No, it means I look out into the marketplace and I see law and security provider 1, law and security provider 2, etc. Just like I see ISP 1, ISP 2, etc. I then look at the deals that they offer and then how much it costs and make my choice based on that.
The difference, of course, between free market providers of law would be that they would not be my rulers, just as ISP companies don't rule me. They are trying to get my custom with the best possible deal they can offer me. I get to choose.
As I can see, you're desperately trying to get away with what makes your idea look not so bright as you would like. You forget to mention that there are other guys picking up in the marketplace and if my choice doesn't match theirs, I will have to resign myself to their choice, right?  |
|
|
|
I would say language sets us apart from the animals. Animals have no ability to communicate with each other in any meaningful way and so must act mostly on instinct to survive.
As with animals killing only for food, this premise is also false. The neocortex of dolphins and killer whales (which are, strictly speaking, also dolphins) is more developed than that of a human. Actually, they do communicate in a meaningful way with each other and show patterns of cooperative behaviour which are simply impossible on instinct |
|
|
|
Neither is forming social hierarchies, though - you can observe that sort of behavior in primates, packs of wolves, elephants.
I never said anything to the contrary. Actually, it was my argument against anarchy in another debate about it. In any hierarchical structure there are always those who subdue and those who are subdued. And no trace of anarchy, right? |
|
|
|
Ok, there's no ruler, no universal laws anymore, and so why do you think there will be a new shiny set of rules everyone on the block agrees upon? People are different and even between two people you will get a disagreeing minority... I don't see this as a dualism. Like "universal set of rules means everything sucks" and "no universal set of rules means everything is great". What I am saying is that if you have lots of options to choose from, you're more likely to find one you like and agree with, compared to a situation where you have only one set of rules forced upon you. There are options which cannot be given on an individual basis, so whatever you try (and say about it), there will all always majorities and minorities. You just can't make all people happy, some will always envy other... |
|
|
|
You will have competing law providers in the same area of land. There is a high demand for security and law and order and many entrepreneurs will be willing to provide it. The reason they don't now, is because the government has a monopoly and forbids it. It does this because it's good to have a monopoly on the provision of force in a geographical area. Allows you to extort your victims. It would be too expensive, in a competitive setting, for one company to build up the necessary force to dominate everyone else. The profit margins would be too slim and the company would go bankrupt before it even got close.
I still don't see much logic behind what you say. Ultimately it doesn't change anything from where you start and instead of one "law provider" you get by the choice of majority another with brand new laws and some part of the population disagreeing with them...  What does this all have to do with anarchy? |
|
|
|
There is no universal law now. Where is the world ruler and his/their laws that we all have to follow?
We currently have competing law providers that we are "contracted" to. I use contract loosely of course, because there is no such thing.
Why should a law provider be bound to a certain patch of land and no other law providers be able to operate in the same territory? If we had competition we could make actually choices about what we deem to be good laws and if we don't think our provider is doing a good job, we can end the contract and pick another law provider, without having to go through the hassle of emigration.
I don't understand where you're going... According to your own logic there should be no "law providers", otherwise at the end of the day you will get where you started at, i.e. you will have a new ruler and a new set of rules... |
|
|
|
Adaptability is not human nature, it is a trait of all living beings. Human nature is hierarchical because humans are social beings, i.e. tending to organize into hierarchical societies. And yes, it is programmed into us before we are born... Adaptability = trait of all living beings. Humans = living beings => Human beings have the trait of adaptability. Right? As much as dislike Aristotelian either/or logic, I think his syllogism works within that framework. I think it is evident from my post that adaptability is not something specific to humans only but inherent in all living beings. It is not a trait of human nature which distinguishes it from other creatures (the context was about what makes human nature so peculiar), that's all In short, you'd better stop nitpicking  |
|
|
|
The idea of anarchy means, "no ruler", remember? A ruler might be anyone or anything, which enforces a given set of rules (laws). This means, that when anarchy suggests, getting rid of rulers, it suggests getting rid of universal laws. - a single set of rules being enforced on everyone in a given territory and opening up the debate to multiple, competing, voluntary sets of rules.
Ok, there's no ruler, no universal laws anymore, and so why do you think there will be a new shiny set of rules everyone on the block agrees upon? People are different and even between two people you will get a disagreeing minority... |
|
|
|
Anarchy would never ever ever work. Human nature is not anarchical but hierarchical.
LoL. Human nature. You know what human nature is? It is ADAPTABILITY. We can be anarchic or authoritarian and all sorts of things in between. But don't you ever think this can never change, or is somehow programmed into us before we are born. We respond to environmental conditions and develop accordingly. Adaptability is not human nature, it is a trait of all living beings. Human nature is hierarchical because humans are social beings, i.e. tending to organize into hierarchical societies. And yes, it is programmed into us before we are born... House cats are true anarchists! |
|
|
|
Society can't even get along with Laws, it would be worse without them.
Anarchists don't advocate living without laws. I'm still curious how are you going to make all people universally agree on these laws? Who actually adopts a law and what would happen to those who will be against the adopted law? |
|
|
|
Society can't even get along with Laws, it would be worse without them.
Anarchism is not without laws; it's the only form of governance where everyone has to follow them, in fact. What you're referring to is called a constitutional state where everyone is bound to keep the law and in which the power of state is constrained by the law in order to protect citizens from an arbitrary exercise of authority... |
|
|
|
Animals don't kill each other for fun, they kill each other for food.
Humans kill each other for fun and for materialistic gain, for the destruction of our home. Having an elite group of sociopaths is a man made system.
This is complete bullshit. Domectic cats kill mice often for fun without any intention to eat them, lions kill hyenas whenever an opportunity arises (not saying that they often kill their own kittens if they want to bang their mom), bottle-nose dolphins have been proven to kill porpoises without any purpose, even ants wage wars and capture slaves making them work against their will... |
|
|
|
Temporarily reducing max payout to 0.2 BTC and others correspondingly to make up for part of the losses I incurred in sending the 0.75 BTC extra  Bad times come and go... Think of this as a bonus for loyalty!  At any rate you sent coins to your users, not to a stranger...  |
|
|
|
I'm a newbie, and for me it is evident that the number of posts (or the number of quotations for that matter) someone has submitted to the forum has nothing to do about their reliability or trustworthiness.
Good for you Don't assume it's the same for the other newbies though These other newbies you refer to aren't actually just "newbies here". Internet has been around for twenty years already, enough time, I think, to know what's what... |
|
|
|
Yeah, blockchain.info resurrected dead transactions from 3 days ago and re-sent them so I ended up double-paying 0.75 BTC to users You shouldn't have lowered our payments (a miser pays twice)! At least not to the extent you did... |
|
|
|
“Курс BTC никак не связан с положением дел на мировом рынке валюты. Он не реагирует на изменения цен денежных единиц каких-либо стран и подчиняется своим внутренним правилам” Эта тётушка Хьюз просто прелесть! Размазываю по небритой щеке скупую мужскую слезу... |
|
|
|
Хотя, с другой стороны, деваться им всё равно особо некуда... После экспроприации вкладов "нормальных" денег им вряд ли кто-нибудь из благоразумных людей даст, так что пусть хоть золотой червонец в обращение вводят и обратно на золотой стандарт переходят... |
|
|
|
Одновременно университет призывает и руководство страны обратить внимание на Bitcoin. Общими усилиями, говорится в пресс-релизе, правительство и бизнес могут «превратить Кипр в хаб торговли, процессинга и банкинга Bitcoin».
"Где деньги, Зин?" Нет уж, умерла, так умерла (и это не про биткоин)! Дураков нет... |
|
|
|
Потому что в случае если расходы не вырастут или упадут, то финансирование будет урезано. Вот так в стране все и делается, расходы ради расходов, только чтобы сохранить стабильный доступ к деньгам. Неэффективные траты ради трат, приводящие к росту инфляции. Потому что нет механизма, контролирующего эффективность расходования средств, а также нет системы штрафных санкций за неэффективное вложение денег. Но думаю, это лишь вопрос времени, когда подобные меры будут реализованы и заработают, все же дураков в минфине не очень много.
Раньше всё так и было... А разве сейчас неосвоенные средства не переходят на следующий бюджетный период? Ведь была соответствующая статья в БК РФ... |
|
|
|
Хотели сказать "неоклассику"?
Вы, как и tvv, с радостью применяете уравнения, забывая про некоторые переменные. Например, скорость обращения денег.
Поэтому ваши цифры о "реальной инфляции" абсолютно ничего не значат.
Это монетаризм в своём самом махровом виде... К сказанному ещё можно добавить влияние производительности на уровень инфляции, которое, хоть и не столь очевидно, как влияние скорости обращения денег, но на долгосрочных периодах тоже оказывается достаточно серьёзным... |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
