Random selection of the representants.

[myrkul]

1 million poeple have a much less purchasing power as they have to agree together if they want to buy a 1million $ item. Yes they all will surely spend a million $ but if they need a million dollar item they probably wont be able to do it (as 1 folk will say no i don't want). not sure if you follow or if it as any importance + it depends on how you define "purchasing power". I can't answer to the next question...

"purchasing power" is defined as the ability to use your money to influence the market. You said earlier that the market would let "people who have more decide more," Since the 1 million people have the same amount of money, they can influence the market the same amount as the one person. Since they can make more noise when angered, they can influence the market even more through that than can the one man. So, who has more power... who decides more?

I quickly read what the guy is saying, even if it is intresting i must disagree on some point.
1) He admit poeple will always make the best choice for their own sake, for him, poeple only select something based on the property of this thing. This is really false. If not marketing would not exist...
2) If the productor of security enter in war, the result will be a very similar world as we know it.

These are fairly common objections, but they show that you're thinking about it, and not just rejecting it out of hand. That's a good sign.
1 - True, not everyone is a perfectly rational actor. People make mistakes, and get swayed by advertising. But on the whole, people tend to make the right decision - the one that best serves their interests.
2 - It's possible, but it's much more profitable to peacefully offer security services than to try to force people to give you money. War is expensive, war is dangerous, war is dirty. Guard duty is easy work.

Consider this scenario:
A productor one day say "this land is MY LAND" i have enough ressources to defend it, every other productor is forbidden here. Every Consumer that disagree on this land will be killed. He actually did had enough ressources (through the fees he received before) to create a nice army. He defeated all the attempts of other productors to defend their customers on this land.
This is the rise of a nation as e know it. If you are in it, you should shut-up and wait this traitor is weak enough to change everything (revolution)this might take years and years.
 If you are out of it, you should give some power to your productor of security, if not, the first one will expand. But at some point, this productor will betray you and just do the same as the first one. This is the world as we know it...

This, too is a pretty common first sticking point. First off, this is such an off-the-wall unlikely situation that it's hardly worth considering. One security company gets so good at peacefully providing security that it feels it can just take over everyone.

But let's set that aside for the moment. Ignoring the fact that it goes against the very business model that got them where they are now, and the fact that they would have to beat everyone - including some of their own customers - in order to win that particular prize... the correct answer to a feared concentration of force is not a concentration of force. (You shouldn't give someone a monopoly because you fear someone else will get one.)

[glub0x]

purchasing power in my language is your ability to buy things. Note that it is NOT the money you have. If you have 100euros but for some reason the meat where you are cost 10 euros/kilo, you have less purchasing power than someone who as 50euro in a place where meat is 2 eur/kilo.  It is at some point very hard to compute. But price are generaly coherant so ... In that case the 1million poeple surely will have problem to agree buying the 1 million dollars Tank they'll need to defeat the other guy... So things starts to be complicated and not so black/white.

2nd point
Even if your situation might be better. This particular case is a black hole, once you get in it, you can't go back.
Just like once a better currency is created it is utterly hard and expensive to go back (stop internet???).
So yes it will happen, and probably faster than you think.

The best exemple is probably Gangs in Favelas or Somalia.
Let's look a favelas.Poeple need a home so they just gather in a place where state never pop-up.  Everything there is just like you are promoting.
Consumer live and need to be protected. They can choose to defend themself, create a new "corporation" (basicly a gang) to "defend" themself, or pay the local gang to defend... The gangs just has 1 objective, make profit (if not it is a comunist system as your author states). So it will take a tax, it can also start some very profitable business like selling drugs, or even start to racket poeple.
So during a few year, in the same area you might have different system that coexist: a few folks with guns. A milice patrolling at night, 2 groups of drug dealers (they need protection) and a group that just racket poeple.
Quickly drug dealer 1 (D1) makes huge profit, so his little army start to be very very strong.
He can afford to push out the other drug dealer by just killing him. The other ones start to fear D1 and they have to react. So the little war start in our nice Favela...
Now it s over, D1 has taken the monopole of drugs in his area. He managed to kill the racket group.  He can choose to racket too or not ( depending on the profit), the milice is over too because they are far too weak and has been taken down... Now he will continue selling drugs, but in the favela he is the boss. Yes you can choose alternative system to defend, but the result is surely your death. Until Army pop's in and clean everything out.

Favela exists before the gangs ( they appear because poeple need a home! ). Security is competitive there, but not for long...



Now to make a simple sum-up, if you think that war is unprofitable, you are wrong.
War is the most profitable activity.It is because you have to sell gun AND because at the end there is less poeple to share the same amount of ressources.
So this kind of anarchy, nobody will make war because it is not good is for me VERY dangerous. And as a preventive measure i will quickly start to make a war.

[myrkul]

purchasing power in my language is your ability to buy things. Note that it is NOT the money you have. If you have 100euros but for some reason the meat where you are cost 10 euros/kilo, you have less purchasing power than someone who as 50euro in a place where meat is 2 eur/kilo.  It is at some point very hard to compute. But price are generaly coherant so ... In that case the 1million poeple surely will have problem to agree buying the 1 million dollars Tank they'll need to defeat the other guy... So things starts to be complicated and not so black/white.

You have the right definition of purchasing power. Don't forget that with every purchase (even small ones), you're sending a message to the market about what is desired. You buy a steak, the market is informed that steak is desired. You buy hamburger, the market is informed that hamburger is desired. Each dollar sends a message. One person sending one million messages, and one million people, each sending one message, all send the same amount of messages.

2nd point
Even if your situation might be better. This particular case is a black hole, once you get in it, you can't go back.
Just like once a better currency is created it is utterly hard and expensive to go back (stop internet???).
So yes it will happen, and probably faster than you think.

The best exemple is probably Gangs in Favelas or Somalia.
Let's look a favelas.Poeple need a home so they just gather in a place where state never pop-up.  Everything there is just like you are promoting.
Consumer live and need to be protected. They can choose to defend themself, create a new "corporation" (basicly a gang) to "defend" themself, or pay the local gang to defend... The gangs just has 1 objective, make profit (if not it is a comunist system as your author states). So it will take a tax, it can also start some very profitable business like selling drugs, or even start to racket poeple.
So during a few year, in the same area you might have different system that coexist: a few folks with guns. A milice patrolling at night, 2 groups of drug dealers (they need protection) and a group that just racket poeple.
Quickly drug dealer 1 (D1) makes huge profit, so his little army start to be very very strong.
He can afford to push out the other drug dealer by just killing him. The other ones start to fear D1 and they have to react. So the little war start in our nice Favela...
Now it s over, D1 has taken the monopole of drugs in his area. He managed to kill the racket group.  He can choose to racket too or not ( depending on the profit), the milice is over too because they are far too weak and has been taken down... Now he will continue selling drugs, but in the favela he is the boss. Yes you can choose alternative system to defend, but the result is surely your death. Until Army pop's in and clean everything out.

Favela exists before the gangs ( they appear because poeple need a home! ). Security is competitive there, but not for long...

This is a great example, except that violence upon your customers is a great way to be considered criminals, not a defense agency. For instance, if the army started shooting the people instead of the gangs, how would they take that, you think?

Now to make a simple sum-up, if you think that war is unprofitable, you are wrong.
War is the most profitable activity.It is because you have to sell gun AND because at the end there is less poeple to share the same amount of ressources.
So this kind of anarchy, nobody will make war because it is not good is for me VERY dangerous. And as a preventive measure i will quickly start to make a war.

War is only profitable because governments can pull money out of thin air, or squeeze it out of their people. Take those options away, and suddenly war becomes very draining to the coffers. (Even just taking away the ability to pull it out of thin air makes it very expensive... look at medieval warfare, and you'll see what I mean.)

[glub0x]

Buying something influence market doesn't mean that influencing the market is the same thing as buying something. One is consequence of the other. SO buying power is NOT your capacity to modify the market.  one is consequence of the other ( but this consequence ca have other causes )

For the more intresting subject.
We just disagree, without inflation, even without a proper state, there will still be poeple to sell weapon. If we stop to make war, this guy loose his job. So if i was him i would do whatever i can to stimulate fear or hate or greed.
 He is the most obvious but not the one who has the biggest intrest in war. Other reason i think make war very profitable  is
1) Defending your communitarist values, communism for your author. (profit in this way is not just money)
2) Stealing consumer that chooses a poor protection service. (generally the main reason)
3) Showing that your protection service is the best. This can easily derivate in racket
4) Preventing any other outsider to arise by just killing them poeple don't even have to know you killed them.
<-- thoose last 2 leads to a stable statuts quo. There might be other reason.

Now without war i agree any anarchy system would be very good.  

This is a great example, except that violence upon your customers is a great way to be considered criminals, not a defense agency. For instance, if the army started shooting the people instead of the gangs, how would they take that, you think?

In this exemple the one that use violence upon its customer is the Racketer. This one get killed by D1 because he was effectively weaker. Once D1 has a monopole, he might racket. But as he is a dealer and as dealing was the most lucrative thing he did, he will probably just continue dealing. He has no intrest in robbing poeple around him, the profits are small, the risk huge...
Now note that in this scenario at the end you can't choose any protection provider other than buying your own gun because there is no protection provider. D1 will prevent any armed formation to arise in his area as this will be seen as a treat. If you have no value for D1, and someone try to stole you, you'd better be good at shooting poeple and hope that they were not friend with D1.
 This is actually what happen in loads of favelas...
The dealer is not always the winner but in favelas it is. what is important is that poeple will always try to use the cheapest way to grant the greatest profit. Sometimes unfortunatly it is war. face it.

[EDIT] Maybe the only question is, Do you really think that we need agency with gun to defend us, BUT nobody will try to team up to stole you with guns (unprofitable)?
...

[myrkul]

AnCap is predicated on the concept that no one has the right to initiate the use of force, threat of force, or fraud against a person or their property. People generally live this way naturally, and only governments inherently violate it. If people respect that, and those that don't are considered criminals, then society is peaceful.

For the more interesting subject.
We just disagree, without inflation, even without a proper state, there will still be poeple to sell weapon. If we stop to make war, this guy loose his job. So if i was him i would do whatever i can to stimulate fear or hate or greed.

Even without war, there will still be people to buy weapons. Personal defense, or running a defense company, you still need guns. No need to foment war to sell guns.

He is the most obvious but not the one who has the biggest intrest in war. Other reason i think make war very profitable  is
1) Defending your communitarist values, communism for your author. (profit in this way is not just money)

If you are making war, you are by definition not defending anything. You can try to spread communism through violence, but this will not endear the people to you.

2) Stealing consumer that chooses a poor protection service. (generally the main reason)

Likewise, shooting the guards at someone's house and telling them that you are their protector now does not sound like a good way to make friends.

3) Showing that your protection service is the best. This can easily derivate in racket

This might be a reason one would engage in combat, but it would be rather pointless. You'd lose men in doing so, probably resulting in you not being the strongest anymore. Maybe a Laser tag battle. It could even be televised. Sport and advertisement in one.

4) Preventing any other outsider to arise by just killing them poeple don't even have to know you killed them.

Shooting visitors to your house is not a good way to invite other visitors. This is fine for an isolated place, but most like to trade with their neighbors, so killing potential trading partners... again, not a good way to make friends.

What is important is that poeple will always try to use the cheapest way to grant the greatest profit. Sometimes unfortunatly it is war. face it.

War is a great way to make profit. it's far from the cheapest.

Edit: Wow, never saw an entire post scratched out before...

Maybe the only question is, Do you really think that we need agency with gun to defend us, BUT nobody will try to team up to stole you with guns (unprofitable)?

Well, specialization is the best way to provide for a need, and I'll doubt you will argue that nobody will ever need protection from violence, so it just makes good economic sense to have some people whose job it is to protect people. I'm not saying that nobody will try and take over. It might even be one of those groups of people whose job it is to protect people. What I am saying is that when they do, they will correctly be viewed as criminals.

[fornit]

AnCap is predicated on the concept that no one has the right to initiate the use of force, threat of force, or fraud against a person or their property. People generally live this way naturally

that is possibly the most naive statement i have ever heard. how can anyone with the slightest shred of knowledge about history or human nature ever claim something like that?

[glub0x]

AnCap is predicated on the concept that no one has the right to initiate the use of force, threat of force, or fraud against a person or their property. People generally live this way naturally

that is possibly the most naive statement i have ever heard. how can anyone with the slightest shred of knowledge about history or human nature ever claim something like that?

Right. Now even if this kind of anarchy looks a fantastic idea, it is out of reality. The few that won't respect your rules will ruin your fantastic society. (that you admit as natural without proof)

Anyway, This anarchy is by definition NOT voting law, so this all conversation only help to realise how very naive it is but completly hijack my thread wich is about finding way to better represent poeple, and vote laws in a more democratic way. Please respect it.

[myrkul]

AnCap is predicated on the concept that no one has the right to initiate the use of force, threat of force, or fraud against a person or their property. People generally live this way naturally

that is possibly the most naive statement i have ever heard. how can anyone with the slightest shred of knowledge about history or human nature ever claim something like that?

Go through your life robbing and murdering on a daily basis, do you?

[myrkul]

If you have any suggestions, I'm open.

Harry Potter. (The British version. I hear that there's a version that has been translated into US English -- I wouldn't trust it.)

You know, I never really understood just exactly how appropriate your username is until this very moment.

All you ever do is blahblahblah.

[fornit]

Go through your life robbing and murdering on a daily basis, do you?

the government doesnt let me 

(and i have to admit, personally, i am more of a sack&pillage kinda guy  )

[myrkul]

Go through your life robbing and murdering on a daily basis, do you?

the government doesnt let me 

So, if it weren't for the government, you'd go rampaging through the streets, as you put it, "Sacking and pillaging"?

[hashman]

Go through your life robbing and murdering on a daily basis, do you?

the government doesnt let me 

So, if it weren't for the government, you'd go rampaging through the streets, as you put it, "Sacking and pillaging"?

I find that when I need a good sacking and pillaging binge some good old fashioned hocus pocus gubment uniforms and MREs come in quite handy.

[interlagos]

Instead of randomly selecting people and giving away our power to them,
how about we keep the power to ourselves and solve the problems in a consensus-based manner.

For that we need a total transparency for (a) money transfers and (b) provably-fair voting.
Bitcoin solves the (a) part of the problem, so we only need to create a solution for (b)

I've already proposed this in Bitcoin Foundation thread a couple of times so I will repeat it here.
It is possible for an organization with membership paid in Bitcoin to create a system with provably-fair voting.

In this system all membership fees are collected into a single public Bitcoin address and votes are the messages signed with the private keys of the addresses that sent a full membership fee to that address.
The whole repository of these messages along with their Bitcoin addresses is then made public.
This will allow every individual member to check that his/her vote is correct and also verify that other votes come from legit members (those who paid the fee) and they in turn can verify that their vote is correct.

The members of that organization/society can then vote for variety of different things: decide where money need to be spent and how, appoint people to lead different projects to achieve certain goals and so on.
All the money flow will be transparent because the fee collection address is public.
It probably needs to be protected with multisig so that no single person can run away with the funds, but that is one of the technical details that can be worked out along the way.

EDIT: I created a separate thread for this idea, since it is quite different from the one proposed in OP.
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=124477.0

[myrkul]

Go through your life robbing and murdering on a daily basis, do you?

the government doesnt let me 

So, if it weren't for the government, you'd go rampaging through the streets, as you put it, "Sacking and pillaging"?

No answer?

What's the matter, not brave enough to admit that you would go on a homicidal rampage if not for mommy government?
Or is it that you're not brave enough to admit that you wouldn't?

Here's a little secret: You're the only one stopping you from doing anything. I'm the only person stopping me.


If it helps you sleep at night, don't consider anarchy no government, think of it as ~6 billion tiny ones, each with only one citizen.

[glub0x]

Exceptions seem to be the rule of the day. Therefore, perhaps we should think about what specific situations are presently undemocratic, and how they might be improved?

The biggest example that I can think of right now is that most central banks around the world are not subject to any democratic oversight, not even plain elections with boring old voting. If someone wants to lead a central bank, tough! They cannot, unless they belong to the club (1). I think there is enough material that could be covered by this one example that it would warrant its own thread.

In the Western justice systems there often seems to be a duality: there's a jury of the people, but there's also a judge. Based on what little I know of judges (mostly from television and books  ), they sound like an extremely boring bunch. They are isolated, and sometimes their judgements might be wrong. Who oversees them?(2) Is there some kind of feedback loop that modulates their actions? Or do they just watch television after work and make a mental note to "give the next criminal a harsher/lighter sentence"? It's a tricky problem -- one could easily invent a committee or board to oversee the judges and make sure they are up-to-date with case-law and society's needs. But who oversees them? Yet another layer in the hierarchy? Thus, maybe a 'headless' (or leaderless) system of somehow "rotating the judges" (3) might be an idea worth examining?

Thoose 3 points is what lead me to the conclusion of random selection.
(1) HEAVY professionalisation (random selection looks obvious to solve this point)
(2) Lack of control/feedback after the (bad) choice has been made. Here random selection doesn't help directly but, thoose poeple are unprofessional  AND lambda poeple so they can't use a particular network to protect themslef from the consequences of the shitstorm they might voluntarily start. (oposit to the last decades deciders are just free of consequences)
(3) Rotation, we don't want poeple to keep power because POWER CORRUPT. Or Everybody acts mainly for his own sake, giving power to somebody for a long time is taking a risk to see him using for himself.

My 2 cents...

[fornit]

Go through your life robbing and murdering on a daily basis, do you?

the government doesnt let me 

So, if it weren't for the government, you'd go rampaging through the streets, as you put it, "Sacking and pillaging"?

No answer?

What's the matter, not brave enough to admit that you would go on a homicidal rampage if not for mommy government?
Or is it that you're not brave enough to admit that you wouldn't?

why would i give a serious, elaborate answer to a question that intentionally oversimplifies the matter?
i dont do rhetoric skirmishes. if you are looking for a "win" instead of an open-ended discussion, look for someone else.

[myrkul]

why would i give a serious, elaborate answer to a question that intentionally oversimplifies the matter?

Oversimplifies what matter? Either you live peacefully with your fellowman, or you are a criminal. Which is it?

[myrkul]

why would i give a serious, elaborate answer to a question that intentionally oversimplifies the matter?

Oversimplifies what matter? Either you live peacefully with your fellowman, or you are a criminal. Which is it?

Sounds like blackmail -- very coercive! Either he adopts and abides by the moral code of the dominant political system in his environment, or he risks their wrath.

When the "moral code of the dominant political system in his environment" is "Don't steal, Don't bully, and Don't murder," I'd hardly call it blackmail to consider him a criminal if he refuses to abide by it.

Unless you're pro- murder and theft, now?

[fornit]

why would i give a serious, elaborate answer to a question that intentionally oversimplifies the matter?

Oversimplifies what matter? Either you live peacefully with your fellowman, or you are a criminal. Which is it?

the term "criminal" doesnt make any sense in a society without a state or other central authority.

and btw: just the fact that you consider your minimalistic ruleset "right" doesnt make it so. and besides that, how is forcing someone to follow the "right" rules any less coercive than forcing him to follow rules you consider wrong? from his viewpoint your ruleset might be just as arbitrary as the spaghetti monster.

[myrkul]

why would i give a serious, elaborate answer to a question that intentionally oversimplifies the matter?

Oversimplifies what matter? Either you live peacefully with your fellowman, or you are a criminal. Which is it?

the term "criminal" doesnt make any sense in a society without a state or other central authority.

and btw: just the fact that you consider your minimalistic ruleset "right" doesnt make it so. and besides that, how is forcing someone to follow the "right" rules any less coercive than forcing him to follow rules you consider wrong? from his viewpoint your ruleset might be just as arbitrary as the spaghetti monster.

So, you're pro- murder and theft, too?

"Criminal" is someone who broke a law. If the only law is that no one has the right to initiate the use of force, threat of force, or fraud against a person or their property, then anyone who does that will be seen as a criminal.

It's not coercion to "force" someone not to rape, rob, murder, or coerce. It's called "defense."

Oh, and that ruleset is far from arbitrary. It is, in fact, universal.