This might help solve the free rider problem.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Assurance_contract

Not value life? And we have another burning strawman...ding, ding, ding. A non sequitur if I've ever seen one.

It's the imposing part that makes it impossible. In a libertarian environment you don't impose. Afghans are under a Islamic Republic. That means their religion rules the people which is not in any way conformant with the NAP. You pick a country like that and attempt to compare it with even basic human rights and that's about as far away from libertarianism as you can get. There is no means to compete at all and probably never will be.

I think, given the opportunity, there would be groups of individuals who would collectively provide services in a number of ways to protect an individual's liberties. Inconsistencies already abound now. I'm not sure that will ever go away. If a system was perfect, it wouldn't need itself to exist as people would just do the "right thing" in the first place.

Delegating away, and thus monopolizing, power of governance is always a bad idea (violates contract). At that point, there is very little incentive to improve. Besides, the NAP is very eloquent and simple. If you were to attempt to educate everybody to provide services with that axiom as a cornerstone, anybody drifting far afield of that would be called to task relatively quickly. Notice I didn't say force its use, just notify.

Most people are aware when their personal liberties are being encroached upon. Given that fact, I think many would find laws relatively easy to understand and create. Any person or persons violating that provision on a consistent basis would find themselves bankrupt or eventually imprisoned as it would be difficult to last long in that state of operation. Violent monopolies change that significantly because they are not allowed to fail. Corruption can only grow in that situation.

Ha. That was a good one. When we start talking about democratic justice vs. justice we should just apply the air quotes.

[airquote]democratic[/airquote] justice is not justice.

Or better yet use '[]' and '[/]'. The more air the better, as in nothing there.

I'd like to clear up a few things in your response. You've mentioned what appears to be three different types of government (democratic, republican, libertarian, and totalitarian)

None are particularly compatible with each other. Libetarians respect the personal liberties of the individual above that of any ruling elite (all other governing). Democracies erode some personal liberties to pander to the masses.

A republican government tries to represent the rule of law thru delegation of authority to legislators, adjudicators, and executors who represent a majority but violate contract to do it, even though they say otherwise. I assume you're referring to the US constitution and the Declaration of Independence where it mentions "consent to be governed". It would be a great idea except that the consent part was taken away, hence no competition, contract or consent.

Totalitarian governments is where all other governments end up eventually given enough lattitude. I hate compromising any personal liberties for any reasons. People get hurt when you do that.

I suppose the same could be said about a young single mother with a baby. If she can't take care of the child, maybe she should give it up. Of course, "giving up" a child is different than abortion. One cannot abort a child outside of the womb (murder), why should should abort one from within? And don't you think if she did attempt to kill the child, that others might want to intervene to save the child? See, it's not so different after all. Who is the advocate for the unborn child? It certainly can't just remain exclusively with the mother could it; any more than it could for a mother with child outside the womb? Why is location the only determining factor here?

I suppose you could look at it from a number of different perspectives. If the woman's life is truly endangered from the fetus, you could look at it from the point of view of self-defense and evict the fetus. This would then potentially kill the unborn child. That's more justifiable. As far as I know, you typically cannot remove the child from the womb at any point in the development of the child and not severely risk it's life.

Nevertheless, it seems we should be weighing the life of the mother against the life of the child in a worst case scenario (imminent threat). The question should be one of eviction, trespass or self-defense not abortion and death irrespective of action and consequence. A proportionality of force thru action is key.

Just as in life outside the womb (analogy), evicting a person from "off of" or "out of" a location, you must use proportional force. For example: if a child wanders onto my property (it doesn't matter how he/she got there actually), I can't just shoot to kill. I could probably escort the child to the edge of my property with a stern warning to not trespass again (assuming he/she would even understand such a request) but that's about the sum total of it.

I know that a child on or in a property, and one inside a woman presents a clearly different environment, but the child within the womb really doesn't have the opportunity to be "free of" the mother until a certain point in its development.

Yes Hawker, we're all very aware of your position on lawfulness. If it's a law then it isn't "murder", or "theft", or "slavery". You never look at the logical consistency of an argument. You merely determine that if a majority of persons within a "society" make it so, it must be lawful. There is no need for logic at that point. You can throw it all out the window and just say, "but the law says....!!!"

Depends on the type of exploitation. Define 'market forces'. It's more like 'market influences/suggestions'. Big difference. Everything anybody does at every moment in their lives imparts some force to something else and vice versa. The magnitude and direction of those forces is what matters (consent being a variable). The effect can vary from the negligible, to the extremely lethal, at least in human terms.

I do have ways of making automobiles more efficient. They may be good ideas. Notwithstanding the greatness or worthlessness thereof, I won't force other to implement them. That would be inappropriate.

I kind of like hybrid hydraulic drive combined with supercapacitor storage in a series format, designed for transmission and regenerative braking. As for the ICE portion, I like the floating (free) piston designs with homogeneous charge compression ignition (HCCI) fuel delivery systems. Interesting stuff.

So you want to combine exploitation and force? Ouch! Nobody wins then. You can't stop competitiveness and you can't regulate it out of human nature. You'll breed worse things. Using lethal force or threats thereto are not proportional punishments for selfishness.

Guide huh? Nice soft wording for lethal action. I'll just threaten a little bit, it won't hurt... Unless you resist... or else.

Less murder and plunder is no doubt better. Metaphorically speaking, I could explain to my wife that I'm faithful 95% of the time, but I don't think she'll be too pleased.

I would think I should at least get an A- for effort. Not...Fail.

The same could be said of a female who was "raped" but didn't complain the first time. By her "silence" or unwillingness to report the abuse, the abuse became, by default, consensual. I don't like that. How long does one wait until it it is considered consensual? Likewise, if she didn't report it the first time, can she be "raped" subsequent times by the same man? Does the lack of a complaint imply consent?

Tell that to the Iraqis. They supposedly have a democracy thanks to the Americans.

sociopathic personality - a personality disorder characterized by amorality and lack of affect; capable of violent acts without guilt feelings.

Pretty accurate description considering what you've been advocating lately. I wouldn't tell you to stop. Speak your mind. At least it's easier to tell what type of person you are by what you say (and would do), rather than to try to interpret your true colors some other way. At least you show your hand. I hate getting blindsided and ripped off. If I'm going to get taken, I'd rather see it coming.

The most dangerous and deceptive kinds of sociopaths -the ones that say one thing and do another- are the ones to look out for. I guess you're not a politician just yet.

Why don't we stop using the word 'democracy' and 'democratic' for describing things that are essentially solidarity associations (shareholder w/voting rights). The above words are associated with governments. Governments of that type have a monopoly on force thru majority rule (force legalized). They typically have many laws that are not based on justice, or are not designed to prevent aggression. You cannot withdraw freely from those political environs without relinquishing your property.

Of course you can say we can leave. Why should I leave if I haven't caused anybody harm? Why should I be forced to leave under external circumstances not related to injurious behavior? Does bitcoin do this? I think not. If you conflate bitcoin and democracy, you obfuscate and mislead your reader into believing that the two are in some way positively related when they are not. Bitcoin is probably a good thing, democracies, not so much. I could just as well say that the algorithms that bitcoin uses enslaves us to a fixed set of rules, and that this type of slavery works, it involves human participation, therefore it is a lot like human slavery, so slavery is good.

The world is a better place with a lot more bitcoin and a lot less democratic governance. Please refrain.

The part that says State. If I don't consent and I don't contribute, then what?

I highlighted what you wrote. Bitcoin is not a form of government. Read what you quote first before you use the '=' sign please.

You confuse cooperation with democracy. Democracy is a form of government. Democratic governments have a monopoly on force thru majority rule. They tax and so forth. Bitcoin doesn't resemble that in the least. You are free to contribute or refrain from participating. Bitcoin doesn't levy taxes and enforces no law.

It has rules, not unlike a board game. It can't take your property and it can't imprison you. At the most, it might impose some form of contract, which depending on whether you breach it or not, you could be prosecuted in the geographical political climate in which you may have committed the "crime". Bit of a stretch it would seem.

It isn't hard to convince most people, especially when you call it law, that if there was no consequence for theft, that they would have less compunction. That's easy. It's requires less labor to steal than produce when there are few barriers to entry. It's even easier when you can get your minions to do it for you so you don't have to get your hands dirty, then almost everybody wants to get in on the game.

I've got a cute idea then, I'll get a name change and call myself State Government (you can call me SG for short). You know, it's just a legal thing. Theft never came so easily.