Thanks for the link - didn't know about it. Unfortunately it's not there. No, it's not commitcoin. It's more an article about using the blockchain to send personal messages. Commitcoin is very awesome but, unless I misunderstand, it's not about messaging. Cheers. |
|
|
|
|
Thought I might reply to this, to close the thread. The bottom line is that many here view profiteering as a "natural right" even going to far as to suggest it is better for everyone if the first-mover in a new market deliberately profiteers in order to make space for more efficient competing services at a lower profitability. This is almost logical, but I could reply that I should therefore whip you with a cat o'nine tails, so when you get whipped with a normal whip it won't hurt so much. And it (deliberate first-mover profiteering) would seem to support, though its author would disagree, that fraudsters could benefit the market by rendering consumers more skeptical and therefore resilient to future fraudsters. This was my suggestion: fraud can be legitimized for the same reasons profiteering can be legitimized.
Certainly, given recent events (pirate and others), bitcoin-dom seems to be learning some hard lessons. Thanks pirate et al?
I haven't seen anyone conclusively answer the question if it's ever possible to be *greedy*. That is, if people really need or want your widgets, is there any upper limit to a fair price?
Lastly, I mentioned that if I were to operate any bitcoin service, I would charge minimum fees to cover costs, but also ask for donations. One user replied to say that's exactly how he operates; kudos. Nobody answered to say that they were deliberately profiteering. This can mean one of two things:
1. I underestimate the costs involved in providing the services, and actually nobody is profiteering but instead operating at a bare margin, or less (as some suggested).
2. People are profiteering but are ashamed or unwilling to say so. This would be somewhat at odds with the moral posit that profiteering is legitimate.
Hmmm. Thanks to all that participated.
|
|
|
|
|
A few months ago, maybe a year, I remember reading a research article about embedding messages into the blockchain. The method was not simply sending ASCII binary transactions (e.g. 0.01101101BTC). As I remember, the process involved something like:
1. Alice sends a transaction to some carefully sculpted keypair, and notifies Bob of that address. Alice redeems the coins so the public key is visible.
2. Bob performs some operations on the public key and derives an additional keypair, and sends coins there. Alice, knowing which operations Bob would be doing, watches the blockchain until she identifies Bob's transaction.
3. Somehow, with this info, Alice and Bob can communicate securely, but maybe also anonymously.
I've scoured the forum, and I've repeatedly asked google, but no dice. Can anyone remember the article? At the time, it was presented as a real problem because, while the ASCII transaction above could be detected and maybe discouraged, this method was completely undetectable.
Thanks.
|
|
|
|
I think Joel has done a fine job of discussing racism and its consequences. I'll skip that.
Yes, I think we can finish the racism and slavery discussions. In NAPland, racism will be stopped by racists voluntarily not carrying out any racist act which damages the target of the racism. Likewise, slavery will be stopped by slavers voluntarily stopping to enslave people. Alternatively, any other completely independent but wealthy or powerful person or entity can, out of human compassion and with no expectation of gain and therefore operating outside the economics of the free market, intervene to put a stop to the situation. As to B's defense agency not coming to his defense, what do you suppose the investigation was? Perhaps you have a concept of defense agencies as similar to street gangs. If so, you've got it wrong. Defense does not mean revenge no matter what, it means protecting their client's rights. If their client was in fact violating someone else's rights, then attacking that other person for defending himself, or the third party for acting in their defense, would be a further violation of their rights, not defense.
Very honorable indeed. Requires defense agencies to put honor before profit. If you cannot see that paying a small amount each month, and avoiding paying a large repair bill is economically rational, I don't believe we can have any further discussion, because any discussion requires that we share the same reality. As for the "societal ills", I'm afraid those are too far back for me to get to from here, if you would restate or quote them, I would appreciate it.
Well, personally, I'm a nice guy (of course). But there are plenty of people who already do hit-n-runs. If the likelihood of not being caught were to increase, then so would the hit-n-runs. For these people, no insurance is necessary. On the other hand there will be the careful drivers who will think they couldn't possibly cause an accident, therefore, don't need insurance 'cos the other party's insurance will have to pay anyway. There is a saying, which goes, "In the kingdom of the blind, the one-eyed man is king." In this context, I am comparing your disarmed populace (and even your police!) to the blind people, and the armed criminal to the one-eyed man. It seems to me that even a semi-automatic pistol would give, say, a bank robber, a tremendous advantage, for so long as he had ammunition, he could simply shoot anyone who attempted to stop him, with little or no fear that they would be able to harm him in return.
That my country might be this 'kingdom of the blind' would initially seem so. Nonetheless, it is a remarkably peaceful country. Much more so than the U.S. where handguns proliferate. I was hoping you would bring up the example of an armed man in a unarmed society. That's exactly representative of what happened recently in Norway, where one man with a gun wrought enormous damage. Try to find out if Norway is higher or lower than the U.S. on that global peace index. Try to calculate the homicide or violent crimes rate (per thousand population). Please report back with your findings and draw conclusions about whether they are consistent with your ideals or not. As to the standing army, In strategic terms, that is known as a "shell defense", while an armed populace is a "defense in depth." Look up those terms, and see which one is more effective in repelling an invasion. That your country is still independent is due, I think, entirely to it's diplomatic corps. They are to be commended.
I agree - the diplomats *are* to be commended though also, for other reasons, condemned. I consider myself fortunate to have a reasonably democratic government in place, with the power to negotiate international treaties and agreements on behalf of its people. 2. No, [shady repair man] himself did not do any harm, but he covered up the harm, making the job of the investigators more difficult, and thus more costly. He would be liable for at least that increased cost.
Under the terms of which contract exactly would he be liable? 3. I think it comes down to the fact that triggering the device required no action on the part of the owner. Rain being a natural occurrence that you can reasonably predict to have a chance of happening on any one day, I myself would not go out with a rain-triggered weapon of any kind, nuke or handgun, or anything in between. Let me ask you this: If you are not comfortable with "people" holding nuclear weapons, or any weapons, why are you OK with government and soldiers holding them? After all, they're just people.
The raindrop triggered nuke was just an exercise in absurdity, and the discussion (at least, my part in it) culminated in Moonshadow falling into the trap and attempting a "non arbitrary" definition of "acceptable weaponry". Under the NAP, no such definition is possible because there will always be someone who disagrees and therefore you could potentially feel threatened by any person you happen to meet when, in fact, no threat is intended; you (Myrkul) have acknowledged this. Anyone attempting such a definition, therefore, could not live comfortably under the NAP. In short, though you say everyone can be happy under your version of the NAP (howsoever you interpret it), it seems that *you* would be the happiest of all. My opinion of armed soldiers and armed govt is irrelevant and even the fact that you are asking me this suggests *you* think *I* am thinking egocentrically and that I think the world should be as *I* say. You are projecting your thought process onto me. |
|
|
|
Somalia started out a shithole. It's still a shithole. But it's a better shithole that it was.
It's easy for things to improve when you're in a shithole. Improving things when you're in a highly complex, functional and wealthy society... not so easy. You are conflating country and society. A society is not geographical. A society is the people. You can leave the society without leaving the land you live on.
So any member of a NAP society can leave that society at any time? Therefore he is no longer bound by its rules or his prior contracts. You're ignoring the fact that any significant NAP society must have some geographic extent. Otherwise it is meaningless - by what authority would a non-NAPster be subject to arbitration with a NAPster? Wealth does not automatically lead to power over other people. Any power over other people due to your wealth is voluntary, usually because they would like to have some of that wealth.
Or perhaps the need to have some of that wealth, therefore not voluntary. Not only ideal, but the only just way to do it. Imagine if they told the prisoners in that experiment that they were free to leave at any time. How many would have stayed?
They were free to leave: Q: Were prisoners allowed to quit the experiment?
A: Yes, and some prisoners did discontinue their participation. For the most part, however, prisoners seemed to forget or misunderstand that they could leave "through established procedures," and they reinforced a sense of imprisonment by telling each other that there was no way out.
Will there be prisoners in NAPland so? If so, are you suggesting they will be free to leave at any time? |
|
|
|
The only way to end racism is to end racists. If you know of another way, I'd love to hear it.
Put them all in prison? Impractical, but at least not absurd. Racists tend not to voluntarily stop being racist and in fact tend to oppose any attempts to make them do so. Other than perhaps someone who hopes to be a leader of a racist organization, there aren't any significant groups that benefit from racism.
How about Iraqi Sunni and Shi'a? How about whites and blacks in the US? Or in Africa? How about the exploitation of indigenous South American, Australian, Indian, Chinese (etc) peoples during the age of European conquistadors? If groups don't benefit from racism, how come racist groups have survived, no, thrived? Again I think the history books tell a very different story to what you're saying. |
|
|
|
Any society will largely avoid these problems if the vast majority of people want them solved and no society will avoid these problems if the vast majority don't recognize them or don't want them solved.
You seem to be agreeing that ending racism in a libertarian society 'merely' requires that racists stop being racist. Racism costs money though.
I disagree. Racism saves money. If you could just convince society that all the redheads are somehow less capable, then you can pay them less. Oh wait, you don't actually need to convince anyone - there is already plenty of racism. But you already agree with me: (That's not to say that nobody benefits from it, of course. But overall, we're poorer for it.)
I think the bigger problem to worry about in the Libertarian dream is that people who disagree over issues like this will ostracize each other. For example, people who see racism as a horrible evil may not just refuse to do business with the diner that doesn't let black people eat there but also with people who eat at that diner, people who supply food to that diner, people who repair the roof at that diner, and so on. It wouldn't be a very pleasant society where your roof needs fixing and you have to choose one of two roofers to do it, either of which will get you ostracized with a different, but significant, group.
Agreed. Racism is a terrible evil that tends to divide society. But, again, everyone has a strong incentive to see that this doesn't happen.
Everyone? You're contradicting yourself: (That's not to say that nobody benefits from it, of course. But overall, we're poorer for it.)
|
|
|
|
I have read it, and it certainly got me thinking. Did you read the linked article? They took randomly selected students, screened them for any psychological issues, and placed them in a prisoner/guard setting. Within days the "guards", without any prompting from the researchers, were horribly mistreating the "prisoners". I shudder to think what might have happened had it continued. If it is, indeed, human nature to exploit these sorts of power relationships, does that not argue for an abolishment of the relationships themselves?
I have read about the Stanford experiments. Wikipedia is really just hearsay, but it does reflect the consensus of its contributors. On the page about the Stanford experiment, it says: Tom Peters and Robert H. Waterman, Jr. wrote in 1981 that the Milgram experiment and the Stanford prison experiment were frightening in their implications about the danger which lurks in the darker side of human nature. Suppose it *is* human nature to develop abusive and authorative relationships. Would you still think libertarianism, allowing each individual to decide what constitutes reasonable behavior, would be an ideal basis for society? |
|
|
|
You're suggesting that oppression is vital to being human? If that is the case, I agree. Better to nuke ourselves now than to subject the universe to our existence any longer.
Nature is violent and oppressive (A) - observe the underdog in a pack of wolves. We are born of nature (B). We have chosen to suppress our violent nature (C). Eliminate the suppression and our violent nature will re-emerge (D). You might disagree with A, B, C or D, or even with all of them, and that's fine. There is no way to know without experimenting. Libertarians wax lyrical about how wonderful Somalia is, but it recently came last place in the global peace index. Indeed, such a social contract has been designed, and unlike the social contract I suspect you are referring to, it is entirely voluntary, if you decide not to sign the contract, you are not a member of the society, if you do, you are. You are not forced into the society by an assumed contract. http://shiresociety.com/ The same can be said for any country on earth: if you don't like it, just leave. Saying things like that doesn't help anyone though (either pro or con), so your point about voluntary social contracts can be safely ignored as a pro-NAP argument. There are two types of power, which you may have confused. The power to, which wealth gives, and the power over, which is political power. The power to is similar to the scientific definition of power: ability to do or act; capability of doing or accomplishing something. It is power over that I seek to abolish, not power to. I'll use your terminology. Can "power to" lead to "power over"? If it can, does it happen automatically or do people with "power to" deliberately avoid developing a "power over"? I hate to say it, but if you think wealth doesn't eventually and inevitably lead to "power over" then you're ignoring pretty much all of recorded human history. |
|
|
|
Prevent redheads from contracting freely for their services? No, why should it? Oh, you mean the actual payment of less for a redhead's services than for a blonde or brunette. The Non-Aggression Principle only puts forth that the initiation of force is wrong, and leaves everything else up to the individuals involved. Just as the shopkeeper is free to turn away the redhead for being a redhead, so too is the redhead free to turn down a contract offering him less than what he feels he is worth.
So, if history is correct, your libertarian dream will have the same sort of racial social problems that have plagued societies all over the world. And indeed, will endorse them as an expression of the "free market". Well, let's do a hypothetical. You see a violent mugging, so you act to stop it.
<snip>
Given that, C's actions would be considered honorable, and the protection agency (which likely would have been the one conducting this investigation) would not act against him.
So, as if it wasn't already complicated enough, we now have three parties. A, his defense contractor and preferred court of arbitration, B, his defense contractor and preferred court of arbitration and C, his defense contractor and preferred court of arbitration. Are there any further complications we should know about before signing up to the NAP? I'd like to point out that you're using "we" (boldface above) in the same way you did before - and that has not yet been defined to my satisfaction. The mere fact that you use the word "we" suggests your vision of libertarianism is ego-centric. You seem to be concluding that B's defense contractor will not actually come to his defense. How will its other clients react to this, do you think? Because I ignored something for the sake of brevity does not mean that I did not refute it, simply that I chose not to. I answered one question from each paragraph. Tell me, do you have auto insurance? Health insurance? Is it because the state requires you to, or because it is cheaper than paying for your repairs at time of delivery?
I have auto insurance because it's obligatory. I don't have health insurance 'cos it's not necessary. You still haven't refuted the argument. Please do so, or acknowledge that buying auto insurance is economically irrational in a libertarian world. Then address my concerns of previous posts regarding the societal ills brought about by hit-n-run drivers. It would behoove a person to carefully weigh the consequences of their actions prior to doing something they might regret, then, hmm? Tell me, what do your police do when confronted with an armed criminal? It seems to me that you've created a bit of a "kingdom of the blind" type situation, where even a one-eyed man has a tremendous advantage... I mean, what happens if you get invaded? not even your police will be able to fight back effectively.
I'm not a policeman, so I don't know. They tread carefully and with tact, I suppose. In any case, it works. My country came pretty high on the recent Global Peace Index. The function of police is not to repel invasions, but to keep the peace. There is a standing army which exists to repel invasions. It is very small so I don't think it would repel a determined or well-equipped invader, but I guess that safety from invasions has been established through international diplomacy. I don't understand your "kingdom of the blind". 1. No more, and potentially less, than in any other system, for in a society where aggression is never OK, evidence of aggression should be as abhorrent as the sight of an assault rifle is to you.
2. Well, he's free to conduct is business as he sees fit, but keep in mind that if it comes to light that he knowingly helped cover up a hit-and-run, he'll be liable for part of the damages (which are now higher, due to the cost of the investigation). Have you ever heard of the concept of "accessory after the fact"?
3. No, I was not, or if I was, I don't recall it. Could you point me in the right direction?
1. In the current system the elimination of slavery is (or at least, should be) carried out by a police force in cooperation with a social security system. No kindness necessary - just an impartial system with rules and regulations. You seem to be suggesting that in order to stop slavery, like your solution to racism, all we need is slavers to stop enslaving people. Simple... or naive? 2. Why should he be liable for the damages? He did no violence. Accessory after the fact is a legal construct in the current system, and, personally, I think it is "good". Will there be a similar obligatory construct under the NAP? 3. Let me find the ref... here. It's a *really* long discussion but, somehow, the NAPsters were arguing that anyone should be free to carry a fully functional nuclear bomb with them, anywhere, anytime. However, a raindrop triggered nuclear device? Well, somehow, that crossed the line, even if it might have a legitimate use. I'm trying to find the time to read UPB; but I think I can already tell when my opinion will differ from the author's - I'm pretty sure that soon he will imply that, once regulations and majority-endorsed government violence is removed, people will suddenly, magically, start being nice to one another. No, he never said that. Does he imply it? I shall read on. |
|
|
|
For example, you could say "Guns are illegal - the only people who should have guns are those who wish to do harm". Then, at least, those 1000 opinions will start to converge. The gray area would start to shrink. As would they if you said "the possession of a gun does not constitute a threat. Pointing it at someone does". You're setting their expectations, either way. You're defining "reasonable." YES YES YES. That is PRECISELY what I'm doing. But I'm doing it in a way (calling it "law") such that it's the same for everyone. We don't have 1000 definitions of "reasonable", we just have one. Everyone knows what to expect. There will always be a gray area but ideally we collectively define it to be as small as possible. It's a bit like a libertarian society where all the members agree to one definition of "reasonable", only you call it the law, and make it obligatory. |
|
|
|
I don't think I can define [reasonable perception of threat] any better than "reasonable". You can read any number of books on what constitutes a "reasonable belief" in law, and I'm hardly an expert on the subject. Law is messy. That's why you need courts. Sure, two people can kill each other over a misunderstanding, but all parties have an incentive to avoid that. But that's really independent of NAP or not -- justifiable homicide laws in pretty much every system on the surface of the planet have these same rules. If you know a better way, write it up in a book and you'll be famous.
You can't define "reasonable" in any way other than something that you (you personally) are comfortable with. This willl certainly different from many many many people's opinion on the matter. Baseing a society on a principle that says everyone should behave "reasonably" is inherently contradictory. One man's meat is another man's poison. I agree - law *is* messy. We *do* need courts. But maybe law is messy, not because govts have made it so (though I agree that is a large problem), but because the sheer variety and nature of human interactions is messy. In most circumstances, I agree that it is convenient to avoid killing someone over a misunderstanding; but not in all circumstances. Ok. Here is an argument. Natural law would suggest there is no such thing as private property, save what you can actually carry on your back and actively defend. Think about it - humans are the only species with such extensive property rights. All other animals must individually defend their property, be that a fresh kill, or a nest. Therefore, I reject private property. If I find your Ferrari undefended, I may claim it. Your opinion is different, but that is of no consequence.
That's kind of the basis of modern society and the reason that all property is defended. It's not practical to have armed guards every place you go, so instead we keep the armed guards at police stations and deploy them only when we need them. Essentially, civilized societies recognize that they need private ownership (even if some think it's a fiction, even if you don't think it's a natural right) because you can't have modern society without things like semiconductor plants and nobody will build them if anyone can come along and take them. A NAP society would have a helluva lot more armed guards every place you go than the current western paradigm of society. Personally, I think that modern society is dependent on private property, but also on lots more things, like an independent judiciary with the power to enforce its rulings. In short, you can't argue that all aspects of society be removed except the NAP, because, as in the thread title, there's nothing special about it. It's just what *you* happen to like. There is no known solution to this problem, and every system of laws suffers from it. If someone does something that would cause a reasonable person to fear that their life or property was in significant, imminent danger, then they will suffer the consequences. But there is no perfect rule for where to draw the line. But this really has nothing to do with the NAP.
I fully agree with this. If you put 1000 people in a room and ask them to define what constitutes a 'reasonable' perception of threat, you'll get 1000 different answers - it would be a huge vast gray area of what's nice and what's nasty, with some black on one side, and white on the other. Wouldn't it be therefore advantageous if we could somehow convince them all to accept a single unique definition? For example, you could say "Guns are illegal - the only people who should have guns are those who wish to do harm". Then, at least, those 1000 opinions will start to converge. The gray area would start to shrink. |
|
|
|
If it is, indeed, human nature to exploit these sorts of power relationships, does that not argue for an abolishment of the relationships themselves?
Taken to its extreme, you're suggesting abolishing a very central part of the human experience. We might as well just collectively eliminate ourselves altogether. Actually, better off nuking the whole damn planet since the entire natural world is full of violent encounters. Put the plants and animals out of their misery while we're at it. Alternatively, we could come up with some kind of social contract, which would describe a minimum standard of good behavior to which all society's members are obliged to adhere. That way, we minimize the nasty aspects of humanity, while enjoying the pleasant aspects - like music and good wine to name a couple. And I'd like you to think about wealth and power. Do you think they are connected? |
|
|
|
|
OK. Myrkul pointed me to this thread which I had missed. Since no NAPsters seems willing to debate anti-NAP, I'll try to raise a couple of objections to this anarchic NAPesque society.
@hawker.
Suppose we are neighbors. You are a small scale farmer and I wish to build a truckload of houses on my property. To do so I need to dig a well into the water table. You're a clever man so you realize this will cause problems for you 5 or 10 years into the future. My property is mine, so you cannot prevent me from doing the building. However there will eventually be a cost to you, so you must take action. The arbitrators cannot make a rational decision, in the sense that two a-priori equally neutral arbitrators might choose differently depending on their opinions of buildings, water tables, environmental destruction etc.
Therefore, your anarchic society, in this case, will fail to defend the rights of its peaceable members and will fail to resolve the conflict between them. Violence will ensue.
|
|
|
|
Does the burden of proof no longer rely on someone trying to prove something? Then why would the person have to disprove what their conception of NAP was prior to the person who was promoting NAP could even prove it was a non-contradictory, definable axiom?
Ok then, treat it as just an academic exercise - mental training if you like. See if you can debate the pro-NAP position better than the NAPsters can. At least, afterwards, you won't know less than you already know. |
|
|
|
It's been tried, and Hawker switched sides rather admirably... but nobody picked up the "Government is good for the environment" side of things. I can't speak for anyone else, But for me, it was because I am unwilling to present arguments I know are flawed, and FirstAscent has been unable to elucidate his points without lapsing into trolling or shouting at us that we should go buy a book. I think he works for a publishing house.
In which thread was it tried? Can you link please? Well, I sure as hell missed that thread. You're right - good try Hawker. Shame the NAPsters weren't willing to challenge their own point of view. Suggests a certain degree of insecurity, or at least a stubborn refusal to acknowledge the validity of other people's opinions. I don't mean the validity of their arguments, just the fact that people are fully within their rights to have a different opinion than yours. Myrkul, why did you bother posting in that thread at all? Just to spoil the debate? |
|
|
|
All we need now are our debaters who are willing to swap sides. Is there enough interest in this?
It's been tried, and Hawker switched sides rather admirably... but nobody picked up the "Government is good for the environment" side of things. I can't speak for anyone else, But for me, it was because I am unwilling to present arguments I know are flawed, and FirstAscent has been unable to elucidate his points without lapsing into trolling or shouting at us that we should go buy a book. I think he works for a publishing house. In which thread was it tried? Can you link please? No thanks. I can't step inside what I know the truth not to be and argue topics as character actor as if the results of such beliefs are as irrelevant as a high-school debate class. These ideas drastically influence the world we live in and will pass on to the next generation and therefore should be regarded a little more seriously. Moreover, if the person holding something to be true hasn't considered the oppositions proposition true then they shouldn't be debating anything - so perhaps those that realize this applies to them should take up such a challenge!
The point of switching side is more than just an academic exercise - it's definitely more relevant than a high school debate, but that the origin. If you, an anti-NAPster, try to debate pro-NAP, then you will have to conduct a lot of research to see why and where the anti-NAP argument fails. Likewise a pro-NAPster will have to dig into the details of why the proNAP argument fails because he is debating anti-NAP. It's like Hawker says - it gets you out of your comfort zone. It's too easy to reject other people's challenges to your beliefs and opinions, but when you yourself make the challenge, it's not so easy. |
|
|
|
Maybe it's human nature that creates these kind of circumstances, rather than "the system". You know, power begets power and so on. Read "Lord of the Flies" for a fictional exploration of this argument (really, this is fundamental reading for anyone interested in politics - it's short and captivating). I agree, however, that the current "system" does accentuate rather than attenuate the probability of abuses and corruption such as this. |
|
|
|
I PM'd theymos to ask about restricting posting rights in a thread. He replied with this thread about "local rules". To put it simply, any OP can give instructions to the moderators. I've never seen this feature in use, so I guess the OP must simply write "Local Rules: 1. ... 2. ..." in the thread's first post (and have clear unambiguous rules). All we need now are our debaters who are willing to swap sides. Is there enough interest in this? |
|
|
|
<big snip> Heck, I used to be [a libertarian], so I know its allure first hand.
Oh? Tell us more. What changed your mind? |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
