"If you can't say anything nice..." or at least informative...

Then their problem was trying to circulate it in this country specifically.

I wonder what happened to myrkul. He used to post daily, and suddenly...  
Wonder if anyone has contact info for him.

I'd like to see an "evolve" poll. Like, if you are an Anarcho-Capitalist, or a Libertarian, or a Democrat/Republican, were you always like that, or did you "evolve" from a prior political affiliation? Mostly, though, I'm curious if libertarian types came from the big R or the big D.

So, are you for completely polygamous relationships, or are just temporary monogamous ones ok? And how do you believe that will affect economics?

You have any ideas how?

Yeah, I wouldn't be surprised if our grocery store beef had corn in it too 

No, obviously not completely. The idea isn't to make a utopia. In any civilization there will still be crime, desperation, and other aberrations that aren't considered "normal" or "ethical."  The only debate I guess is what people consider "ethical" or "fair" or "civilization." As mentioned, I think if you align incentives to match up with what people generally consider fair or just, civilization as a whole would be better off. What we have now has extremely misaligned incentives all over the place, with politicians being bought off, corporations writing their own regulations, bureaucrats enforcing laws for the sake of following rules without questioning if they are just, etc, and it may be easier to simply dismantle the giant house of misaligned incentives (or let it become irrelevant) than to try to fix it, simply because the incentives that keep it the way, many of which are personal wealth and trade related themselves, are too great to overcome.

I agree, fairness is unattainable, but I look at the various systems, including out "somewhere in between" current one, with regards to incentives. I don't believe that a resource-based economy will work, because the incentive is for people to keep what they work on, and to not work on what is "someone else's job." With Resource-based economy, even if the accepted cultural understanding is that everything should be shared, it would take only one nonconformist asshole, be it an artist, inventor, or whatever, who doesn't want to share his creation or information, to throw a wrench into the system. The "someone else's job" problem is just the tragedy of the commons. If no one is maintaining that god computer or those robots that control everything, because it's someone else's job, and that someone else who's job it was quit a long time ago because he got bored, well... Likewise for information sharing with trade. I have no incentive to give information to the big computer, because it's just more work that doesn't make my life any easier. And you have no incentive to check my information, because you got used to trusting that the computer tells you everything.

With the ancap setup, there's no assumption that everyone will trade fairly. The only assumption is that everyone will have an incentive to check and learn about what it is they are trying to trade for, since it's something that will affect them directly. So, while in extreme statist society the expectation is to give up information to others, which goes against incentive, in an ancap society the incentive is to collect information yourself. I think that's really the only major difference between the two trade systems.

As for something in between, to me it just feels like trying to interject the "give up information" anti-incentive and the "tragedy of the commons" problem into the personal responsibility incentive to find out on your own, and calling it "balanced."

It's just an example where all three parties to the exchange got into the exchange voluntarily. They specifically wanted to conduct the exchange in that way. And through this method, the chances of information problems are minimized, if not eliminated.

I guess I just never thought of it that way, or realized that was the case. In the world I grew up and lived in, it was always a familial organization, not patri- or matri-lineal one. So there wasn't any violence. At least not in "normal" society. Women did what they want, even if it includes falling in love with a single man and forming a monogamous relationship with him.

It's an error to dismiss the many negative connotations of transgenderism, sexual ambiguity, and homosexuality, yet...


It's not really wage "slavery," since if you don't like the wage, just go find another job. You won't have a posse tracking you down, hogtying you, and bringing you back to your old position. There's slavery, and there's the personal choice to work or not.
By the way, how do you have private possession of public resources? Who decided they are public or private, and why are they conflicting with each other?

What you claim would suggest that it is never possible to have fair exchanges of anything, regardless of whether there is law, government, or anarchy, and that we should either just live within those means and assumptions, or use some other system. So, is your point simply to point out that in all trade, free or government regulated, there will always be fraud (a blanket statement that doesn't actually provide any purpose), or do you know of some system whereby we can exchange goods and services without fraud that no one is aware of yet?

We have arbitration with arbitrators doing just that. As long as both parties agree to the arbitrator being used, it's not really a problem.

How do courts or arbitration companies learn about motivations of parties they are resolving disputes or setting up trades for now? Vulcan mind melds?

If you were renting a big truck from me, and we used such a party, I would know that you would know that this third party would f*ck you up if you tried something like that. You do know that there are a ton of private exchanges that happen around the world that don't have the luxury of government protection, right? Black market is a large part of our world's economy, and it's surviving just fine. Often with the help of such third parties providing security and trust to those trading.


Read the second paragraph here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sicilian_Mafia#Protection_rackets

Sure, there are still plenty of things we have yet to discover, which we try to discover using our senses and our tools. But if there is something out there that we can never perceive with our five senses or the tools we use, then why is any of it relevant? By definition it has absolutely no effect on us, our tools, or our perceived reality. Even if we anger some supreme deity by assuming that it doesn't exist, if it can't affect us, our senses, or our tools in any way, what consequence is there to us?

But it's the religious that live in reckless pride, thinking that they "know" him, and through him all the answers can be found, or just thinking that they are better, because they don't have to know. They have smug pride in thinking that they are better than non-believers, because they know or understand something sciency non-believer types do not.


Unbelievers who are striving to know more through science and research get plenty of humility, just from the fact that they see how vast the universe is, and actually understand just how much there is out there that they don't yet understand. Unlike religion, that gives you the answer and convinces you that you already know, science exists with one giant understanding that we don't know yet, and need to test every assumption to find out more.

As for reckless striving, you can thank that for things like computers, cars, planes, etc, since the alternative used to be getting burned at the stake for being a witch.

Depends on if miners can be convinced to stick with the GovCoin fork, instead of switching to the hard fork. If they don't switch to the GovCoin fork (and miners are global, so what do they care about mining some country's coins?), then either no one will mine this GovCoin's blockchain, or so few will mine it that it will be 51% attacked by rogue miners into oblivion.

6. They have currency restrictions^*, which would both attract Bitcoin, and make it difficult to get it into the country.

^* "ISK 8,000 is the maximum amount anyone person can import and export of the local currency"

In that case, why not simply track relationships (family, friends, and business) and networks same as we do now? We are already slowly abandoning the idea of gender affecting our relationship and interaction with people, thanks to gender being mostly invisible online.