This thread disturbs me, for several reasons.

I didn't notice your post in this thread until now, and I asked the following question in another thread. Since you are soliciting your services, it is more appropriate to ask here:

How can you can claim "20+ years of experience with Linux and FreeBSD," since Torvalds didn't even begin to work on Linux until 1991 and FreeBSD wasn't released until late 1993.

The companies hired soldiers (the definition of mercenaries) to protect their economic interests. Sometimes these interests are the same as those of the people, other times not.

We should identify what core functionality bitcoin needs and use existing tools to extend how we use it, the way Unix tools do.

OT: I am interested to know how you can claim "20+ years of experience with Linux and FreeBSD," since Torvalds didn't even begin to work on Linux until 1991 and FreeBSD wasn't released until late 1993.

The constant implications that I am unfamiliar with what is called "libertarianism" in the US are tiresome.

I have offered several examples of how private tyranny can emerge in the absence of government in this thread and others. The retorts essentially amount to links to mises.org (or some other Auburn intellectual) accompanied with arguments that are logically equivalent to "because the government is evil, then evil cannot exist without government." If you don't believe me, just read this thread.

Since you are proposing a new form of society of which many people are extremely suspicious, I must point out that the burden of proof is on you to show how it won't be worse than what we currently have. I hold myself to the same standard when supporting my ideas in the face of those who support the status quo.

I have asked for an outline of how private tyranny can be suppressed without a state. I quoted a website, which was presented as an authoritative source, and pointed out that the author's response to my question is lacking and why.

If nothing else, I can't be accused of not supporting my position.

I agree with some of what you say, but I would like to make some key points that you may already understand. Please bear with me if that is the case. The "space race" and technologies developed at universities were meant for future industry - for the benefit of companies. This is an externalizing mechanism by the private sector and is a natural consequence of business capturing government.

Today, companies can't develop biotechnology because of their quarterly constraints. They push for public funding into universities in the hope that they can buy out researchers and patent the technology.

It wouldn't be so bad if the public could just benefit directly from the research without having to pay a company too. In this scheme, companies are glorified middlemen/marketing boondoggles. In fact, they represent tremendous inefficiencies in the economy. On the flip side, consider that government can do things that companies can't. They can run production at a loss. This is extremely important if you want to avoid things like economic depressions.

I am offering a critique of the Austrian school of economics. Does this not qualify?

As before, I will mention that none of your arguments or references are particularly clever or original; I have heard and considered them, with some small variations, over the course of decades.

You give the terrible impression of someone who hasn't taken time to notice fundamental incongruities in your ideological framework. None of the various academics and intellectuals advocating anarcho-capitalism have been able to demonstrate how the elimination of a democratic state could lead to a situation in which singular control over a valuable resource is to be avoided. This is a rather heavy burden of proof, which I suspect cannot be satisfied. None of the posts by the impressively well-read anarcho-capitalists here even attempt to address this issue.

Here is an example, from your reference:


It is trivial to propose a realistic case for which this is untrue, although I suppose it depends if "the market" thinks that feeding my family is worth "more than a million [dollars]." Control over a critical resource does not require the intervention of any particular kind of state and will give rise to some new form of tyranny. It is embarrassing to have to even point this out.


I love this part:


A philosopher employing a sophism. How quaint.


Yet cartels exist today.

Really? I challenge you to support that statement. Do the majority of Americans support NAFTA? Do they support the war in Iraq? What percentage of Americans supported a war in Iraq before 2003? When did they support the war, and why?

Note that I could pick almost any issue and make the same point: that what most Americans want (absent enormous propaganda) is nearly diametrically opposed to implemented policy in most any topic of importance. That condition does not satisfy my definition of democracy.

Somebody mentioned PR. What role does it play in shaping opinion?  Who pays for PR and psych research into propaganda? And why? Who owns the media? The answer: private companies.

I can give references, but I encourage anyone to not take my word. Go look for yourselves. Please show that I am wrong, if you can.

You assume too much. I appreciate your epiphany and am quite aware of how the term is abused. I still recognize that democracy is the most just form of society. Advocating systems which can only result in concentrations of private power seems short-sighted and a quick path to industrial feudalism. I would rather that not occur.

Fascism. "You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means."

Interestingly, corporatism is more closely associated with fascism as in Mussolini's Italy.

I'll invoke Churchill: "Democracy is the worst form of government, except for all those other forms that have been tried from time to time."

This is why I am in favor of democracy; it solves those problems.

Then your best bet is to regain control of the government. Don't disarm yourself by eliminating the only tool at your disposal. You are doomed to failure if you think you can start from scratch against power that already controls the resources you require for survival.

That is your conjecture, with which I disagree. Singular control over an important resource does not require a government; it simply requires force. The source of force can stem from economic power, accumulated in the absence of what we know recognize as a state.


I wonder then, what are the benefits of the "free market" if they don't include at least enhanced information regarding products and practices? Wouldn't you like to know that there isn't poison in milk? Or that slave labor wasn't involved in production? In the absence of the state, what is to compel a powerful economic entity (for example, an extra-legal monopoly) to keep from making money via dangerous products or coercive conditions?

You cannot simply state that the absence of the state will result in the collapse of large private power concentrations. How will this happen? What is to keep private power from filling the void? How do we know that this won't result in some modern form of feudalism? You have taken on a heavy burden of proof.


I do understand. I also understand that, at least where I live, slavery is considered a gross obscenity, and I trust people to formulate policy appropriately.


Because you understand the difference between the tool and the injustices brought on by the wielder of the tool. You understand the tactic of retaining a dangerous tool because it can still be used towards a worthy end.


I know what a democracy is. The core disagreement here is that you seem to think less of people that I, in which case you are in even bigger trouble in the face of private power without the moderating effect of the state.

I don't see how you expect contracts to be enforced. A sufficiently large company can contract their own private forces (mercs) to support their "economic interests." This already happens.

I'll go with the definition by Webster. I don't know where you live, but I challenge you to demonstrate how western societies are democracies - where the population (not just elites) are discussing, proposing, and implementing policies.


Yes. This can be changed, of course. It wasn't always this way.


Or a company can make a certain important product with no competition via collusion and other means, which are well known to anyone with even a cursory understanding of history. The end result can be quite the same. That's what monopolies do. It is trivial to show how your assertions are false.


What is to compel a powerful company to disclose perfect information regarding its products or practices? What do you think the advertising industry is all about?


The institution of slavery is itself inherently undemocratic and unjust. This should be obvious.

I notice you dodged the question immediately following:


Care to try?


War is peace (and all that). You and I use different meanings for words. I'll go with Noah Webster. Oxford English is just as good, I suppose.


The market doesn't even exist in the way Adam Smith defined it. You have missed the point spectacularly.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pWdd6_ZxX8c

And as Babylon stated, you presume far too much by assuming that he hasn't heard your arguments before. I know I have.

It is my opinion that the idea should be to use the currently existing infrastructure as a tool for the demise of its unjust parts. Democratic states are inherently structures of power and violence. However, they are the only power centers which still respect the will of the people, to at least some degree. In a true democracy, states must justify their actions to the people they claim to represent. Private corporations are not subject to people at all. Free markets, almost by definition, cannot exist in the presence of unchecked private control over capital, which is what you are advocating. This is why I wince every time the "free market" is invoked as an argument either for or against something.

I cannot understand the idea that because a tool (in this case, government) is being used for injustice by private power that we should eliminate the tool. Would you outlaw firearms because criminals use them? Or would you take steps to prevent crime?

We should use the tool to dismantle the source of the abuse - which is private concentrations of power and capital, which eventually coalesce for the purpose of distorting and controlling economies (mega mergers, collusion). In doing so, the process will necessarily lead to a more democratic society. In the distant future, it may be possible to be free of states and create free and fair markets (which require perfect freedom and perfect information, according to Adam Smith), but that is not a problem that we can even hope to address now. More pressing and realistically addressable are the needs to improve the better parts of the current system, such as democracy and the parts which support justice and human dignity. This means using the existing political system and changing policy via popular democratic means - just as every historical example (civil rights, women's rights, etc) clearly demonstrates.

This process should include a serious discussion about the role of private power in economies, both in terms of market manipulation and the policies for which they lobby. I think most people can see immediate remedies for these problems: abolish corporate bailouts at the expense of the population and ensure the policy reflects the wishes of the people rather than the wishes of the economic elite. This is democracy.

I think that using ssh keys would be great. Let the user choose a username or automatically create a unique hash and authenticate against the ssh key.

This is far stronger than typical password/email authentication schemes. Of course, it could complement an enhanced scheme: perhaps give the user the option to allow key resetting via a PGP-encrypted mechanism. The user would have to upload a public PGP key and email, but would ensure that the mechanism would only be usable by whoever has the private PGP key.

Normal authentication via ssh key and PGP-protected credential resetting mechanism, in case of ssh key loss.

Just who do you think benefits from wars?




"The biggest trick the devil played was convincing the world that he didn't exist."


The thin, peeling veneer of government over private power serves a few purposes. It convinces people that government (in which they may at least have some nominal participation and ability to change) is far worse than a system of private control over which they have no control whatsoever. It also convinces people that democracy is evil or a path toward centralized power, which is exactly where private control over all capital consistently leads.


An example, as if I had planned it:


War is peace, black is white and up is down. It is impossible to discuss these issues when the terms of the discussion have no meaning. Let's establish a point of reference:

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/democracy


Sure, but this example generalizes. Consider the limiting case of private control over unique (no substitutes exist) and critical resources. The demands can literally be anything. This is the definition of coercion. "You want access to clean water? How much are you willing to pay?"