As far as I am concerned, "Democracy" (deliberately capitalized) is just as much a religion as Catholocism, Islam, et. al.
"Democracy is the worship of jackals by jackasses." - H. L. Mencken. Oh, and it's SEK 3, btw.  (sorry, big fan of Konkin) pfft. I'll chalk that up to not enough coffee! Yeah, I definitely fall on the side of agorism. I liked Menken's other quote on that too. "Democracy is the notion that the people know what they want and deserve to get it. Good and hard." Will fix my post asap. Don't sweat it. Mencken is one of my favorites. That particular one never fails to get a chuckle out of me. |
|
|
|
As far as I am concerned, "Democracy" (deliberately capitalized) is just as much a religion as Catholocism, Islam, et. al.
"Democracy is the worship of jackals by jackasses." - H. L. Mencken. Oh, and it's SEK 3, btw. (sorry, big fan of Konkin) |
|
|
|
I know I'm certainly getting tired of this sort of post.  |
|
|
|
there are enough resources on this overpopulated earth to have anyone feed everyone
Do you even read what you write? |
|
|
|
Altruism (socialism) is not nearly as strong a motivator for productivity as greed (capitalism). The less capitalism in a society there is, the more equality there is, but there is less wealth for the socialists to redistribute.
And if a person wants to act altruistically in a capitalist framework, they certainly can. Witness how many wealthy industrialists turn philanthropist. |
|
|
|
It seems illogical to throw away half my points in an interaction just to punish someone. If the community decides that a person is on the ignore list for punishment I would go along with that. As long as it remains a 1 on 1 exchange, though...
Well, this is one of those spots where the interaction maps poorly to the real world. To make it map more accurately, a steal/steal result should probably result in a -1/-1, indicating wasted resources. But as it stands, the logical action to take with a criminal is to continue to interact with them violently, until they mend their ways. And the logical action for them is to do so as soon as possible, to gain more points in later rounds. Not everybody acts logically, though. |
|
|
|
Oh I see.. You did say that the goal is ... well I'm not sure if you want me to just lay it all out there for everyone or not  The goal is to get as many points as possible. Are you sure you want to help a criminal achieve that goal, even a little? |
|
|
|
I'm not sure here, will it be more profitable to ignore the killer, or trade kills?
Well, it's a marginal gain for you, but remember that it's also a marginal gain for him. |
|
|
|
You seem to be advocating policy set by insurance.
Doesn't seem to be a bad idea to me. |
|
|
|
In theory, if you knew the exact position and velocity and direction of every micro-particle in the universe you would be able to predict everything that would ever occur from there on out. But that would take a lot of ASICs to do the calculations.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uncertainty_principleUncertainty at the quantum level is just because there is not enough knowledge yet to explain everything. And it's physically impossible to collect all that data. |
|
|
|
Will watch when i get a chance. In the mean time, on the off chance you haven't ran across these, here are a couple of fun informal fallacies that, for some reason, didn't become memes: (wikip makes both seem pretty drab, but i guess it's all in the presentation) Argumentum ad baculum (Latin for argument to the cudgel or appeal to the stick) - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argumentum_ad_baculumI believe they call that meme "government." |
|
|
|
In theory, if you knew the exact position and velocity and direction of every micro-particle in the universe you would be able to predict everything that would ever occur from there on out. But that would take a lot of ASICs to do the calculations.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uncertainty_principle |
|
|
|
Bear in mind that once upon a time, the communist leadership in China believed that they could teach rice farmers to refine iron and make alloy steel in grass fired clay kilns across the countryside; and that was how they were going to be able to keep those evil capitalist American navies out of their business.
Really? I mean, I know bureaucrats are out of touch with reality, but this strains credulity. |
|
|
|
Ok, easy question: How do these people interact? Are there different clans (no better word comes to mind) living under different law? A better word would be "Phyle" That's the word used by Neal Stephenson in Diamond Age to describe something similar, and it fits well here, too. Do these clans interact? What happens where the ones who dig murder meet up with the ones who don't? As I said in the original statement, that you didn't bother to read: "International" laws would likely end up being the laws held in common by the most societies, or be specific to the two interacting societies. As for a murderer's Phyle, David D. Friedman really explains it as well as I could, and it has pretty pictures: https://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&v=jTYkdEU_B4o#t=1185sAfter you've looked at that little bit, please do go back and watch the whole thing. It's well worth your time, and probably answers most of your questions. I'm provisionally taking you off ignore. Don't go chasing straw men (or other fallacies), and you wont get back on there. Edit: Almost forgot. Can i switch laws any time? Pretty much. Your example of the tow truck driver is valid, but "saving up your murdering" is not going to work. |
|
|
|
|
Bankruptcies, unemployment, and poverty will still exist without government intervention. They would be significantly rarer, however. More efficient charities, a larger, more active economy, and the lack of unnecessary and expensive regulations would tend to reduce all three.
|
|
|
|
Still waiting for anyone to actually address this: Market law.
How are new laws created in a market law system? In a market law system, providers of law (Arbitrators, defense agencies) would advertise what laws they would uphold and enforce. You would select the provider that gave you the laws that you wanted. Most of those ingredients would be the same or very similar. Few people would want a law enabling murder, for instance. But there would be differences, some people might wish to allow the use of marijuana, others may wish to outlaw even the use of tobacco products. "International" laws would likely end up being the laws held in common by the most societies, or be specific to the two interacting societies. Might not be perfect, but it beats majority rule by a long shot. I already (though incidentally) addressed this. Just like Coke drinkers think they know why they choose Coke, and may be easily manipulated into choosing laws detrimental to them. (and intelligence, knowledge that someone is trying to manipulate you etc., etc. makes no difference: well-crafted propaganda works regardless) Case in point: A good chunk of America's dumbest & least likely to succeed in a laissez-faire market wish to bring it about. Go figure. Actually, in my experience, the less intelligent Americans desire socialism. And the more things they can get the "Gub'ment" to take care of for them, the better. Which soda you drink is significantly less life-affecting than what laws you live under. And the best part is, that if you find the laws you live under not to your liking, you can switch. Just call up the agency, and say, "I'm canceling my policy, I'll be going with X instead." Just as easy as switching car insurance. |
|
|
|
That distant rumbling sound you hear is me banging my head on a desk. Sorry  Apology accepted. |
|
|
|
Question was "What causes lead toward a society to remaining voluntary?"
Context was a statement that societies invaded by Vikings were more likely to be liberal.
My answer, whether you agree with it or not, was "No-one knows."
Now please stop being stupid and either give a better answer or move on.
"No one knows"? That's your best answer to how a society remains voluntary? And you back it up with a buch of bullshit about previous non-voluntary societies. And then, as the icing on your little shit-cake, you have the unmitigated audacity to call me stupid. I gave a much better answer than that nonsense in the first reply to that question: The answer is simultaneously simple, and complex. It can be best summed up with the quote, "Eternal vigilance is the price of liberty."
Now, would you like an in-depth explanation? Because I think I can dumb it down enough for you if the above quote doesn't explain it sufficiently. Again, read the question. I have, and I answered it. You didn't. Maybe you might want to re-read it. The question was what causes societies to move towards being more voluntary. No, it was what leads a society to remain voluntary. "What causes lead toward a society to remaining voluntary?" |
|
|
|
Still waiting for anyone to actually address this: Market law.
How are new laws created in a market law system? In a market law system, providers of law (Arbitrators, defense agencies) would advertise what laws they would uphold and enforce. You would select the provider that gave you the laws that you wanted. Most of those ingredients would be the same or very similar. Few people would want a law enabling murder, for instance. But there would be differences, some people might wish to allow the use of marijuana, others may wish to outlaw even the use of tobacco products. "International" laws would likely end up being the laws held in common by the most societies, or be specific to the two interacting societies. Might not be perfect, but it beats majority rule by a long shot. |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
