Hmm. I wonder what food it would be more beneficial to plant in a limited space garden... what sort of garden would be the most nutritionally complete, and how much space would be required per person?
I might do some research on that.
Since you mentioned 'getting some fish', check out greenhouse aquaponics. I was thinking along those lines, but I've heard those systems can be difficult to set up and delicate to maintain. Maybe once the twins have outgrown their "high-speed wrecking ball" stage. |
|
|
|
The fourth ignores diseconomies of scale.
Ridiculous. The fourth addresses economy of scale. Countering arguments with "[that's] plain stupid" is just ... plain stupid. I know defending ideas you haven't thought through bites, but why shit up the boards with pointless insults? Why provoke when your stance is both absurd & undefendable? Strategize!  Your points have been rigorously destroyed elsewhere, even on this very board. Don't blame me for your inability to use Google and research a topic before expounding on it. The only point you made which is anywhere close to valid is the fourth one, addressing economies of scale. However, as I point out, it ignores the inherent diseconomies of scale. It's summed up in Wikipedia's definition of a natural monopoly: Companies that take advantage of economies of scale often run into problems of bureaucracy; these factors interact to produce an "ideal" size for a company, at which the company's average cost of production is minimized. If that ideal size is large enough to supply the whole market, then that market is a natural monopoly. Even the economies of scale graph underlines this by showing the average per unit cost line going first down, and then up:  Furthermore, there's little evidence that economies of scale apply to security. That would require it to be less expensive to defend more people, but that is clearly false. The more people you defend, the more your costs rise. Frankly, I would not be surprised if a detailed examination of the economics of security found that the "ideal" size of a defense agency is in the low double digits, or even lower. Finally, i take pains to stress the most important point, and you, intentionally or through lousy reading comprehension, ignore it. I'll quote it again for you: Unless evil aliens are involved, at least at one point in time, in the beginning, *all mankind was free*. This state of freedom gave birth to everything, including all the "artificial" regulations we know today. This is important. Please try to remember this when making plans There. So, because conquest happened, that makes it inevitable and preferable to peace? What were you reading, certainly not my post?
Well, let's look at what you were responding to, shall we? Without the territorial monopoly, any person who finds himself the target of abuse from one protection agency can simply call up another one which is based nearby to come stop it.
To which you said: "No *intelligent* person would "choose another nearby protection agency" any more than one would choose to pay protection money to a different gang, if the terms are better. Possible in theory, dangerous in practice. It follows, then: "These guys kick down my door and search my house at 3 AM, but at least they're cheap!" |
|
|
|
Well, I guess that answers the Fermi Paradox.  |
|
|
|
No, he has a relatively small portion of the people willing to fight. Remember, no territorial monopoly, so those who are willing to fight to defend others have many (or at least 2 or 3) choices of employer. And once an agency goes "rogue" like that, their voluntary customers will dry up, and the other companies in the area will gain subscribers. There will be a large portion of his fighters, in fact, which will jump ship, as well.
While this sounds brilliant at first (and is partly implemented here in Italy, having multiple police forces), actually @crumbcake's objections are quite valid and kind of destroy your point, unfortunately. Hey, I'd be glad to be proved wrong... Which ones, in particular, do you consider most valid? As I said, the first and third ones are absurd (the third one especially: "These guys kick down my door and search my house at 3 AM, but at least they're cheap!"), and the second and fourth ignore laws of economics. |
|
|
|
And how did things go so wrong?
Territorial monopoly. There's plenty more, but any one of those bullets is enough to put down your pipedream. No, they're not. Your first one is plain stupid. The second ignores the fact that no other industry splits up territory like that, because it would be rock-stupid to do so. Why voluntarily hand over customers to your competitor? The third is just as stupid as the first. The fourth ignores diseconomies of scale. |
|
|
|
Well, some discussions provoke a comparison to Hitler a little faster than others. This one, I'm surprised it took this long. |
|
|
|
If the groups are voluntary, they will likely be composed mostly of violent people who like authority, i.e. the kind of people which once they realise that they can rule the country, they do it. Not necessarily. Not at all, in fact. The people who would gravitate towards a job that is primarily defending others are mostly the "good cops," those who join the police force specifically to help people, stop crime, etc. The "bad cops," those who enjoy having power over people, would gravitate towards more criminal careers. The reason for this is simple: These groups do not have a territorial monopoly. without the territorial monopoly, any person who finds himself the target of abuse from one protection agency can simply call up another one which is based nearby to come stop it. And the main difference between these groups and a feudal army is just the absence of a feudal lord... but since any army needs a very clear leadership, its general might quite easily step in and proclaim himself "lord".
After all, he already has at his command most of the people willing to fight. No, he has a relatively small portion of the people willing to fight. Remember, no territorial monopoly, so those who are willing to fight to defend others have many (or at least 2 or 3) choices of employer. And once an agency goes "rogue" like that, their voluntary customers will dry up, and the other companies in the area will gain subscribers. There will be a large portion of his fighters, in fact, which will jump ship, as well. Even if they don't mind attacking the people they were paid to protect, attacking is pretty risky business, and the other companies are still in the business of defense. Then comes the problem of pay. Even the most ruthless SOB mercenary wants his pay, and wants it on the regular. Without any voluntary subscribers, the only way a "lord" could get money to pay his troops is by force. Which puts them in direct competition with the other companies in the area, who have not only gained the rogue agency's customers, but a good chunk of their troops, too. A rogue protection agency/nascent state would not last long in a voluntary society. |
|
|
|
First, most of the land available was not acquired on a "first occupier" basis. You're right, that is a problem. Certainly none of the currently government-controlled lands were gained justly. But is it a problem we can do anything about? In some cases, yes, in most cases, no. So the fairest thing we can do is to, in those cases where we cannot determine a rightful owner, simply call it a blank slate. Government lands go "up for grabs," and everything else is given to the current owner. By and large, everything in the private sector was acquired by voluntary trade, even if the original owner wasn't actually the original owner. What's done is done, and we can't change the past. All we can really do is move forward, and hope to build a fairer future. Secondly, and this is a problem (arguably) with both systems is that land can be over-claimed causing those who must make use of the land bound into serfdom to those who "own" the land. I'm not sure what you mean by this. If you mean the oft-repeated criticism of the absent landlord, that's not really the problem you make it out to be. You can buy land from a landlord. A third potential conflict is with those who have no need or want to "own" land but only to make use of it on an occasional basis (nomads, cattle drivers etc). That's less of a problem in modern society, but there's no reason that a nomadic tribe couldn't claim their entire range, and a first-occupier rule would cover that. Just because you're not in all the rooms of your house all the time doesn't mean the rooms you're not in are not part of your house. |
|
|
|
In both cases, you are confusing the method with the organization employing it.
Could you clarify? Certainly. You compared a system of small, voluntary defense groups with mutual defense contracts to feudalism. The only similarity between the two is the mutual defense agreements. You compared a small voluntary militia using guerrilla tactics to the NVA using guerrilla tactics (OK, I made the comparison, but you couldn't see the difference between the two). The only similarity is the guerrilla tactics. |
|
|
|
I do not say that a government is automaticly less corrupt, I am saying that they are likely to be less corrupt. Reason is that they need to be reelected by a majority of it's citizens
Not if the electoral system is rigged... That's not even necessary. All you have to do is get a big enough voting population that rational ignorance kicks in, then advertise the hell out of your opponent. The one with the most money wins, and hey, guess what, corruption gets you money! |
|
|
|
Taxes are necessary, accept it.
Prove it. Lol! You just never quit, do you. If you really had any interest in being scientific about it, rather than just wanting to stroke your ego, you would seriously think about what happened to all those anarchic tax-free societies that supposedly existed in the distant past. http://www.quickmeme.com/meme/3upo83Oh, your meme has convinced me! Present a real argument, you dolt. |
|
|
|
You ask the nearby well-organized neighborhoods to join in fighting off this army, and destroy the supply lines, rear bases, and transportation. In other words, you destroy their organization.
So we would be back to feudal times, basically? If you have a relative that fought in Vietnam, ask him how well that worked.
But that would still be a state versus another state, backed by yet another state. In both cases, you are confusing the method with the organization employing it. |
|
|
|
Inflation is not what causes interest, interest arises purely from liquidity premium, aka the value of liquidity. The only argument among economists is to what the source of that liquidity value is. The general Austrian answer (which myrkul endorsed last time we debated) was a time-preference in which everyone wants to engage in shortsighted consumption in the present. Thus the 'good' savers who resist the temptations of immediate gratification are entitled to extract interest from the shortsighted gluttons, basically a kind of sick morality play designed to justify usury upon ones fellow man. Wow, talk about distorting a viewpoint to suit one's own needs. If you were anyone else, I'd call that out as a textbook strawman. No, my friend. Time preference is merely that: a preference. Austrians make no moral judgment as to whether or not savings is good and borrowing bad in a personal finance situation. It is what it is. Time preference is the value a person places on having money now as opposed to waiting. No more, no less, and no more "good" or "bad" than sexual preference. The borrower and the lender come to an agreement that satisfies both the borrower's preference to have money now, and the lender's preference to have money later. As long as everybody's happy, there's no need to put any moral judgments on either side of the equation. |
|
|
|
Dude, don't do that again! I just spent 30 minutes hunting an imagine that may, or may not have been what was on your mind after you got inspired by a post to do the exact same thing, but at least you had a keyword pool to resort to.
Ah HA! Found it! It was from back in the day when it was still called "Project Natal." So, please pretend this is actually how it went: Yeah, I don't like the direction xbox is going. It was a game console, but now they're trying to make it an everything. I already have a computer
EDIT: Kinect is pretty cool, though.
I admit, Kinect is cool. I was really excited when they launched that.  |
|
|
|
|
There's a saying that sums this up well:
"An oral contract is as good as the paper it's written on."
Basically, enforcement of that contract is going to be tough. There is one thing you can fall back on though: The discipline of constant dealings. You said you had witnesses to this agreement. That's good, that makes it more than his word against yours. Using the discipline of constant dealings, you can tell him that since he is not going to hold up his end of the bargain, you're not going to ever deal with him again. You're also going to tell the witnesses to the agreement that he reneged on it, and they will cease dealings with him as well.
Now, this might encourage him to play fair and pay up, or it might not. But if it doesn't, he's hurting himself more than he is hurting you.
|
|
|
|
I agree. I'm no fan of demurrage. I just see it as slightly more honest than willful inflation.
Oh, it's much more honest. I mean, when your money has an expiration date, any fool knows not to hang on to it lest he get stuck holding the bag. |
|
|
|
Don't feel bad, we're straying beyond my ability to firmly grasp the concepts
Like it really takes a lot for you? Unnecessary low blow signalling a jerk and a moron.
|
|
|
|
Question on demurrage:
What do you do with those lost coins? If they are annihilated than it just changes amount of money without affecting value. If it is distributed to everyone then nothing changes. I guess it is being distributed to miners so it is effectively exactly same as just giving miners new money. Miners simply increase their share of currency vs everybody else. Old school inflation have one big advantage of being compatible with human psychology. No one wants to see his account shrinking in real-time.
But that is exactly what is happening with old school inflation.... but most people are unaware. At least with demurrage, it is an honest shrinking of your purchasing power rather than a sneaky one. Demurrage does have that going for it, But it's still a drain on purchasing power, and a currency with demurrage will never survive next to one that doesn't in a competitive market. |
|
|
|
How would you propose solving the problem if space was finite, and the occupiers of the space increased exponentially? OK, here's how it works: You start with physical reality: Two objects cannot occupy the same space at the same time, and space (at least, usable space) is finite. Likewise, two people cannot make use of the same space (land) at the same time, and there's only so much land on any one planet.Then, you move on to the logical conclusion from that physical reality: Therefore, space, being scarce (finite), must be allocated.Now, we move on to a statement of preference, based on that logical conclusion: The fairest means of allocating space is that the first occupier has a better claim than all subsequent claimants, and this claim can only be transferred voluntarily.As Stephan Kinsella points out in " Against Intellectual Property": Only the first-occupier homesteading rule provides an objective, ethical, and non-arbitrary allocation of ownership in scarce resources. Now, I'm open to alternatives, if you can present a resource allocation strategy that is demonstrably fair, non-arbitrary, and prevents conflict over scarce resources such as land. |
|
|
|
Most anarchists are now of the Voluntaryist/AnCap stripe. Black and Gold is winning over Black and Red.
This would most welcome news indeed if it were true. do you have a source? No hard numbers, no. Just a general sense of the community. unfortunate. i have a feel for the size of our community but i dont have much of a feel for the size of their community so i personally have no idea how many of them there are. Well, how's this for "hard" numbers: Quick G+ search: Anarcho-capitalism: 1493 members. (plus several sub-communities, one for NYC with 37 members, a private one for San Francisco, and a private one for AnCap Bronies) Voluntaryism: 304 members Voluntaryists (probably some overlap with Voluntaryism): 127 members (and one with 24 members for Bay area voluntaryists) Libertarianism: 8063 Members Anarcho-syndicalism: 25 members (last post was a month ago, and I quote: "anybody willing to cooperate on giving this community some life?") Anarcho-communist: No results. Communist anarchy: No results Libertarian communism: No results Voluntary communism: No results Maybe Facebook has more commies, but the Googles is an AnCap haven. Edit: Anonymous seems to be a red/black collective. Of course, that's about as far from "hard numbers" as it gets, so... |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
