Myrkul Sells AnCap...

[Rudd-O]

In a sentence what ppl are fearful of in this model is

Uneven administration of justice.  Unpredictable and arbitrary outcomes.

But to the extent that our own 'democratic' representative governments deliver unpredictable and arbitrary outcomes at the cost of taxpayers other models seem appealing.

It's funny how people say "I am terrified that in Ancap, we won't have even administration of justice, unpredictable and arbitrary outcomes, <insert fear mongering here>", all the while they are blithely unaware that that's what they already have.

Anyone who thinks that the statist "justice" system exists for their protection and security obviously hasn't tried to use the "justice" system yet.

[Dalkore]

I don't find it likely that many (or, for that matter, any) other agencies would side with the abusive group. If nothing else, they'd want the customers of that abusive group to come to them, and so would not act to protect the abusive group from the consequences of it's actions.

Why do you think this is unlikely?  People take sides and have points of view.   People do not operate is this neutral manner and only with their customers best interest. 

But it's not in their customer's best interest that they're doing that. They're acting in their own (and possibly their shareholder's) best interest. More customers means more money. More money is good for the company. Siding with the group of people that are abusing their customers will not get them more customers. It might (read: definitely will) even lose them some (read: most, if not all) of their customers, to groups that aren't OK with abusing their customers.

In text-book this may be written.  The world is not that simplistic.  People and companies do many ranges of actions for many reasons that sometime fit in your mold and many times do not.   I actually find more money can many times be quite bad for a company, they lose their culture, character, what they stood for in the market place.  History is litter with examples.  Perfect example in modern times, Google and Apple.   Example from history, British East Indian Company, Llyods of London, Standard Oil, etc..

You may need to revise your history. I'm not familiar with the story of Lloyds of London, but I do know that the British East India company was a Crown Charter. In other words, a royally granted monopoly. Yeah, pretty much exactly what I'm advocating removing. Standard Oil reduced oil prices drastically. They had, at their peak, only about 88% of the market share.

Google and Apple, I don't see doing anything I would remotely complain about - especially since they're pretty much in direct competition at this point.

The one thing both capitalists and communists agree on is that you can always count on a capitalist to be a greedy fucker. Communists view this as a bad thing, to be stomped out. AnCaps see this as a good thing, to be harnessed.

By preferring the support of domestic to that of foreign industry, he intends only his own security; and by directing that industry in such a manner as its produce may be of the greatest value, he intends only his own gain, and he is in this, as in many other cases, led by an invisible hand to promote an end which was no part of his intention. Nor is it always the worse for the society that it was not part of it. By pursuing his own interest he frequently promotes that of the society more effectually than when he really intends to promote it. I have never known much good done by those who affected to trade for the public good. It is an affectation, indeed, not very common among merchants, and very few words need be employed in dissuading them from it.

Now, he was talking about not outsourcing, here, but the key part of the quote is this:
"By pursuing his own interest he frequently promotes that of the society more effectually than when he really intends to promote it."
Even 230 years ago, we knew that people acting in their own interest, as long as they don't act specifically against others' interest, will result in a more prosperous society.

Company References - These are all examples of companies that started out small and as they got bigger (more money), they became more non-competitive and monopolistic.   This came from the statement you made the more money for a company is a basically always a good thing.  I was refuting this claim.

Now Google and Apple - I don't have time to recount their history but l'll leave it here, both had very idealistic founders that came into the business to compete with the big boys and in Google case "Don't be evil".    Well Apple is exactly what they didn't want to become, the 800-pound gorilla that is trying to limit choice when they started as the computer "choice" from IBM and Microsoft.   Google, you don't even know what they are collecting and who they share it with and they defend it with a paranoid zeal if you ask any questions.  Nuff said.

Adam Smith - If you going to quote Wealth of Nations, I suggest you read his first book "Theory of Moral Sentiment" first. 

[myrkul]

Company References - These are all examples of companies that started out small and as they got bigger (more money), they became more non-competitive and monopolistic.   This came from the statement you made the more money for a company is a basically always a good thing.  I was refuting this claim.

That is the claim you were refuting, but unfortunately, not the claim I was making. "More money is good for the company." Not necessarily the society, or the original company culture, but for the company. Or do you deny that companies seek more money?

[Dalkore]

Company References - These are all examples of companies that started out small and as they got bigger (more money), they became more non-competitive and monopolistic.   This came from the statement you made the more money for a company is a basically always a good thing.  I was refuting this claim.

That is the claim you were refuting, but unfortunately, not the claim I was making. "More money is good for the company." Not necessarily the society, or the original company culture, but for the company. Or do you deny that companies seek more money?

I deny companies seek more money, I do challenge that more money is always good for a company.  Now you are tending to make me believe that profit seeking regardless is beneficial.


I now need to ask a more important question before we continue.   Tell me about the nature and how money is issued in the AnCap society?

[firefop]

[snip] Tell me about the nature and how money is issued in the AnCap society?

Lets just use bitcoin - since it already exists and is fair.

[Dalkore]

[snip] Tell me about the nature and how money is issued in the AnCap society?

Lets just use bitcoin - since it already exists and is fair.

No, first off, I believe Myrkul believe in AnCap before Bitcoin ever existed so I want to know the nature of money and how it should be issued.  Using Bitcoin would be intellectually lazy.  Plus Bitcoin would only cover the issuing part and I am not sure if he would even want Bitcoin to be that method. 

[myrkul]

I deny companies seek more money, I do challenge that more money is always good for a company.  Now you are tending to make me believe that profit seeking regardless is beneficial.

I don't think you quite understand the term "capitalism" a company will always seek more money, unless bypassing that money gives it other, better benefits. Profit seeking is almost always beneficial, in a market without coercion, because the way you seek profit in such a market is to offer goods or services to people who want them. That is, in fact, the only way to seek a profit in such a market.

I now need to ask a more important question before we continue.   Tell me about the nature and how money is issued in the AnCap society?

That you ask that, on this forum, is pretty humorous. In addition to things like Bitcoin, there would be numerous gold and silver currencies, minted privately, and probably smaller private currencies, like the local currencies you sometimes see small communities issue to help keep the money local.

Basically, everything except a huge central bank.

[bb113]

[snip] Tell me about the nature and how money is issued in the AnCap society?

Lets just use bitcoin - since it already exists and is fair.

No, first off, I believe Myrkul believe in AnCap before Bitcoin ever existed so I want to know the nature of money and how it should be issued.  Using Bitcoin would be intellectually lazy.  Plus Bitcoin would only cover the issuing part and I am not sure if he would even want Bitcoin to be that method. 

Issue whatever money you want and if people use it good for you. Once you start forcing people, well yea maybe you can... but a defining feature of ancap is lack of blind acceptance towards such things.

[Dalkore]

Google, you don't even know what they are collecting and who they share it with and they defend it with a paranoid zeal if you ask any questions.

http://www.google.com/intl/en/policies/privacy/

Haha

[Rudd-O]

Statists fumbling to provide responsive rebuttals to arguments.  Entertaining.

/s

[myrkul]

And then, some people don't even bother, just making shit up as they go.

[myrkul]

More blahblahblah from wawahwah.

[myrkul]

I suppose all the rational people are either convinced by now, or have simply resolved to agree to disagree?

[Rudd-O]

I am convinced.

[myrkul]

I am convinced.

lol.. yeah, but I can't take credit for that.

[stochastic]

I for one don't think AnCap can exist in the outside world because there are too many competing forces vying for control.  I don't think enough people can agree to a nonaggression pact so that those that do attack others to take over some resource could be stopped.  I do think that AnCap societies can be realized in the online world through cyrpto-anarchy.

[Rudd-O]

I don't think enough people can agree to a nonaggression pact

While this might be true, at least in an ancap society aggressors will get killed or ostracized, which is an improvement to what happens in a statist society, where they get to be presidents and cops and judges and soldiers, killing / ruining / caging / robbing everyone by the millions, with absolute impunity.

[stochastic]

I don't think enough people can agree to a nonaggression pact

While this might be true, at least in an ancap society aggressors will get killed or ostracized, which is an improvement to what happens in a statist society, where they get to be presidents and cops and judges and soldiers, killing / ruining / caging / robbing everyone by the millions, with absolute impunity.

How about we work on the AnCap society with the bitcoin economy first then move into more mainstream economic areas next.  The Securities forum is a good place to start with enforcement of contracts.  Most scams degenerate into reporting the scam to the statists when it should be handled in another way.

[myrkul]

I don't think enough people can agree to a nonaggression pact

While this might be true, at least in an ancap society aggressors will get killed or ostracized, which is an improvement to what happens in a statist society, where they get to be presidents and cops and judges and soldiers, killing / ruining / caging / robbing everyone by the millions, with absolute impunity.

How about we work on the AnCap society with the bitcoin economy first then move into more mainstream economic areas next.  The Securities forum is a good place to start with enforcement of contracts.  Most scams degenerate into reporting the scam to the statists when it should be handled in another way.

This is some solid advice. Maybe Phinn can run a doxxing service to help keep scammers from just making a new ID.

[firefop]

I suppose all the rational people are either convinced by now, or have simply resolved to agree to disagree?

Well if nothing else you've convinced me that it's going to be nearly impossible to implement something like this on the sort of scale that would actually make it anything other than an obscure oddity. Given the roadblocks I'm willing to bet that it doesn't happing in my lifetime. Thus I can stop thinking about it entirely.