Pirate didn’t hurt the economy he hurt people. Bitcoin is a little too big now to be hurt by a single criminal (or idiot).
I was always afraid that he was laundering money and a bunch of innocent greedy fools were helping him do it. Most people think “drug money” is all that is involved in money laundering. In reality, if you are laundering money without knowing why it could just as easily be proceeds from child prostitution or murder. People could probably rationalize it for drug money but I doubt they would for murder. If all these buccaneers lost was money and it was just a ponzi scheme - that’s a good thing.
There's no activity in the world can stably/sustainably produce weekly 7%, not even drugs. It's a simple matter of mathematics. Well you could have constant 7% per week return on capital, if capital stays constantly close to zero, and profit is sent to shareholders. |
|
|
|
|
Personally, I think that the reward as a fraction of the current amount of coins should remain constant. A slow (~0.1%) inflation per year would be healthy to compensate for permanently lost coins. Of course if a procedure for recycling coins that haven't been used in a long time was implemented that would not be needed.
|
|
|
|
I never could understand the religious argument. If God wanted it so that fetuses could live without their host, He would have designed the human reproduction cycle differently. For example, birds have fully contained eggs that do not require a specific host. Fish don't even have to attend to their eggs. But since God designed fetuses so they they could not live outside their host, He is obviously indifferent to their fate once evicted.
Humans are mammals, with all the benefits and problems that come with that. Which is exactly my point. From a religious perspective, knowing that God is all powerful, and He decided to make us mammals and He decided that aborted mammal fetuses have no survivability shows that it is His will that our fetuses die from the abortion procedure. Anyone who argues otherwise is a disciple of Satan as they call into question God's infinite judgement in the same way that Lucifer himself once did. Can't tell if joking, strawman, or serious. |
|
|
|
Now, because I promised: Could you hire a defense company to intervene in a conflict you are not part of, to protect for example children, the uninsured, the mentally handicapped or demented elderly?
In a word, yes. It may end up in a rather hairy arbitration, but in general, you can defend a third party, and by extension, can delegate that ability. Can I hire a US government to prevent drug sellers from tricking poor addicted people into buying drugs? Surely, the addiction affects the mind in such a way that the drug users are unable to give informed consent? Can I hire a moralistic government to prevent sadists from abusing self destructive consenting masochists? Could I hire an oppressive government to prevent people from hearing lies and disinformation (like for instance "ron paul is bad") on the internet? |
|
|
|
The thread title poses an important and legitimate question. It shows one of the many shortcomings of AnCap.
IKR!  Myrkul: it's wrong to eat your children, because you take away their chance of a long fulfilling happy life.
This is a moot point because nobody will eat their children in the first place; it's clearly evolutionarily unfavourable. If they do, then they are not human, or subhuman, and don't deserve to have children. - Satisfies current energy or nutrition requirements[2]
- In a bad reproductive environment, cannibalism is a way to make a recouping reproductive investment[2]
- Puts evolutionary pressure on offspring in order to make the offspring develop quicker[4]
- May increase the reproductive rate of a parent by making that parent more attractive to potential mates[4]
- Gets rid of offspring that take too long to mature[4]
- Removes weaker offspring in an overproduced brood, which makes the other offspring more likely to be successful[4]
|
|
|
|
|
Myrkul: it's wrong to eat your children, because you take away their chance of a long fulfilling happy life.
|
|
|
|
Ehh... not too likely. No defense company is going to attack another defense company unless they really have to, so arbitration would be the order of the day, which would probably result in the decision: "keep to your own damn body."
Why do you think that would be the result? Eating your children ensures that your genes will never be passed on, and nobody else will eat their children.
Only if you eat all of them.. EDIT: Since I didn't get an answer to this question, and I think it's a very interesting one: Could you hire a defense company to intervene in a conflict you are not part of, to protect for example children, the uninsured, the mentally handicapped or demented elderly? |
|
|
|
Organized Armed Prolonged: could be, or not Extreme aggression: Possible, even probable in an oligopoly scenario. Social disruption High mortality No matter what you call it, it could turn really ugly. |
|
|
|
To the title, you can do that right now. What stops you?
It would be horribly wrong. But for the more twisted people: The threat of a long prison sentence. Would this also happen in AnCap, even though the child has no defence company? Could a company do it "pro bono"? Would regulating affairs between non-customers open up for morality laws? To the abortion question, you select a different justice company.
Abortion free for all (just choose the one that allows it). Ok |
|
|
|
No, you need defense agencies to do their job.
This was what I meant by war. |
|
|
|
The children should have thought of that risk before deciding not to get insurance  Serious question: abortion. How would you deal with it? Assuming that that a justice company comes to the "wrong" conclusion, and starts protecting innocent fetuses from violence / starts protecting the choice and own-body-ownership of innocent women, how would you deal with that? |
|
|
|
Well, that's aggression, innit?  Which means you need war/revolution to take them down. |
|
|
|
Well, yes, enforcement of the NAP requires violence. Considering that the violence is only directed at those individuals (or organizations) that start violence, that's typically not seen as a problem.
And no, a revolution is not necessary. If your insurance company starts being a dick, you don't overthrow them, you just switch companies.
I mean things like harassing innocent people. |
|
|
|
His answer seemed like a no answer to me. An "I don't know". Whether I think it will achieve that goal is, of course, another matter. Maybe you guys can't think of a good answer right now. I can wait. I am honestly curious as to what answer you will give me.
Well, you don't really have a question. You're now basically down to "convince me that AnCap will actually work". That's, of course, a pretty tall order. If you agree on the principles though, then the next question is what system best furthers those principles, and you should be able to at least agree that current governments are many times larger than they should be. If not, you still don't agree with the goals of AnCap and there's not much point in arguing over whether it will achieve them. I'm not fully convinced AnCap will actually work. That's why I advocate moving in that direction and seeing what happens. As we see what works and what doesn't work, we can see how far we get. If we stop at a minarchy, I'll still be totally thrilled. Benevolent dictatorships can work a long time. Since an unworkable system can work for a long time, there is a very real risk that you take it to far without realizing, until it is too late. |
|
|
|
AnCap utterly rejects the legitimacy of using force to take what someone else has earned from them. It's the very opposite of organized crime. You're finding superficial trivial similarities, exaggerating them, and ignoring the substance.
Yes, I definitely get this. However, enforcement of the NAP, requires the use of violence. The entities that wield the power to use that violence are "private courts", "private police forces", "private prisons". If they have good people at the top, they may respect the principles of NAP, as understood by the AnCap proponents on this board. If they are not, they must somehow be replaced. If the private justice organization in question has no way of changing leaders (e.g. popular vote), this requires either a revolution, or an attack from another organization. If all of these organizations are, and push for each other to be, democratic, that could maybe be more stable. I assume however that you think this would be an unacceptable violation of the fundamental right to own any kind of company. When people who aren't deliberately trolling describe volentarism as being violent it's typically because they recognize the inherent brutality of modern society but have to project it onto "anarchy" for psychological reasons.
What we have now is lawlessness and the rule of organized crime. The violence that people fear so much when you talk about a stateless society is the violence they live in fear of every day but can't/won't acknowledge.
I describe it as violent, because all systems are necessarily violent. You can't just wish away rule breakers (whatever your rules might be), they need to be dealt with, violently. So a natural question is who gets to wield this power. A benevolent gang leader in the AnCap case. |
|
|
|
What do you mean by social contract? Because Anarchy does not require that you ignore a "social contract". Quite the opposite in fact. For me to have liberty, I must respect the liberty of everyone else in the world. That's the only way it works.
I thought the current social contract was seen as illegitimate. That was what I was referring to. |
|
|
|
|
I've recently been thinking that what AnCap proposers describe sound very similar to organized crime, in several ways.
1. Organized crime does not respect the laws and the social contract.
In a sense, they are living as if the society we have, right now is AnCap, treating prison as a cost of doing business.
2. There are rival organizations working in a free market.
You can choose what gang you want to be affliated with. They supply protection, insurance and "private courts".
3. There are occasional clashes.
Just as one would expect when there are "competing courts", sometimes there are clashes. Most of the time there is peace, for economical reasons.
Thoughts? Would you like to live in Mexico? Be part of a gang?
|
|
|
|
|
Myrkull: You have stated that the defense agencies wont attack each other since it will not be profitable. Why is it that criminal gangs that want to maximize profit attack each other? Why is it that states now and historically attack each other?
|
|
|
|
You forgot severe lack of vitamin D There are pills for that |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
