Random selection of the representants.

[dank]

What about when people choose to stop using money?  Must we always run to mom and dad, or is it possible we can resolve situations ourselves?

[Rudd-O]

What about when people chose to stop using money?  Must we always run to mom and dad, or is it possible we can resolve situations ourselves?

The mom and dad thing is quite interesting, because that's exactly what people do today: they run to Mom or Dad Government and grovel to them to solve their problems.  As anyone who has voted or has sued someone knows, this Mom/Dad don't really give two shits about the people who believe themselves to be their children (mentally, spiritually and physically so).

[glub0x]

I feel like this is the most important and key aspect of the whole conversation.  If the goal of voting is to empower such gang of thugs (it is), then the conversation should be about removing the need for these thugs, rather than finding a new way to select new thugs for the gang.

I feel a bit like that. thus i have no certitude, so i would not recommend to remove straight forward the election process. I think we should at some point find a way to try other systems.

Based on that view, I'm simply biased towards a slow-and-steady conservative approach that respects humanity's efforts thus far. Risking revolution and bloodshed to merely test a theory (AnCap) is crazy talk! The OP's ideas of a jury-like system are based on ancient concepts, some of which are still in use today. Where is AnCap being successfully used?

I agree with that. Civil war and revolution looks like a very dangerous path. Now i am wondering if election is the best way to guarantee democracy. I can see every day how poeple only vote "against", how nobody trust our politics and how we have been betrayed on loads of subject, after loads of elections. Election is baised on faith, i am afraid that loads already lost that faith wich mean that if they express one day it will be trough conflicts. If really poeple loose faith in elections during enough time, and if no solution is find, dictatorship might appear again. In france i know so many poeple who are not concerned about politic because they are NEVER represented. This is how Extreme Right managed to do 20% in some elections...

Today (in brazil) in the bus poeple sayed "This would not occur during dictatorship" refering to a manifestation in the street.  

So this is why i think that just ONE chamber should be randomly selected, to see wich of the RANDOM chamber or the ELECTED chamber is more representative. It is true that maybe the most important question is not WHICH system, but HOW TO try new systems without civil war.

Note, random selection might be "ancient concept" but election is probably a MUCH older concept.

[dank]

Kind of like jury duty? It's an interesting idea, though I guess you might need to refine it a bit if you want to sell it to a large audience.

Yes the jury is the closest thing i know in application at a wide scale.
I guess some nice diagram would help. If i have courage i ll do it...

I wouldn't look for answers from such extreme alternative political systems as Anarcho-Capitalism though.
...
Justice in general is pretty much a crippling weakness of AnCap. Under such a system, they would oppose all the bureaucracy and "brutal force" necessary to organise the musical chairs of anything that resembles a jury system. Not to mention that anything overseeing a jury, such as public courts, would be absolutely out of the question.

Although some AnCap supporters might be curious about the merits of a 'musical chairs' revolving democracy, I suspect they might have a lot of trouble tolerating 'forced participation'. I suspect many of them are die-hard Objectivists who took Rand very seriously, and they would be disgusted by the idea of "personal sacrifice" for some common benefit. To them it resembles Communism, and since they have absolutely no idea about Communism, they see it lurking behind every corner.

Is there justice today?

You're deflecting. Repeating complaints about the real world does nothing to bolster your preferred alternative.

How's this for a concept:
Given that the vast majority of people in the world are "good and decent" and strive to make the world a better place, it could be argued that out of all the possible systems and structures that might theoretically exist, the path that humanity presently takes is already the best possible path. Every time someone comes up with what they think is a better idea, they are faced with a challenge: can they use their 'great idea' to steer humanity in a better direction? Or will the effort fail? Fortunately, they don't have to know the answer. Humanity can decide what's best for itself.

Based on that view, I'm simply biased towards a slow-and-steady conservative approach that respects humanity's efforts thus far. Risking revolution and bloodshed to merely test a theory (AnCap) is crazy talk! The OP's ideas of a jury-like system are based on ancient concepts, some of which are still in use today. Where is AnCap being successfully used?

Who's talking about revolution?  If you increase the awareness of those in power, you might actually be able to convince them to relinquish their power.

[Rudd-O]

I agree that any attempt to institute any new form of organizing society (mutualism, anarcho-communism, anarcho-capitalism) by way of violence (revolution, coup, mass expropriation, whatever) will be ultimately self-defeating, destructive and hypocritical.  Every time such a course of action has been attempted, the result hasn't been the institution of the new desired order, but rather a more ruthless form of government.

So let's be careful about suggesting anything like that.

[myrkul]

Assuming they would be open-minded enough to consider it, how would they do that in a sane way?
What would those steps be?

Step 1: Sound money system. Sorry Banksters, gotta earn your interest from now on.
Step 2: No more gun control laws.
Step 3: No more tax laws. Sorry, IRS goons, maybe you can find accounting jobs.
Step 4: Anyone who wants to can start a military or police force with which to defend their fellow citizens.
Step 5: The court system is dissolved. Arbitration, not government courts, decides cases.

Congratulations, peaceable dis-assembly of the State.

[Rudd-O]

Assuming they would be open-minded enough to consider it, how would they do that in a sane way?
What would those steps be?

Step 1: Sound money system. Sorry Banksters, gotta earn your interest from now on.
Step 2: No more gun control laws.
Step 3: No more tax laws. Sorry, IRS goons, maybe you can find accounting jobs.
Step 4: Anyone who wants to can start a military or police force with which to defend their fellow citizens.
Step 5: The court system is dissolved. Arbitration, not government courts, decides cases.

Congratulations, peaceable dis-assembly of the State.

This is hard to do.  One in two people living in any contemporary society gets their bread buttered from the teat of the State.  Chances are, these parasites will revolt and murder others just to keep the sweet stolen milk flowing to their mouths.

[myrkul]

Assuming they would be open-minded enough to consider it, how would they do that in a sane way?
What would those steps be?

Step 1: Sound money system. Sorry Banksters, gotta earn your interest from now on.
Step 2: No more gun control laws.
Step 3: No more tax laws. Sorry, IRS goons, maybe you can find accounting jobs.
Step 4: Anyone who wants to can start a military or police force with which to defend their fellow citizens.
Step 5: The court system is dissolved. Arbitration, not government courts, decides cases.

Congratulations, peaceable dis-assembly of the State.

This is hard to do.  One in two people living in any contemporary society gets their bread buttered from the teat of the State.  Chances are, these parasites will revolt and murder others just to keep the sweet stolen milk flowing to their mouths.

Well, I never said that the welfare programs had to stop... Just that they had to support themselves. I wonder how Food Stamps would do, having to compete against Goodwill?

[Rudd-O]

Well, I never said that the welfare programs had to stop... Just that they had to support themselves. I wonder how Food Stamps would do, having to compete against Goodwill?

I know I wouldn't give my money to Food Stamps, if I had a choice.  I'd probably give it to Goodwill.

[myrkul]

Assuming they would be open-minded enough to consider it, how would they do that in a sane way?
What would those steps be?

Step 1: Sound money system. Sorry Banksters, gotta earn your interest from now on.
Step 2: No more gun control laws.
Step 3: No more tax laws. Sorry, IRS goons, maybe you can find accounting jobs.
Step 4: Anyone who wants to can start a military or police force with which to defend their fellow citizens.
Step 5: The court system is dissolved. Arbitration, not government courts, decides cases.

Congratulations, peaceable dis-assembly of the State.

Just for fun, possible side effects:

1. The media announces that the president (or whoever is implementing the changes) is in the middle of a mental breakdown, is holding a woman hostage, and is currently being sought by police! They will cite something about "stress due to the weak economic recovery..." Alternatively it might require 20~30 sub-steps of obscure legislation/repealing stuff to stay under the radar.
2. Even as a foreigner I know it'll never get past Congress
3. The bit where they say "OK guys, we're going home! My hobbies await!"? No more tax = no more gov income = don't bother coming in to work = last step, let's hope chaos doesn't happen. (Still a viable step but I would push it back 'til later).
4. Probably very do-able. Call it extra provisions for private contractors in Afghanistan or Iraq.
5. Already in progress due to cost? To help reduce violence in the community, arbitration proceedings must be registered with the tax office -- food stamps are automatically deducted to try and reduce frivolous claims. The private prison system signs contracts with all lawyers.

This is, after all, just the broad strokes. I actually moved that tax thing around a bit, had it first, then last, finally settled in the middle. Those last three would probably have to be done simultaneously. Cut the tax laws, Open the market, and let everyone know that they can continue to pay for their police, or they can take their defense into their own hands, or seek a market alternative. It boils down to removing the current government monopoly on the defense and justice industries. Once that's done, it's only a matter of time until your country looks like an AnCap society.

Sadly, some of those criticisms are far too on-point, (which is, of course, the reason I'm an agorist, and not an inside-the-system activist) almost none of this stuff would ever get through Congress, or past the president's desk, if it somehow managed to. Of course, Dank did hypothesize a power structure actually aware of it's nature.

[dank]

Only law we need: Love

[myrkul]

Only law we need: Love

You must have some good stuff. I prefer a slightly more formal version.

[glub0x]

The question for me is not wich law should or not be voted.
The Question is how to involve pple in the law process. And ultimately how to make laws more representative of what the poeple want. More democraticy.
Just like bitcoin doesn't solve the question "wich is the best currency" but "how to have a improved currency"

[myrkul]

The market is the ultimate proportional democracy. Everyone is represented.

[glub0x]

Market do not decide at the end, it doesn't promote laws... Plus if i understand you right, poeple who have more decide more. Wich is really not democratic...

[myrkul]

Market do not decide at the end, it doesn't promote laws... Plus if i understand you right, poeple who have more decide more. Wich is really not democratic...

Well, first, you don't want the market to decide laws. You want the people to decide laws, yes?

Let me ask you a question: Who has more purchasing power, 1 person with 1 million dollars to spend, or 1 million people, each with a dollar to spend? A second question: If poorly treated, which of those options would be able to inform more people via word-of-mouth that they have been poorly treated?

Law is an industry, like any other. if left to a monopoly, the customers will get poor service. If left to the market, the best service providers will do the most business.

I suggest you read Gustave de Molinari's "On the Production of Security," available in English or French.

[myrkul]

I suggest you read Gustave de Molinari's "On the Production of Security," available in English or French.

Do you ever read opposing points of view? "Keep your friends close and your enemies closer" and all that?

All the time. Do you? For instance, I strongly suggest that booklet. If you have any suggestions, I'm open.

[glub0x]

Well i confess i have no courage to read the all thing you linked, would you be kind enough to make a sum-up?

Let me ask you a question: Who has more purchasing power, 1 person with 1 million dollars to spend, or 1 million people, each with a dollar to spend? A second question: If poorly treated, which of those options would be able to inform more people via word-of-mouth that they have been poorly treated?

Well i'm not sue where you want to go with that... 1 person with 1 million dollars surely have more purchasing power... 1million dollars start to be a good budget to make noise, but 1million poeple is surely more effective to spread the word-of-mouth. And what?


On the other hand i belive that competition would be good for government. I liked this (kind of yes we can do it, hypothetic, anybody have the link?) project where X island have a population, they vote their laws independently and every year or so, they mix and everybody can decide on wich island they want to live the next year. Now i'm not sure this is where you want to go, and i belive it's really really hard to implement...

[myrkul]

Well i confess i have no courage to read the all thing you linked, would you be kind enough to make a sum-up?

I already have, essentially. Justice, security, law... Having a monopoly provider of these services is counterproductive to those services being provided well.

Let me ask you a question: Who has more purchasing power, 1 person with 1 million dollars to spend, or 1 million people, each with a dollar to spend? A second question: If poorly treated, which of those options would be able to inform more people via word-of-mouth that they have been poorly treated?

Well i'm not sue where you want to go with that... 1 person with 1 million dollars surely have more purchasing power... 1million dollars start to be a good budget to make noise, but 1million poeple is surely more effective to spread the word-of-mouth. And what?

You're almost right... 1 million people with 1 dollar to spend have the same purchasing power, collectively, as does the one person... $1 million. And yes, one million people make an awful lot of noise when you piss them off. So... In a market economy, who has the most power?

On the other hand i belive that competition would be good for government. I liked this (kind of yes we can do it, hypothetic, anybody have the link?) project where X island have a population, they vote their laws independently and every year or so, they mix and everybody can decide on wich island they want to live the next year. Now i'm not sure this is where you want to go, and i belive it's really really hard to implement...

Nah, AnCap's easy to implement. Remove the monopoly on the provision of justice, law, and security. The market will take care of the rest.

[glub0x]

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...

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.

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...

Thoose perverted communist governement as the author says is for me the very same thing as the security provider, just in a much more evoluted form...

Please note that the island project suffer from this problem too, what happen if an island decide to control another one...