...snip...
Exactly! So if you have multiple competing courts to begin with, after a few conflicts where the one with the ability to enforce its decisions wins, it will end up being a monopoly. The head of its enforcement agency will be an effective dictator.
The generally accepted law will be a monopoly. If there's a court that's a monopoly, and it starts being inconsistent with its decisions in order to manipulate outcomes for its own benefit, people won't trust it and won't use it. Two people having a dispute can easily go to their elder to help them decide the issue in front of a jury of their neighbors, based onestablished law they already trust. There's really no barrier to entry when it comes to setting up a court, besides trust, and that's already established in local communities. Yeah, that. Monopolies exist when barriers to entry are high. Completely forgot about that. Courts dfon't have those. If you have created a situation where one private company owns the courts and the police, anyone who tries to set up against them has to face the likelihood of being killed in a legal dispute. Being killed is a fairly high barrier to entry, don't you agree? Considering most disputes are about how much the one who screwed up needs to pay the other, I don't see why bloodshed would be involved. How would they prevent the two parties from going to their own arbitrator/judge, or even be aware of a dispute in the first place? You are avoiding the point. Of course people who have no need for the court won't use it. Why would they? But people who do have disputes that require litigation will end up with a monopoly provider and that provider will become an unelected government. Where did you get "people who have no need for the court" from "most disputes are about how much the one who screwed up needs to pay the other" ? What do you think people use courts for??? |
|
|
|
|
OP is paraphrasing The Matrix...
|
|
|
|
Why would most people pay for a game when it's available for free legally? I think you're sadly mistaken if you think most people who do pay right now the retail price for a game would actually pay anything if it was legally available for free.
Because we want to support the developers of the game. I do this all the fucking time, and so do many others. Ditto! I admit to downloading games I'm not even sure if I'll like, and buying those I know I want, even if they can be downloaded. Same thing for movies. It if a movie I know I'll want to see, I'l happily spend the $12 to go see it, even if the DVD screener is already available online And if there is no IP law, the movie maker won't see a cent of that $12. Unless he releases copies of the movie ONLY to specific theaters under contract, or sells it for millions to Hulu or Netflix. You know, like how movie makers do already, and which has been mentioned many many many times. Yes the movies are on the net before they reach the theaters...as was also mentioned many times. The only reason the theater owners pay is IP law. Are the high quality film versions on the net? I think it was mentioned that the only reason they pay is to get the film versions instead of the grainy DVD screener versions, and if they ever showed or gave away a movie without permission, they would lose the contract and never be able to show good quality movies again. |
|
|
|
...snip...
Exactly! So if you have multiple competing courts to begin with, after a few conflicts where the one with the ability to enforce its decisions wins, it will end up being a monopoly. The head of its enforcement agency will be an effective dictator.
The generally accepted law will be a monopoly. If there's a court that's a monopoly, and it starts being inconsistent with its decisions in order to manipulate outcomes for its own benefit, people won't trust it and won't use it. Two people having a dispute can easily go to their elder to help them decide the issue in front of a jury of their neighbors, based onestablished law they already trust. There's really no barrier to entry when it comes to setting up a court, besides trust, and that's already established in local communities. Yeah, that. Monopolies exist when barriers to entry are high. Completely forgot about that. Courts dfon't have those. If you have created a situation where one private company owns the courts and the police, anyone who tries to set up against them has to face the likelihood of being killed in a legal dispute. Being killed is a fairly high barrier to entry, don't you agree? Considering most disputes are about how much the one who screwed up needs to pay the other, I don't see why bloodshed would be involved. How would they prevent the two parties from going to their own arbitrator/judge, or even be aware of a dispute in the first place? |
|
|
|
Why would most people pay for a game when it's available for free legally? I think you're sadly mistaken if you think most people who do pay right now the retail price for a game would actually pay anything if it was legally available for free.
Because we want to support the developers of the game. I do this all the fucking time, and so do many others. Ditto! I admit to downloading games I'm not even sure if I'll like, and buying those I know I want, even if they can be downloaded. Same thing for movies. It if a movie I know I'll want to see, I'l happily spend the $12 to go see it, even if the DVD screener is already available online And if there is no IP law, the movie maker won't see a cent of that $12. Unless he releases copies of the movie ONLY to specific theaters under contract, or sells it for millions to Hulu or Netflix. You know, like how movie makers do already, and which has been mentioned many many many times. |
|
|
|
The whole concept is of ideas like Sharia law, Common Law, Roman Law and so on competing sine there won't be a legislature and there won't be any official body with law making authority.
And as a matter of law, in any system, if the argument is that the deceased was improperly influenced then it likely doesn't matter where they entered their will.
Can you think of an example where one person wants to take it to a sharia court, the other wants to take it to common law court, neither can agree on a court, and someone's rights get infringedon due to lack of court decision? Courts will always give a decision. The issue is that it won't be the same decision. If a court can't stay consistent, no one will trust it, nor use it. Exactly! So if you have multiple competing courts to begin with, after a few conflicts where the one with the ability to enforce its decisions wins, it will end up being a monopoly. The head of its enforcement agency will be an effective dictator. The generally accepted law will be a monopoly. If there's a court that's a monopoly, and it starts being inconsistent with its decisions in order to manipulate outcomes for its own benefit, people won't trust it and won't use it. Two people having a dispute can easily go to their elder to help them decide the issue in front of a jury of their neighbors, based onestablished law they already trust. There's really no barrier to entry when it comes to setting up a court, besides trust, and that's already established in local communities. Yeah, that. Monopolies exist when barriers to entry are high. Completely forgot about that. Courts dfon't have those. |
|
|
|
|
tl;dr modded libertarian/anarchy version of SecondLife based on Bitcoin instead of $L, to experiment with libertarian ideas in virtual space similar to what Seasteading wants to do on the ocean.
Long version:
I'm considering setting up a modified SecondLife server, where the currency is bitcoin, the rules/laws are set up by the people, and administrator duties are only to keep it running, allowing the inhabitants to create their own contracts and settle their own disputes. Thoughts/ideas?
Some of mine that come to mind:
- Ideally this could be run through Tor/I2P, to help it exist entirely outside of any nation's laws (allow gambling, self-regulated financial markets, total freedom of expression, etc)
- Would like to have the server and client open-sourced (like the official one) in order to let people add features to deal with the unique issues, such as lack of "official" moderation
- Obviously since no one can be killed or hurt for real, or (in current client version) have their property seized, trolling will be a major issue that will have to be dealt with in more creative ways (customized ignore/ban lists, software enforced property contracts, etc?)
- Being completely unrestricted in design of the client, and the world itself, I could see this progressing technologically very quickly, if even just to create weapons, defensive systems, and contract enforcement software to protect against trolls and scammers.
- Things like property would have to be defined, i.e. are there copyright protections and do you pay for a copy of someone's creation, or is copying freely available, and you just pay for the physical storage needed to hold it in your inventory on the server. Currently LindenLabs runs all the servers from their own server farms and does not allow people to run personal servers out of fear that anyone entering their server can have all their stuff (clothing, gadgets, animations) copied and stolen. Without IP that wouldn't be an issue, and people will compete for the best private servers with most reliable and cheap inventory storage (which still needs physical storage). If copy protections are non-existant, then issues of running a lot of distributed personal servers as a connected mesh won't be a problem.
At the least this could be an interesting experiment/test bed for libertarian/anarcho-capitalist ideas. At most, it may end up creating it's own unique businesses and communities that exist as their own sovereign nation with its own bitcoin-based economy in the interwebs (what SecondLife was SUPPOSED to be, before the mods turned it into a totalitarian chat room). The best thing is that it won't require $100's of millions of initial investment for a floating city.
Thoughts/ideas/interests?
|
|
|
|
I think we'd be better off taking all the money that's spent purchasing insurance and using it to fund a single-payer system.
Single payer would still be insurance, and thanks tyo insurance being greatly affected by economies of scale, a single insurance monopoly would indeed be the most efficient system. Though I'm not sure if people would be ok with not having a choice as to which insurance company screws them. Buying medical insurance is exactly the same as playing the lottery or gambling in Vegas. Sure you might score a big "win!" But in this case "win" means you get horribly maimed or are rewarded with prolonged illness. As Charlie Sheen would say, "Duh! Winning!"
The difference is that with healthcare, EVERYONE is forced to gamble, whether you have insurance or not. So, if you are lucky, you'll never need it, and if not, you may be bankrupt. Even if the total cost = total amount paid in, the odds if you needing it are way above the odds of you wasting all the money you put in. So, just from a risk-reward aspect, it's still worth it. Though, when I was selling life insurance, our recommendation was to buy declining coverage amount that dropped the layout every year, and invest money into a personal insurance fund. After a few year (15+) the client would have enough save up that they no longer need life insurance, since they are self insured. Maybe that could work with health insurance, too, though due to some costs that may arise, that may not be easy. |
|
|
|
Why would most people pay for a game when it's available for free legally? I think you're sadly mistaken if you think most people who do pay right now the retail price for a game would actually pay anything if it was legally available for free.
Because we want to support the developers of the game. I do this all the fucking time, and so do many others. Ditto! I admit to downloading games I'm not even sure if I'll like, and buying those I know I want, even if they can be downloaded. Same thing for movies. It if a movie I know I'll want to see, I'l happily spend the $12 to go see it, even if the DVD screener is already available online |
|
|
|
The whole concept is of ideas like Sharia law, Common Law, Roman Law and so on competing sine there won't be a legislature and there won't be any official body with law making authority.
And as a matter of law, in any system, if the argument is that the deceased was improperly influenced then it likely doesn't matter where they entered their will.
Can you think of an example where one person wants to take it to a sharia court, the other wants to take it to common law court, neither can agree on a court, and someone's rights get infringedon due to lack of court decision? Courts will always give a decision. The issue is that it won't be the same decision. If a court can't stay consistent, no one will trust it, nor use it. |
|
|
|
If someone puts their own splash screen on a game and resell it for $5 less than the game developer, the game developer will not risk the millions it takes to make a game.
Why would anyone pay $5 when they can just download the game for free? Unless they are just paying because they don't have internet, or want the service of someone else doing the searching, downloading, and burning for them, in which case the game company should really have been selling direct $5 downloads themselves (like through steam) |
|
|
|
The whole concept is of ideas like Sharia law, Common Law, Roman Law and so on competing sine there won't be a legislature and there won't be any official body with law making authority.
And as a matter of law, in any system, if the argument is that the deceased was improperly influenced then it likely doesn't matter where they entered their will.
Can you think of an example where one person wants to take it to a sharia court, the other wants to take it to common law court, neither can agree on a court, and someone's rights get infringedon due to lack of court decision? |
|
|
|
We are talking about competing courts which means different legal rules. For example, if a will is disputed, one court may use the evidence of beneficiaries to judge if there was undue influence and another may bar the evidence of beneficiaries. So a will that one court holds valid will be held invalid in another.
I think in your example, the court that the deceased chose to enter their will with will have the final say, and if any dispute does arise, both parties will have to agree on a court before proceeding. Yes, even if it's directly the third arbitrage one. Though I can't see two competing lines of law emerging. Just like today, some court will eventually settle the difference between then, and others will simply adopt it. |
|
|
|
I wonder how many more people need to die from lack of insurance before people realize that having insurance is a must? Also, the more people buy insurance, the cheaper it gets for everyone. One big reason I am for the individual mandate. |
|
|
|
|
I would leave it as something that can be set on the client, with the fee inserted as a suggestion, exactly the same way the payment ammount currently is.
|
|
|
|
The moral question is whether society is entitled to have IP laws. Answer is yes since society has a right to protect itself from harm and its a legitimate decision that losing the benefits of IP law will be harmful in some cases.
Considering the continuing increase of illegal downloading, and more and more people not considering downloading or copying music/movies a crime (especially among the youngest/future generation), I think society disagrees with you. |
|
|
|
|
I don't know who is in charge of keeping standards and such, but the QR code for BTC addresses, which can include the amount to be paid, should also include a section for suggested fee. This should then also be added to the BTC android clients and POS systems. Currently, when someone pays for stuff at a POS location, they can scan the code to get an address and the amount, but can select the fee themselves, and if it's 0BTC, it may take a very long time for the transaction to clear. If the QR code includes a fee, using a compatible phone app, on scan, the price could be something like 1.995BTC with 0.005BTC fee, for a total of 2BTC, and the seller can be more sure that the transaction will go through. This isn't mandatory, or course, but would help to make the system much simper for end users, and will give sellers more control over how quickly they want their transactions to clear.
|
|
|
|
|
Bruce liked Bitcoin because it was "the peoples money" and was against the bad evil Big Banks and the Fed since the beginning. At OWS, he's just in a bigger group who also hate Big banks and the Fed. It's pretty much the continuation of what he was preaching before, except the audience isn't as informed about Bitcoin.
Also, can I assume that all you guys here who don't think 21 year olds are hot, are instead only into cougars (MILFs) and geriatrics (GILFs)?
|
|
|
|
|
What about if i was to take my property consisting of raw materials like steel, glass, leather, and plastic, and convert those materials into a perfect copy of a Porche? Did I just steal a Porche by doing that?
|
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
