need guns. No need to foment war to sell guns.

If you are making war, you are by definition not defending anything. You can try to spread communism through violence, but this will not endear the people to you.

Likewise, shooting the guards at someone's house and telling them that you are their protector now does not sound like a good way to make friends.

This might be a reason one would engage in combat, but it would be rather pointless. You'd lose men in doing so, probably resulting in you not being the strongest anymore. Maybe a Laser tag battle. It could even be televised. Sport and advertisement in one.

Shooting visitors to your house is not a good way to invite other visitors. This is fine for an isolated place, but most like to trade with their neighbors, so killing potential trading partners... again, not a good way to make friends.

War is a great way to make profit. it's far from the cheapest.

Edit: Wow, never saw an entire post scratched out before...
Well, specialization is the best way to provide for a need, and I'll doubt you will argue that nobody will ever need protection from violence, so it just makes good economic sense to have some people whose job it is to protect people. I'm not saying that nobody will try and take over. It might even be one of those groups of people whose job it is to protect people. What I am saying is that when they do, they will correctly be viewed as criminals.

that is possibly the most naive statement i have ever heard. how can anyone with the slightest shred of knowledge about history or human nature ever claim something like that?

Right. Now even if this kind of anarchy looks a fantastic idea, it is out of reality. The few that won't respect your rules will ruin your fantastic society. (that you admit as natural without proof)

Anyway, This anarchy is by definition NOT voting law, so this all conversation only help to realise how very naive it is but completly hijack my thread wich is about finding way to better represent poeple, and vote laws in a more democratic way. Please respect it.

Go through your life robbing and murdering on a daily basis, do you?

You know, I never really understood just exactly how appropriate your username is until this very moment.

All you ever do is blahblahblah.

the government doesnt let me  :'(

(and i have to admit, personally, i am more of a sack&pillage kinda guy  :-[ )

So, if it weren't for the government, you'd go rampaging through the streets, as you put it, "Sacking and pillaging"?

I find that when I need a good sacking and pillaging binge some good old fashioned hocus pocus gubment uniforms and MREs come in quite handy.

Instead of randomly selecting people and giving away our power to them,
how about we keep the power to ourselves and solve the problems in a consensus-based manner.

For that we need a total transparency for (a) money transfers and (b) provably-fair voting.
Bitcoin solves the (a) part of the problem, so we only need to create a solution for (b)

I've already proposed this in Bitcoin Foundation thread a couple of times so I will repeat it here.
It is possible for an organization with membership paid in Bitcoin to create a system with provably-fair voting.

In this system all membership fees are collected into a single public Bitcoin address and votes are the messages signed with the private keys of the addresses that sent a full membership fee to that address.
The whole repository of these messages along with their Bitcoin addresses is then made public.
This will allow every individual member to check that his/her vote is correct and also verify that other votes come from legit members (those who paid the fee) and they in turn can verify that their vote is correct.

The members of that organization/society can then vote for variety of different things: decide where money need to be spent and how, appoint people to lead different projects to achieve certain goals and so on.
All the money flow will be transparent because the fee collection address is public.
It probably needs to be protected with multisig so that no single person can run away with the funds, but that is one of the technical details that can be worked out along the way.

EDIT: I created a separate thread for this idea, since it is quite different from the one proposed in OP.
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=124477.0

No answer?

What's the matter, not brave enough to admit that you would go on a homicidal rampage if not for mommy government?
Or is it that you're not brave enough to admit that you wouldn't?

Here's a little secret: You're the only one stopping you from doing anything. I'm the only person stopping me.
http://imgs.xkcd.com/comics/freedom.png

If it helps you sleep at night, don't consider anarchy no government, think of it as ~6 billion tiny ones, each with only one citizen.

Thoose 3 points is what lead me to the conclusion of random selection.
(1) HEAVY professionalisation (random selection looks obvious to solve this point)
(2) Lack of control/feedback after the (bad) choice has been made. Here random selection doesn't help directly but, thoose poeple are unprofessional  AND lambda poeple so they can't use a particular network to protect themslef from the consequences of the shitstorm they might voluntarily start. (oposit to the last decades deciders are just free of consequences)
(3) Rotation, we don't want poeple to keep power because POWER CORRUPT. Or Everybody acts mainly for his own sake, giving power to somebody for a long time is taking a risk to see him using for himself.

My 2 cents...

why would i give a serious, elaborate answer to a question that intentionally oversimplifies the matter?
i dont do rhetoric skirmishes. if you are looking for a "win" instead of an open-ended discussion, look for someone else.

Oversimplifies what matter? Either you live peacefully with your fellowman, or you are a criminal. Which is it?

When the "moral code of the dominant political system in his environment" is "Don't steal, Don't bully, and Don't murder," I'd hardly call it blackmail to consider him a criminal if he refuses to abide by it.

Unless you're pro- murder and theft, now?

the term "criminal" doesnt make any sense in a society without a state or other central authority.

and btw: just the fact that you consider your minimalistic ruleset "right" doesnt make it so. and besides that, how is forcing someone to follow the "right" rules any less coercive than forcing him to follow rules you consider wrong? from his viewpoint your ruleset might be just as arbitrary as the spaghetti monster.

So, you're pro- murder and theft, too?

"Criminal" is someone who broke a law. If the only law is that no one has the right to initiate the use of force, threat of force, or fraud against a person or their property, then anyone who does that will be seen as a criminal.

It's not coercion to "force" someone not to rape, rob, murder, or coerce. It's called "defense."

Oh, and that ruleset is far from arbitrary. It is, in fact, universal (http://www.freedomainradio.com/FreeBooks.aspx#upb).

you basically say it yourself. where there is no such law there is no such crime. for example, if you have no law protecting property, the term "theft" doesnt make any sense.



yay, more universal rulesets! like the world hasnt enough fanatics already...

Care to point out where I don't protect property?


Tsk... It's not a new universal ruleset... it's one that everyone already agrees on. Read the book. Maybe you'll listen to a fellow French Canadian.

I'm saying "Rape and murder is always wrong"

You reply with "Hey, let's not take it to extremes, now..."

How is that not defending rape and murder?

Well, that depends on what you mean by "forced to do things the AnCap way." If you mean forced to operate as capitalists, you would be wrong. If you mean forced to not steal, rape, murder, or coerce, well, then I suppose you would be right. But again, "forcing" someone not to do those things is not coercion, it's defense.

If you feel "private property" is "dogmatic," then answer me this question: Who owns you? Answer that question - truthfully - and you will see the moral basis for our claims.

If you can call - with a straight face - the systems currently in place around the globe "healthy," you're either hopelessly deluded, or straight-up evil.

Please this thread is about voting and democracy.
It is not about anarchy even if it is fascinating. If you want to speak about anarchy, create your own thread, it s free.
Otherwise i'll have to ask my own security provider to take you down.

If you feel a post is off-topic, report it, and ask that the thread be split.

To be honest, this thread hasn't really been about your idea of legislator lotto since the first reply.

So, if you don't own yourself, and nobody else does, either, who's responsible for your actions?

Some people seek power and control over others because it makes them feel a sense of happiness.  There's a great chance these people have never had love in their life so they don't know any other way of feeling happy.

If you show these people how love gives a true sense of happiness, and how power just requires additional power to feel good, they will stop chasing the unattainable ultimate power over humanity, since control is temporary and illusory.

As less people fear those in power, the less power they have, causing what we see in society today, the eradication of our human rights.

So, you own yourself.

There is actually once every page a reply in the subject. Now the fact that you are not able to respect the thread of someone else is for me a very strong sign that the anarchy you promote is just going back 6000years and start again.
Respecting the rights of other (speaking, property, integrity, ... )  is not natural, you are the first and best exemple here.

I am not even speaking of the fact that the first law you want to put in your anarchy is the exact opposite as the view the author you linked to me defend. wich i would sum up as Security is a product as any other, let's put it in competition.

If I could split the thread, I would. I can't. So if you would like the thread split, request it. In the meantime, there is a conversation going here that will be moved when the thread is eventually split, and your thread is continually bumped to the top. The more you whine to me about it, the less time you are spending reporting those posts and getting the thread split. Seems like your time would be best spent asking someone who can do something about it, n'est-ce pas?

Now, my apologies, but if you wish for someone to remove their conversation to another thread because it is off-topic, then the appropriate time to ask is when that conversation starts, not after you have already participated in it.

Note the religious logic: "If God didn't exist to punish me, I would go about my life raping and murdering and stealing."

congratulations! your perception has increased from 0 to 1! you are now able to the see walls up to 4m ahead, recognize when an ogre is eating your limbs and tell hamsters and strategic missiles apart - if they move.

Classic sardonic religious believer non-response.

Nope, same concept. Have you never heard the phrase "own your mistakes," or "own your actions"?

Or is your favorite phrase, "It's not my fault"?

As you point out, one primarily refers to verbs, the other to nouns. English is a very messy language, and many words share meaning.

You never answered this... or did you?

Someone should, like, rob blahblahblah's house and then tell him "nope, no one is responsible for this robbery, because responsibility is a made-up concept".

That'll teach him the difference between valid and invalid concepts, whether derived from observable reality or "made-up".