Bitcoin Forum
March 19, 2024, 05:49:16 AM *
News: Latest Bitcoin Core release: 26.0 [Torrent]
 
   Home   Help Search Login Register More  
Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 [All]
  Print  
Author Topic: Your ideological evolution.  (Read 9546 times)
Anonymous
Guest

June 13, 2011, 04:50:36 PM
 #1

I started getting into online politics when I was 12 years old. The forum I was one was mainly American-progressive and my views tended to lean towards less government-involvement in economics. I could certainly see the terrible inefficiency in government projects, so that's where I took my stance: The Republican Party. I saw the Republicans tended to take this economic-conservative stance but their social-views turned me off. They tend to dictate what a man can put into his body and whom he can marry. I eventually grew an even greater disdain for the support of war and American imperialism.

I discovered the Austrian and libertarian schools; and my stance in the end was no violence against the man's right to his own life. I started out very limited with the Minarchist point-of-view but eventually learned it had no chance of sustaining, after seeing how our government is wiping its ass with the constitution. : \

So, I am open to anything that doesn't advocate slavery to achieve its goals.

Yourself?
Remember that Bitcoin is still beta software. Don't put all of your money into BTC!
Advertised sites are not endorsed by the Bitcoin Forum. They may be unsafe, untrustworthy, or illegal in your jurisdiction.
1710827356
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1710827356

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1710827356
Reply with quote  #2

1710827356
Report to moderator
BookofNick
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Activity: 314
Merit: 116



View Profile
June 13, 2011, 06:09:24 PM
 #2

I've long considered myself a libertarian, but until recently I believed in small government. Now I believe in no government. Yes, I'm an anarchist. No I don't think disorder is good. I am an anarchist based on the non-aggression principle. That is, it is immoral to initiate the use of force against another person. Any other political party may be more or less just based on how much force (I.e law) is used, but only with the elimination of government can we eliminate institutionalized violence.

If you are interested in learning more, the best resource that I've found for honest discussion is http://www.freedomainradio.com

extracool
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 15
Merit: 0


View Profile
June 13, 2011, 07:08:25 PM
 #3

I like this:

The Constitution of the Universe
Preamble
The purpose of human life is to live happily.

The function of government is to guarantee those conditions that allow individuals to fulfill their purpose. Those conditions can be guaranteed through a constitution that forbids the use of initiatory force, fraud, or coercion by any person or group against any individual:

* * *
Article 1
No person, group of persons, or government may initiate force, threat of force, or fraud against any individual's self or property.

Article 2
Force may be morally and legally used only in self-defense against those who violate Article 1.

Article 3
No exceptions shall exist for Articles 1 and 2.

The Constitution of the Universe rests on six axioms:
1. Values exist only relative to life.

2. Whatever benefits a living organism is a value to that organism. Whatever harms a living organism is a disvalue to that organism.

3. The basic value against which all values are measured is the conscious individual.

4. Morals relate only to conscious individuals.

5. Immoral actions arise from individuals choosing to harm others through force, fraud, deception, coercion -- or from individuals choosing to usurp, attack, or destroy values earned by others.

6. Moral actions arise from individuals choosing to benefit others by competitively producing values for them.
myrkul
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 532
Merit: 500


FIAT LIBERTAS RVAT CAELVM


View Profile WWW
June 13, 2011, 08:47:46 PM
 #4

I liked it up until Axiom 4.

All it takes is one court hearing to be declared 'Not conscious", and then all bets are off.

If you doubt me, read H. Beam Piper's 'Little Fuzzy' (it's public domain now)

BTC1MYRkuLv4XPBa6bGnYAronz55grPAGcxja
Need Dispute resolution? Public Key ID: 0x11D341CF
No person has the right to initiate force, threat of force, or fraud against another person or their property. VIM VI REPELLERE LICET
realnowhereman
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 504
Merit: 502



View Profile
June 13, 2011, 09:05:31 PM
 #5

Article 1
No person, group of persons, or government may initiate force, threat of force, or fraud against any individual's self or property.

Article 2
Force may be morally and legally used only in self-defense against those who violate Article 1.

Article 3
No exceptions shall exist for Articles 1 and 2.

Article 2 is redundant.  Article 1 says no one shall initiate force; therefore force may be used if you don't initiate it.

Article 3 is redundant.  Since Article 1 and 2 don't list any exceptions then there aren't any.

Article 1 is excellent and is the standard libertarian non-aggression principle.   It's basis may be found in the more fundamental philosophy which turns up everywhere: the golden rule, expressed in many different ways:

Do as thy woulc be done by.
Do unto others as you would have them do unto you.
An eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth
That which is hateful to you, do not do to your fellow. That is the whole Torah; the rest is commentary.




1AAZ4xBHbiCr96nsZJ8jtPkSzsg1CqhwDa
smellyBobby
Member
**
Offline Offline

Activity: 112
Merit: 10


View Profile
June 14, 2011, 01:24:53 AM
Last edit: June 14, 2011, 02:52:32 AM by smellyBobby
 #6

Bought up capitalist. Taught that governments are in-efficient, tax-cuts are the only true way for economic growth, the state is bad, but markets are good(later realized institutions are needed to establish the market, so the market is dependent upon institutions..... contradiction). Met someone from Scandinavia; big government but where freedom of information is more important than economic growth.

ATM i don't know really.

I know people are only concerned with the welfare of between 5-7 people and suck with comprehending the meaning of large numbers.
(I assume this based on a study showing that people can only handle 5-7 items in their mind at once, and observing things like people have greater concern with say the deaths in Japan (something like 10,000 i think), but not as much concern with the 2004 boxing day tsunami killing 200,000 people, the 3000 Sep 11 deaths compared with the 100,000 Iraqi deaths).

I believe that best empirical metric of an Ideology is its ability to preserve Woman's rights
I would argue that half the population is born into a position of coercive disadvantage despite being intellectually equal. A system that guarantee's the rights of half the population despite being born into coercive disadvantage is, by current-day standards an amazing feat. Also I believe(I think there is research showing) that there is a strong link between economic growth and Woman's rights.

I believe in the ongoing pursuit of a state known as "Ideal information exchange". The foundation of a Society is built upon the never-ending pursuit of sharing all forms of human information(economic, cultural, social, etc) to improve the welfare of all citizens in society.


[Rant]

I define "Ideal Information Exchange" as a hypothetical situation, where the quality and quantity of information being exchanged within society is perfect.

To me information is an abstract notion. A parcel information is an abstract object "in between" many different states of energy. Therefore this would be an expression of Society's ability to interact and manipulate multiple levels and multiple forms of energy. Therefore this would be a reasonable measure of Society's ability to handle the environment.

When I say information in this context, I mean the existence of markets to facilitate the flow of economic information, not just free-press, etc.

IMO an entity's ability is survive is proportional to it's ability to assume many different configurations of energy.

I need a job!!!!

Justice Dragons: http://forum.bitcoin.org/index.php?topic=16351.msg267881#msg267881

Help me buy deodorant!!! 17bmVSoD8QNBLaPDRAXkFdapBPdgA72YjB
Grant
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Activity: 210
Merit: 100


View Profile
June 14, 2011, 01:46:49 AM
 #7

I started getting into online politics when I was 12 years old. The forum I was one was mainly American-progressive and my views tended to lean towards less government-involvement in economics. I could certainly see the terrible inefficiency in government projects, so that's where I took my stance: The Republican Party. I saw the Republicans tended to take this economic-conservative stance but their social-views turned me off. They tend to dictate what a man can put into his body and whom he can marry. I eventually grew an even greater disdain for the support of war and American imperialism.

I discovered the Austrian and libertarian schools; and my stance in the end was no violence against the man's right to his own life. I started out very limited with the Minarchist point-of-view but eventually learned it had no chance of sustaining, after seeing how our government is wiping its ass with the constitution. : \

So, I am open to anything that doesn't advocate slavery to achieve its goals.

Yourself?

I used to be "mainstream" right-wing (or capitalist as we call them), until i discovered the insane level of corruption that the system we have enables upto highest level of government (anywhere in the world).

Since then i got first misled by "truthers" (and i thank mostly to GW Bush adminstration for their screwup on that one) for a little while to then rediscover capitalism as its supposed to work: the free market. Obviously that led me towards the Austrian School. After a while i did however discover some of the flaws with austrian school, i did side with Bill Still when it comes to the question of the function of money (its just a contract it doesnt need a backing, as opposed to the austrian view of some shit gotta back it) but after a while i also discovered Stefan Molenoux which made me a minarchist (not a full anarchist).

I guess my current position is nanorchist (if such term exist), i believe what we know as government or country should be replaced with competing NGO's (either for profit or non-profit), those roles include road building, healthcare, education, police, defence. I don't see any reason why those roles couldnt be in a constant state of "electionless-democracy", everyone chooses their provider and the provider that attracts most people grows largest. (i guess i have an uncapability to declare myself anarchist because that term often is associated with chaos). As for borders that one i have still a problem with i tend to side with native-americans, and claim the land belongs to the creator and we just "rent it", it makes land hoarding less desirable and country founding obsolete.

My ultimate political-problem was the currency, but bitcoin took care of that one Smiley

DATA COMMANDER
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Activity: 126
Merit: 100


View Profile
June 14, 2011, 01:56:15 AM
 #8

Quote from: extracool
No person, group of persons, or government may initiate force, threat of force, or fraud against any individual's self or property.

The problem with this, of course, is that property turns out to be a slippery concept. As written, this article is wildly open to interpretation depending on what school of thought one subscribes to with regard to property.

Tips are appreciated (very tiny tips are perfectly okay!) 13gDRynPfLH3NNAz3nVyU3k3mYVcfeiQuF
myrkul
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 532
Merit: 500


FIAT LIBERTAS RVAT CAELVM


View Profile WWW
June 14, 2011, 02:01:26 AM
 #9

Quote from: extracool
No person, group of persons, or government may initiate force, threat of force, or fraud against any individual's self or property.

The problem with this, of course, is that property turns out to be a slippery concept. As written, this article is wildly open to interpretation depending on what school of thought one subscribes to with regard to property.

Property is not so slippery a concept as you may think. If you start with self-ownership, the rest just flows naturally.

BTC1MYRkuLv4XPBa6bGnYAronz55grPAGcxja
Need Dispute resolution? Public Key ID: 0x11D341CF
No person has the right to initiate force, threat of force, or fraud against another person or their property. VIM VI REPELLERE LICET
Anonymous
Guest

June 14, 2011, 02:02:40 AM
 #10

Quote from: extracool
No person, group of persons, or government may initiate force, threat of force, or fraud against any individual's self or property.

The problem with this, of course, is that property turns out to be a slippery concept. As written, this article is wildly open to interpretation depending on what school of thought one subscribes to with regard to property.

Property is not so slippery a concept as you may think. If you start with self-ownership, the rest just flows naturally.
You don't own yourself. You're subject to the whims and desires of your fellow man. Submit yourself to the hivemind.
DATA COMMANDER
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Activity: 126
Merit: 100


View Profile
June 14, 2011, 02:11:43 AM
 #11

Quote from: extracool
No person, group of persons, or government may initiate force, threat of force, or fraud against any individual's self or property.

The problem with this, of course, is that property turns out to be a slippery concept. As written, this article is wildly open to interpretation depending on what school of thought one subscribes to with regard to property.

Property is not so slippery a concept as you may think. If you start with self-ownership, the rest just flows naturally.

I respectfully disagree. It's a controversial topic. Feel free to make book recommendations, though.

Tips are appreciated (very tiny tips are perfectly okay!) 13gDRynPfLH3NNAz3nVyU3k3mYVcfeiQuF
smellyBobby
Member
**
Offline Offline

Activity: 112
Merit: 10


View Profile
June 14, 2011, 02:26:00 AM
 #12

I also disagree. Whenever two entities interact with one another and effect the environment, then what set of rules are used to assign the "causality of change" upon the environment caused by the interaction of the two entities?

I need a job!!!!

Justice Dragons: http://forum.bitcoin.org/index.php?topic=16351.msg267881#msg267881

Help me buy deodorant!!! 17bmVSoD8QNBLaPDRAXkFdapBPdgA72YjB
myrkul
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 532
Merit: 500


FIAT LIBERTAS RVAT CAELVM


View Profile WWW
June 14, 2011, 03:03:07 AM
 #13

I respectfully disagree. It's a controversial topic. Feel free to make book recommendations, though.

Well, Let's start at the start, shall we?
Or, we could go a little more modern, if you prefer.

For that matter, anything here will be good.

I also disagree. Whenever two entities interact with one another and effect the environment, then what set of rules are used to assign the "causality of change" upon the environment caused by the interaction of the two entities?

Once more, in English?

Let me see if I can translate... If two people do something, who decides who owns the result? Yes? Did I decipher it correctly?

Simple: They do. Between them, with no outside interference.

BTC1MYRkuLv4XPBa6bGnYAronz55grPAGcxja
Need Dispute resolution? Public Key ID: 0x11D341CF
No person has the right to initiate force, threat of force, or fraud against another person or their property. VIM VI REPELLERE LICET
smellyBobby
Member
**
Offline Offline

Activity: 112
Merit: 10


View Profile
June 14, 2011, 03:08:35 AM
 #14

So what is stopping one from taking from the other?

I need a job!!!!

Justice Dragons: http://forum.bitcoin.org/index.php?topic=16351.msg267881#msg267881

Help me buy deodorant!!! 17bmVSoD8QNBLaPDRAXkFdapBPdgA72YjB
myrkul
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 532
Merit: 500


FIAT LIBERTAS RVAT CAELVM


View Profile WWW
June 14, 2011, 03:15:08 AM
 #15

So what is stopping one from taking from the other?

No person, group of persons, or government may initiate force, threat of force, or fraud against any individual's self or property.

BTC1MYRkuLv4XPBa6bGnYAronz55grPAGcxja
Need Dispute resolution? Public Key ID: 0x11D341CF
No person has the right to initiate force, threat of force, or fraud against another person or their property. VIM VI REPELLERE LICET
smellyBobby
Member
**
Offline Offline

Activity: 112
Merit: 10


View Profile
June 14, 2011, 03:16:31 AM
 #16

So what is stopping one from taking from the other?

No person, group of persons, or government may initiate force, threat of force, or fraud against any individual's self or property.

What universe do you live in?

I'll agree to disagree. I can't be bothered. Smiley

I need a job!!!!

Justice Dragons: http://forum.bitcoin.org/index.php?topic=16351.msg267881#msg267881

Help me buy deodorant!!! 17bmVSoD8QNBLaPDRAXkFdapBPdgA72YjB
myrkul
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 532
Merit: 500


FIAT LIBERTAS RVAT CAELVM


View Profile WWW
June 14, 2011, 03:46:58 AM
 #17

No person, group of persons, or government may initiate force, threat of force, or fraud against any individual's self or property.
What universe do you live in?

I'll agree to disagree. I can't be bothered. Smiley

And If you can't agree that two people can work equitably based on that principle, then you'll understand if I choose not to work with you without a very detailed contract?

BTC1MYRkuLv4XPBa6bGnYAronz55grPAGcxja
Need Dispute resolution? Public Key ID: 0x11D341CF
No person has the right to initiate force, threat of force, or fraud against another person or their property. VIM VI REPELLERE LICET
smellyBobby
Member
**
Offline Offline

Activity: 112
Merit: 10


View Profile
June 14, 2011, 03:55:52 AM
 #18

No person, group of persons, or government may initiate force, threat of force, or fraud against any individual's self or property.
What universe do you live in?

I'll agree to disagree. I can't be bothered. Smiley

And If you can't agree that two people can work equitably based on that principle, then you'll understand if I choose not to work with you without a very detailed contract?

Huh, um not quite sure what your saying but I'll try.

Quote
And If you can't agree that two people can work equitably based on that principle,

Yes, I don't think everyone will follow this non-initiation of force, this will never be possible.

I don't quite get the next part, are you saying that an agreement upon a mutual contract is used this situation before establishing a partnership ?

I need a job!!!!

Justice Dragons: http://forum.bitcoin.org/index.php?topic=16351.msg267881#msg267881

Help me buy deodorant!!! 17bmVSoD8QNBLaPDRAXkFdapBPdgA72YjB
qbg
Member
**
Offline Offline

Activity: 74
Merit: 10


View Profile
June 14, 2011, 04:06:00 AM
 #19

Quote from: extracool
No person, group of persons, or government may initiate force, threat of force, or fraud against any individual's self or property.

The problem with this, of course, is that property turns out to be a slippery concept. As written, this article is wildly open to interpretation depending on what school of thought one subscribes to with regard to property.

Property is not so slippery a concept as you may think. If you start with self-ownership, the rest just flows naturally.
It becomes slightly slippery with the fact that those rules were violated in places in the past.
myrkul
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 532
Merit: 500


FIAT LIBERTAS RVAT CAELVM


View Profile WWW
June 14, 2011, 04:09:41 AM
 #20

Yes, I don't think everyone will follow this non-initiation of force, this will never be possible.

Property is not so slippery a concept as you may think. If you start with self-ownership, the rest just flows naturally.
It becomes slightly slippery with the fact that those rules were violated in places in the past.
[/quote]

So, because there are criminals, a civilized society is impossible?

BTC1MYRkuLv4XPBa6bGnYAronz55grPAGcxja
Need Dispute resolution? Public Key ID: 0x11D341CF
No person has the right to initiate force, threat of force, or fraud against another person or their property. VIM VI REPELLERE LICET
smellyBobby
Member
**
Offline Offline

Activity: 112
Merit: 10


View Profile
June 14, 2011, 04:12:37 AM
 #21

In the terms you define it yes.

I need a job!!!!

Justice Dragons: http://forum.bitcoin.org/index.php?topic=16351.msg267881#msg267881

Help me buy deodorant!!! 17bmVSoD8QNBLaPDRAXkFdapBPdgA72YjB
myrkul
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 532
Merit: 500


FIAT LIBERTAS RVAT CAELVM


View Profile WWW
June 14, 2011, 04:58:14 AM
 #22

In the terms you define it yes.

Funny... I don't remember defining 'Civilized Society'.

Here, let me break it down, in no uncertain terms, exactly what keeps one person from stealing from another in a society free from outside (read, Government) control:

A and B decide to do some work together. At this point, they have three options. 1, If they trust each other, they can simply agree to split the profits equally and leave it at that. 2, If they want to cover their asses, or one (or both) doesn't trust the other, they can write up a contract and (preferably) have it witnessed. 3, They can both contract with an arbitration firm, who will decide any grievances. (this is the easiest, and in an AnCap society, the most prevalent)

If option 1 is chosen, and one screws the other, the one who got screwed is likely (and in the absence of laws against it, free to) take his payment out of the other guy's hide. both know this, and so, it usually will keep them in line. This is, unfortunately, the only method of conflict resolution currently used in the black market.

If option 2 is used, the method of conflict resolution is outlined in the contract. If one screws the other, then that person is in violation of the contract, and is liable for the damages or other penalties as defined by the contract.

If option 3 is taken, should one party screw another, they damaged party goes to the arbitration firm, and the two parties hash it out until both are satisfied. Refusal to arbitrate means loss of contract with the firm, probably a black-balling from any other firm, and thus, inability to do anything with anyone. Essentially, they're stuck with option 1. (and nobody's likely to trust them)

BTC1MYRkuLv4XPBa6bGnYAronz55grPAGcxja
Need Dispute resolution? Public Key ID: 0x11D341CF
No person has the right to initiate force, threat of force, or fraud against another person or their property. VIM VI REPELLERE LICET
smellyBobby
Member
**
Offline Offline

Activity: 112
Merit: 10


View Profile
June 14, 2011, 05:34:03 AM
Last edit: June 14, 2011, 07:45:43 AM by smellyBobby
 #23


If option 3 is taken, should one party screw another, they damaged party goes to the arbitration firm, and the two parties hash it out until both are satisfied. Refusal to arbitrate means loss of contract with the firm, probably a black-balling from any other firm, and thus, inability to do anything with anyone. Essentially, they're stuck with option 1. (and nobody's likely to trust them)


This notion of "arbitration firm" will require coercive force totaling at-least the biggest party in the agreement; leaving the minor party the weakest and vulnerable to coercion from both the "arbitration firm" and major party.

The intentions of "major party" and "arbitration firm" underpin your whole argument.


[Rant]

Further to me "arbitration firm" is an "institution", an will require a "coercive payment". This actually shows that coercion arises from the selfish nature of agents that occupy all three parties. Major and minor parties know that both parties will on average behave in a selfish manner therefore there is the need for arbitration, but this arbitrating party also puts itself at risk therefore requires compensation. For any "fair transaction" to occur then an arbitrating party will always be necessary.

Eureka! To me this shows that no matter what practical ideology you have there will always be coercion/coercive payment........ To coercion arises because of the selfish nature of agents. Not because of guns, muscles, etc, but intentions.

The coercive potential of a party is defined as:

C.P(party) = Strength(party) * Intention(party);

Lets assume that Strength(party) is a measure of energy/mass.

Therefore given two parties Party(1) and Party(2) with C.P(1) and C.P(2) respectively and lets assume for "human interactions" to work there needs to be an arbitrator with C.P(arbit.) equal to max(C.P(1),C.P(2)).

Now approximate the cost of arbitration by the size of Strength(Arbitration-Party) and use this as the "taxation cost".

So given that

Taxation = Strength(Arbitration-Party) then
Taxation = max(C.P(1),C.P(2))
Taxation = C.P(Major-Party)
Taxation = Strength(Major-Party) * Intention(Major-Party).

But lets assume that we live in a universe where the Major-Party will take from the Minor-Party if Strength(Major-Party) > Strength(Minor-Party), then
Taxation = Strength(Major-Party)

Interpretations

Taxation can be reduced by a more altruistic intention.

Reduce the cost of taxation by shaping parties intentions.

For arbitration to be effective in a universe containing only selfish agents, taxation needs to be equal to Strength(Major-Party).

Notes

The intention of Arbitration Party is expected to be fully altruistic and fulfill its role as Arbitrator.

I need a job!!!!

Justice Dragons: http://forum.bitcoin.org/index.php?topic=16351.msg267881#msg267881

Help me buy deodorant!!! 17bmVSoD8QNBLaPDRAXkFdapBPdgA72YjB
smellyBobby
Member
**
Offline Offline

Activity: 112
Merit: 10


View Profile
June 14, 2011, 06:57:51 AM
 #24


[Rant]

Further to me "arbitration firm" is an "institution", an will require a "coercive payment". This actually shows that coercion arises from the selfish nature of agents that occupy all three parties. Major and minor parties know that both parties will on average behave in a selfish manner therefore there is the need for arbitration, but this arbitrating party also puts itself at risk therefore requires compensation.

Eureka! To me this shows that no matter what practical ideology you have there will always be coercion........ To coercion arises because of the selfish nature of agents. Not because of guns, muscles, etc, but intentions.


Can I please get feedback on this? TIA.

I need a job!!!!

Justice Dragons: http://forum.bitcoin.org/index.php?topic=16351.msg267881#msg267881

Help me buy deodorant!!! 17bmVSoD8QNBLaPDRAXkFdapBPdgA72YjB
GideonGono
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 1960
Merit: 501


★Bitvest.io★ Play Plinko or Invest!


View Profile WWW
June 14, 2011, 10:45:45 AM
 #25


If option 3 is taken, should one party screw another, they damaged party goes to the arbitration firm, and the two parties hash it out until both are satisfied. Refusal to arbitrate means loss of contract with the firm, probably a black-balling from any other firm, and thus, inability to do anything with anyone. Essentially, they're stuck with option 1. (and nobody's likely to trust them)


This notion of "arbitration firm" will require coercive force totaling at-least the biggest party in the agreement; leaving the minor party the weakest and vulnerable to coercion from both the "arbitration firm" and major party.

The intentions of "major party" and "arbitration firm" underpin your whole argument.


[Rant]

Further to me "arbitration firm" is an "institution", an will require a "coercive payment". This actually shows that coercion arises from the selfish nature of agents that occupy all three parties. Major and minor parties know that both parties will on average behave in a selfish manner therefore there is the need for arbitration, but this arbitrating party also puts itself at risk therefore requires compensation. For any "fair transaction" to occur then an arbitrating party will always be necessary.

Eureka! To me this shows that no matter what practical ideology you have there will always be coercion/coercive payment........ To coercion arises because of the selfish nature of agents. Not because of guns, muscles, etc, but intentions.

The coercive potential of a party is defined as:

C.P(party) = Strength(party) * Intention(party);

Lets assume that Strength(party) is a measure of energy/mass.

Therefore given two parties Party(1) and Party(2) with C.P(1) and C.P(2) respectively and lets assume for "human interactions" to work there needs to be an arbitrator with C.P(arbit.) equal to max(C.P(1),C.P(2)).

Now approximate the cost of arbitration by the size of Strength(Arbitration-Party) and use this as the "taxation cost".

So given that

Taxation = Strength(Arbitration-Party) then
Taxation = max(C.P(1),C.P(2))
Taxation = C.P(Major-Party)
Taxation = Strength(Major-Party) * Intention(Major-Party).

But lets assume that we live in a universe where the Major-Party will take from the Minor-Party if Strength(Major-Party) > Strength(Minor-Party), then
Taxation = Strength(Major-Party)

Interpretations

Taxation can be reduced by a more altruistic intention.

Reduce the cost of taxation by shaping parties intentions.

For arbitration to be effective in a universe containing only selfish agents, taxation needs to be equal to Strength(Major-Party).

Notes

The intention of Arbitration Party is expected to be fully altruistic and fulfill its role as Arbitrator.

Maybe if you could explain in real world examples because your argument seems very abstract and hard to understand.



.
.BIG WINNER!.
[15.00000000 BTC]


▄████████████████████▄
██████████████████████
██████████▀▀██████████
█████████░░░░█████████
██████████▄▄██████████
███████▀▀████▀▀███████
██████░░░░██░░░░██████
███████▄▄████▄▄███████
████▀▀████▀▀████▀▀████
███░░░░██░░░░██░░░░███
████▄▄████▄▄████▄▄████
██████████████████████

▀████████████████████▀
▄████████████████████▄
██████████████████████
█████▀▀█▀▀▀▀▀▀██▀▀████
█████░░░░░░░░░░░░░████
█████░░░░░░░░░░░░▄████
█████░░▄███▄░░░░██████
█████▄▄███▀░░░░▄██████
█████████░░░░░░███████
████████░░░░░░░███████
███████░░░░░░░░███████
███████▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄███████

██████████████████████
▀████████████████████▀
▄████████████████████▄
███████████████▀▀▀▀▀▀▀
███████████▀▀▄▄█░░░░░█
█████████▀░░█████░░░░█
███████▀░░░░░████▀░░░▀
██████░░░░░░░░▀▄▄█████
█████░▄░░░░░▄██████▀▀█
████░████▄░███████░░░░
███░█████░█████████░░█
███░░░▀█░██████████░░█
███░░░░░░████▀▀██▀░░░░
███░░░░░░███░░░░░░░░░░

██░▄▄▄▄░████▄▄██▄░░░░
████████████▀▀▀▀▀▀▀██
█████████████░█▀▀▀█░███
██████████▀▀░█▀░░░▀█░▀▀
███████▀░▄▄█░█░░░░░█░█▄
████▀░▄▄████░▀█░░░█▀░██
███░▄████▀▀░▄░▀█░█▀░▄░▀
█▀░███▀▀▀░░███░▀█▀░███░
▀░███▀░░░░░████▄░▄████░
░███▀░░░░░░░█████████░░
░███░░░░░░░░░███████░░░
███▀░██░░░░░░▀░▄▄▄░▀░░░
███░██████▄▄░▄█████▄░▄▄

██░████████░███████░█
▄████████████████████▄
████████▀▀░░░▀▀███████
███▀▀░░░░░▄▄▄░░░░▀▀▀██
██░▀▀▄▄░░░▀▀▀░░░▄▄▀▀██
██░▄▄░░▀▀▄▄░▄▄▀▀░░░░██
██░▀▀░░░░░░█░░░░░██░██
██░░░▄▄░░░░█░██░░░░░██
██░░░▀▀░░░░█░░░░░░░░██
██░░░░░▄▄░░█░░░░░██░██
██▄░░░░▀▀░░█░██░░░░░██
█████▄▄░░░░█░░░░▄▄████
█████████▄▄█▄▄████████

▀████████████████████▀




Rainbot
Daily Quests
Faucet
myrkul
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 532
Merit: 500


FIAT LIBERTAS RVAT CAELVM


View Profile WWW
June 14, 2011, 12:04:46 PM
 #26

Can I please get feedback on this? TIA.

Feedback: Smoke the pot after you post.

Here's where you went wrong: Arbitration firms are not coercive for two reasons: 1, They're not a monopoly, nothing is stopping you from submitting to a different firm to handle your disputes, and 2, You apparently missed the part where the two parties hash things out until they both agree.

As an aside, I don't see where I mentioned taxation at all, You pay arbitration firms for services rendered, at a rate you agree upon in your initial contract with them, and you are free to renegotiate or seek another firm with better rates. Your math is flawed.

BTC1MYRkuLv4XPBa6bGnYAronz55grPAGcxja
Need Dispute resolution? Public Key ID: 0x11D341CF
No person has the right to initiate force, threat of force, or fraud against another person or their property. VIM VI REPELLERE LICET
whackedspinach
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 11
Merit: 0


View Profile
June 14, 2011, 07:20:23 PM
 #27

I started getting into online politics when I was 12 years old. The forum I was one was mainly American-progressive and my views tended to lean towards less government-involvement in economics. I could certainly see the terrible inefficiency in government projects, so that's where I took my stance: The Republican Party. I saw the Republicans tended to take this economic-conservative stance but their social-views turned me off. They tend to dictate what a man can put into his body and whom he can marry. I eventually grew an even greater disdain for the support of war and American imperialism.

I discovered the Austrian and libertarian schools; and my stance in the end was no violence against the man's right to his own life. I started out very limited with the Minarchist point-of-view but eventually learned it had no chance of sustaining, after seeing how our government is wiping its ass with the constitution. : \

So, I am open to anything that doesn't advocate slavery to achieve its goals.

Yourself?

I read The Fountainhead by Ayn Rand when I was 15, followed by Atlas Shrugged later that year.  IT really opened my eyes.  I still somewhat cling to the Minarchist point of view, mainly because I think that we will have to deal with non-Minarchist nations and therefore need foreign communications and defense.  But I support the Libertarian viewpoints for the most part.  If only we could actually get a fair fight between more than two political parties in the US...
myrkul
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 532
Merit: 500


FIAT LIBERTAS RVAT CAELVM


View Profile WWW
June 14, 2011, 08:18:01 PM
 #28

I started getting into online politics when I was 12 years old. The forum I was one was mainly American-progressive and my views tended to lean towards less government-involvement in economics. I could certainly see the terrible inefficiency in government projects, so that's where I took my stance: The Republican Party. I saw the Republicans tended to take this economic-conservative stance but their social-views turned me off. They tend to dictate what a man can put into his body and whom he can marry. I eventually grew an even greater disdain for the support of war and American imperialism.

I discovered the Austrian and libertarian schools; and my stance in the end was no violence against the man's right to his own life. I started out very limited with the Minarchist point-of-view but eventually learned it had no chance of sustaining, after seeing how our government is wiping its ass with the constitution. : \

So, I am open to anything that doesn't advocate slavery to achieve its goals.

Yourself?
To get back on topic,

I myself came to pro-liberty ideas via Heinlein, rather than Rand. I actually didn't read Atlas Shrugged until I was already a 'convert', and I simply could not struggle through The Fountainhead. Rand is just WAY too preachy for me. I got most of my political news when I was young from the political cartoons in the newspaper, and so my opinions tended toward the left a bit, but I soon broadened my horizons, and the more I learned, the further up that "political compass" I climbed, until I finally popped right off the top into full Market Anarchy.

BTC1MYRkuLv4XPBa6bGnYAronz55grPAGcxja
Need Dispute resolution? Public Key ID: 0x11D341CF
No person has the right to initiate force, threat of force, or fraud against another person or their property. VIM VI REPELLERE LICET
smellyBobby
Member
**
Offline Offline

Activity: 112
Merit: 10


View Profile
June 15, 2011, 12:20:59 AM
Last edit: June 15, 2011, 12:38:15 AM by smellyBobby
 #29


Here's where you went wrong: Arbitration firms are not coercive for two reasons: 1, They're not a monopoly, nothing is stopping you from submitting to a different firm to handle your disputes, and 2, You apparently missed the part where the two parties hash things out until they both agree.


When the two parties are initially negotiating the terms of the contract, what is stopping the party with the largest coercive force from taking from the other? Until this is explained then in the universe you describe there is no such thing as "initial negotiation".



I need a job!!!!

Justice Dragons: http://forum.bitcoin.org/index.php?topic=16351.msg267881#msg267881

Help me buy deodorant!!! 17bmVSoD8QNBLaPDRAXkFdapBPdgA72YjB
smellyBobby
Member
**
Offline Offline

Activity: 112
Merit: 10


View Profile
June 15, 2011, 12:37:04 AM
 #30

Maybe if you could explain in real world examples because your argument seems very abstract and hard to understand.

Thanks for the interest! Smiley Yeah agreed, there is a huge amount of detail being brushed over. Maybe you can guide me on something to explain, maybe choose a statement I've made and I'll define it more clearly.

And just to clear something; I am using the word taxation in an extremely general sense, it is probably the wrong word. The term represents an external cost to an external agent that acts as the arbitrator.

The arbitrator, is an agent that has the effect of nullifying both parties use of coercion.

I need a job!!!!

Justice Dragons: http://forum.bitcoin.org/index.php?topic=16351.msg267881#msg267881

Help me buy deodorant!!! 17bmVSoD8QNBLaPDRAXkFdapBPdgA72YjB
myrkul
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 532
Merit: 500


FIAT LIBERTAS RVAT CAELVM


View Profile WWW
June 15, 2011, 12:55:19 AM
 #31

When the two parties are initially negotiating the terms of the contract, what is stopping the party with the largest coercive force from taking from the other? Until this is explained then in the universe you describe there is no such thing as "initial negotiation".

Which two parties? A and B, A and A's arbiter? B and B's arbiter?

While you're at it, What stops me from walking up to you, kicking you in the gut, and taking all your money?

BTC1MYRkuLv4XPBa6bGnYAronz55grPAGcxja
Need Dispute resolution? Public Key ID: 0x11D341CF
No person has the right to initiate force, threat of force, or fraud against another person or their property. VIM VI REPELLERE LICET
smellyBobby
Member
**
Offline Offline

Activity: 112
Merit: 10


View Profile
June 15, 2011, 01:06:22 AM
 #32

Which two parties? A and B, A and A's arbiter? B and B's arbiter?

I mean to say before meeting the Arbiter. Negotiations between A and B initially occur, to choose an arbiter and define the terms of the contract. Neither A or B can bring an Arbiter into the initial negotations for the reasons I outlined before, more than happy to more clearly define.

While you're at it, What stops me from walking up to you, kicking you in the gut, and taking all your money?

Nothing really.

I need a job!!!!

Justice Dragons: http://forum.bitcoin.org/index.php?topic=16351.msg267881#msg267881

Help me buy deodorant!!! 17bmVSoD8QNBLaPDRAXkFdapBPdgA72YjB
myrkul
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 532
Merit: 500


FIAT LIBERTAS RVAT CAELVM


View Profile WWW
June 15, 2011, 01:15:02 AM
 #33


I mean to say before meeting the Arbiter. Negotiations between A and B initially occur, to choose an arbiter and define the terms of the contract. Neither A or B can bring an Arbiter into the initial negotations for the reasons I outlined before, more than happy to more clearly define.

A chooses an arbiter long before ever meeting B. B does the same. When they initially meet, they compare companies, and if they're the same, or they have an agreement, then A and B can work together without worrying about anything. If not, then they choose one that they both can agree upon.

While you're at it, What stops me from walking up to you, kicking you in the gut, and taking all your money?

Nothing really.

And yet, I don't. Why (aside from physical distance), do you think that is?

BTC1MYRkuLv4XPBa6bGnYAronz55grPAGcxja
Need Dispute resolution? Public Key ID: 0x11D341CF
No person has the right to initiate force, threat of force, or fraud against another person or their property. VIM VI REPELLERE LICET
smellyBobby
Member
**
Offline Offline

Activity: 112
Merit: 10


View Profile
June 15, 2011, 01:37:55 AM
 #34


A chooses an arbiter long before ever meeting B. B does the same. When they initially meet, they compare companies, and if they're the same, or they have an agreement, then A and B can work together without worrying about anything. If not, then they choose one that they both can agree upon.


Let Arbiter A and Arbiter B be the Arbiters for parties A and B respectively, then the coercive force held by Arbiter A will need to be exactly equal to that of party B and vice versa to nullify the coercive force of both parties. However this can be simplified further as; Assume that Parties A and B have coercive forces CofA and CofB respectively. And the difference in coercive force = CofA - CofB -> "Coercive Difference". Therefore the party with the least co-coercive force will need to engage the services of an Arbiter with Coercive force exactly equal to "Coercive Difference", this is an implicit cost upon the smaller party(imo tax). And this becomes recursive considering that negotiation that must occur between the smaller party and the arbitrator.

Also the larger party could simply steal from the smaller party.

And yet, I don't. Why (aside from physical distance), do you think that is?

The risk posed from myself or the environment.

I need a job!!!!

Justice Dragons: http://forum.bitcoin.org/index.php?topic=16351.msg267881#msg267881

Help me buy deodorant!!! 17bmVSoD8QNBLaPDRAXkFdapBPdgA72YjB
myrkul
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 532
Merit: 500


FIAT LIBERTAS RVAT CAELVM


View Profile WWW
June 15, 2011, 01:44:38 AM
 #35

Let Arbiter A and Arbiter B be the Arbiters for parties A and B respectively, then the coercive force held by Arbiter A will need to be exactly equal to that of party B and vice versa to nullify the coercive force of both parties. However this can be simplified further as; Assume that Parties A and B have coercive forces CofA and CofB respectively. And the difference in coercive force = CofA - CofB -> "Coercive Difference". Therefore the party with the least co-coercive force will need to engage the services of an Arbiter with Coercive force exactly equal to "Coercive Difference", this is an implicit cost upon the smaller party(imo tax). And this becomes recursive considering that negotiation that must occur between the smaller party and the arbitrator.

Also the larger party could simply steal from the smaller party.

Arbiters have exactly 0 coercive force. They are mediators.

The risk posed from myself or the environment.

And you don't think that would factor into the CBA (cost/benefit analysis) of A screwing B, before or after any agreement is made?

BTC1MYRkuLv4XPBa6bGnYAronz55grPAGcxja
Need Dispute resolution? Public Key ID: 0x11D341CF
No person has the right to initiate force, threat of force, or fraud against another person or their property. VIM VI REPELLERE LICET
smellyBobby
Member
**
Offline Offline

Activity: 112
Merit: 10


View Profile
June 15, 2011, 01:54:18 AM
 #36


Arbiters have exactly 0 coercive force. They are mediators.


Given that arbiters have exactly 0 coercive force, then I will restate my question, what is stopping the party with the largest coercive force from taking from the other during "initial negotiations".

The risk posed from myself or the environment.

And you don't think that would factor into the CBA (cost/benefit analysis) of A screwing B, before or after any agreement is made?

Of course.

I need a job!!!!

Justice Dragons: http://forum.bitcoin.org/index.php?topic=16351.msg267881#msg267881

Help me buy deodorant!!! 17bmVSoD8QNBLaPDRAXkFdapBPdgA72YjB
myrkul
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 532
Merit: 500


FIAT LIBERTAS RVAT CAELVM


View Profile WWW
June 15, 2011, 01:58:36 AM
 #37

If you'll read your responses to my second question, I believe you will see you have answered your first.

BTC1MYRkuLv4XPBa6bGnYAronz55grPAGcxja
Need Dispute resolution? Public Key ID: 0x11D341CF
No person has the right to initiate force, threat of force, or fraud against another person or their property. VIM VI REPELLERE LICET
smellyBobby
Member
**
Offline Offline

Activity: 112
Merit: 10


View Profile
June 15, 2011, 02:11:05 AM
 #38

If you'll read your responses to my second question, I believe you will see you have answered your first.

Your right, it shows that in the universe you describe with arbitrators that have no coercive force, then if you have more coercive force than me, you will come and kick me in the stomach and take my wallet, conversely if you have less coercive force than me than I will come and kick you in the stomach and take your wallet.

Thus there is nothing stopping the party with more coercive force from taking from the other.

I need a job!!!!

Justice Dragons: http://forum.bitcoin.org/index.php?topic=16351.msg267881#msg267881

Help me buy deodorant!!! 17bmVSoD8QNBLaPDRAXkFdapBPdgA72YjB
myrkul
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 532
Merit: 500


FIAT LIBERTAS RVAT CAELVM


View Profile WWW
June 15, 2011, 02:13:12 AM
 #39

Just as there is nothing stopping it from happening now. What's your point?

BTC1MYRkuLv4XPBa6bGnYAronz55grPAGcxja
Need Dispute resolution? Public Key ID: 0x11D341CF
No person has the right to initiate force, threat of force, or fraud against another person or their property. VIM VI REPELLERE LICET
LastBattle
Member
**
Offline Offline

Activity: 84
Merit: 10



View Profile
June 15, 2011, 02:13:48 AM
 #40

I started as a Social Democrat, evolved into a regular Communist, then turned into a market anarchist. Go figure.

You're standing on a flagstone running with blood, alone and so very lonely because you can't choose but you had to

I take tips to: 14sF7NNGJzXvoBcfbLR6N4Exy8umCAqdBd
smellyBobby
Member
**
Offline Offline

Activity: 112
Merit: 10


View Profile
June 15, 2011, 02:28:22 AM
 #41

Just as there is nothing stopping it from happening now. What's your point?


I concede it seems as though I have been going on about something that is un-related, I am sorry Sad, I do feel bad.

Your right if the rules you define could be implemented, then yes it would be possible to implement concept of property as you have defined.

I still think that the rules are never possible, i.e it will never be possible to have "coercive-less arbitrators" that would up-hold the terms of a contract and as I said before and the need for "arbitrators" in these set of rules, to me, is an implicit tax upon the interactions between individuals.

I need a job!!!!

Justice Dragons: http://forum.bitcoin.org/index.php?topic=16351.msg267881#msg267881

Help me buy deodorant!!! 17bmVSoD8QNBLaPDRAXkFdapBPdgA72YjB
myrkul
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 532
Merit: 500


FIAT LIBERTAS RVAT CAELVM


View Profile WWW
June 15, 2011, 02:39:06 AM
 #42

It's not coercive to want some assurance you're not going to screw me before I start to work with you. Is asking for a pre-nup before marriage coercive? Is asking for an employment contract coercive?

In fact, in one employment application I looked at recently, there was a stipulation that should any disputes come up, we (said employer, and I) would resolve them via arbitration.

BTC1MYRkuLv4XPBa6bGnYAronz55grPAGcxja
Need Dispute resolution? Public Key ID: 0x11D341CF
No person has the right to initiate force, threat of force, or fraud against another person or their property. VIM VI REPELLERE LICET
smellyBobby
Member
**
Offline Offline

Activity: 112
Merit: 10


View Profile
June 15, 2011, 02:47:40 AM
Last edit: June 15, 2011, 03:04:06 AM by smellyBobby
 #43

There is a cost associated with the arbitrator. And the reason why an arbitrator is needed is because of intention x coercive force. An arbitrator would not be needed if intelligent agents were perfectly co-operative.  

The cost of the arbitrator would be zero, if both parties had the same coercive force. Or if the arbitrator and smaller party (recall I said before that the simplification of the arbitrator cost can be assigned to the smaller party) have the same coercive force, forming an agreement and splitting the gains from the interaction of the big party between themselves, i.e (BigParty:50%, SmallParty:25%, Arbitrator:25%). This is assuming an agreement is not made between the arbitrator and Big Party.

To me this is showing a relationship between exploitative behavior in a community and equality, that is a simple fact of the universe.

Also look at the purpose of the arbitrator, to nullify the coercive difference. It does not do anything productive......

I need a job!!!!

Justice Dragons: http://forum.bitcoin.org/index.php?topic=16351.msg267881#msg267881

Help me buy deodorant!!! 17bmVSoD8QNBLaPDRAXkFdapBPdgA72YjB
Anonymous
Guest

June 15, 2011, 02:52:15 AM
 #44

Now, could the cost be considered negligible? Such as having to breathe a little harder in the negotiating room? Hahaha.
myrkul
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 532
Merit: 500


FIAT LIBERTAS RVAT CAELVM


View Profile WWW
June 15, 2011, 03:05:42 AM
 #45

There is a cost associated with the arbitrator. And the reason why an arbitrator is needed is because of intention x coercive force. An arbitrator would not be needed if intelligent agents were perfectly co-operative.  

The cost of the arbitrator would be zero, if both parties had the same coercive force.

You're very close. The cost of the arbiter would be zero if neither party used coercive force. The cost associated with the arbiter is only paid when their services are used, ie. when there is a dispute. (and usually by the aggressing party) The arbiter is there not because of the intention of coercive force, but as a shield against it. (or at least as a way to get your money back if you get screwed)

BTC1MYRkuLv4XPBa6bGnYAronz55grPAGcxja
Need Dispute resolution? Public Key ID: 0x11D341CF
No person has the right to initiate force, threat of force, or fraud against another person or their property. VIM VI REPELLERE LICET
smellyBobby
Member
**
Offline Offline

Activity: 112
Merit: 10


View Profile
June 15, 2011, 03:11:35 AM
 #46

Who does the arbitration between the party and the arbitrator?


I need a job!!!!

Justice Dragons: http://forum.bitcoin.org/index.php?topic=16351.msg267881#msg267881

Help me buy deodorant!!! 17bmVSoD8QNBLaPDRAXkFdapBPdgA72YjB
myrkul
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 532
Merit: 500


FIAT LIBERTAS RVAT CAELVM


View Profile WWW
June 15, 2011, 03:26:51 AM
 #47

Who does the arbitration between the party and the arbitrator?

Bwha?

Nobody.

Allow me to post a relevant section of 'Alongside Night', by J. Neil Schulman:

Quote
“Sign here.”
Mr. Gross gestured to the document he had just placed on
the coffee table, extending Elliot a pen. Phillip was in the
kitchen preparing dinner.
“I knew there was a catch somewhere,” Elliot said. “What
is it?”
“A skeptic, eh?” replied Mr. Gross. “Well, I can’t say I blame
you. Read it for yourself, then, if you have any more questions,
I’ll answer them if I can.”
Elliot picked up the paper and began reading it aloud:
“GENERAL SUBMISSION TO ARBITRATION
“Agreement, among the undersigned Submittor, the Independent
Arbitration Group [there was an address], hereafter IAG, and all
other persons who have made or may make General Submissions to
Arbitration ...
“In consideration of the mutual promises herein ...and other good
and valuable consideration, the Submittor agrees that any disputes
arising, or which have arisen, between Submittor and any other
person(s) who has made or makes a General Submission to Arbitra-
tion shall be arbitrated by IAG under its Rules then in effect. Submittor
acknowledges receipt of a copy of the Rules.”

“Which I just happen to have a spare copy of,” said Mr. Gross,
handing Elliot a booklet.
“Mmmmm,” Elliot acknowledged. He then skimmed over a
technical passage about filings, notices, and such, then con-
cluded:
“Arbitration shall enforce the law of the contract to effectuate its
purposes, and shall decide the issues by the application of reason to
the facts under the guidance of the Law of Equal Liberty (each has
the right to do with his/her own what he/she wishes so long as he/
she does not forcibly interfere with the equal right of another).”


“Okay I get the point,” said Elliot. “But what does this have
to do with me?”
“Everything,” Mr. Gross said. “Every single person who
works with—or does business with—the Revolutionary Agorist
Cadre has signed just such an agreement as this, either with
this group or another with which they have swapped reciprocal
 jurisdiction. The Cadre will not do business with—will not
even talk to—anyone who has not signed a Submission to
Arbitrate.”
“Why?”
“A number of reasons,” Mr. Gross said. “Being an under-
ground organization, the Cadre cannot sue in a government
court if someone breaks a contract or otherwise damages them.
Also, the Cadre do not care to use gangster tactics to enforce
their contracts. Broken arms, setting fires, murder—this is all
that’s left when one is deprived of a peaceful method of settling
 disputes. And such methods are—in any case—against
agoric principles. The Cadre cannot set up their own court—
dragging people into it the way the government does—because
such a court would be—and would be called—a kangaroo
court. It would not have the mystique of having a State behind
it, and nobody would respect its decisions.”

That should be enough to get the point across. By the way, Excellent book check it out.(Title, above is link to the author's website, where he is giving away the PDF. Awesome guy)

Bottom line is, you don't like the rules they set out, you don't sign. There are other agencies out there, and one will fit your tastes.

BTC1MYRkuLv4XPBa6bGnYAronz55grPAGcxja
Need Dispute resolution? Public Key ID: 0x11D341CF
No person has the right to initiate force, threat of force, or fraud against another person or their property. VIM VI REPELLERE LICET
smellyBobby
Member
**
Offline Offline

Activity: 112
Merit: 10


View Profile
June 15, 2011, 03:37:33 AM
 #48

What is stopping Mr Gross or Elliot and Phillip from using coercion upon one another?

I need a job!!!!

Justice Dragons: http://forum.bitcoin.org/index.php?topic=16351.msg267881#msg267881

Help me buy deodorant!!! 17bmVSoD8QNBLaPDRAXkFdapBPdgA72YjB
AntiVigilante
Member
**
Offline Offline

Activity: 98
Merit: 10



View Profile
June 15, 2011, 03:42:54 AM
 #49

You're very close. The cost of the arbiter would be zero if neither party used coercive force. The cost associated with the arbiter is only paid when their services are used, ie. when there is a dispute. (and usually by the aggressing party) The arbiter is there not because of the intention of coercive force, but as a shield against it. (or at least as a way to get your money back if you get screwed)

I prefer to pretend to use force and bite randomly but not frequently to keep them all guessing. I hate navel gazing debates. I expect others to use force, so in order not to use heavy force I mindhack. They do it to us. Mindhacks are fair game.

Proposal: http://forum.bitcoin.org/index.php?topic=11541.msg162881#msg162881
Inception: https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/296
Goal: http://forum.bitcoin.org/index.php?topic=12536.0
Means: Code, donations, and brutal criticism. I've got a thick skin. 1Gc3xCHAzwvTDnyMW3evBBr5qNRDN3DRpq
myrkul
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 532
Merit: 500


FIAT LIBERTAS RVAT CAELVM


View Profile WWW
June 15, 2011, 03:44:45 AM
 #50

What is stopping Mr Gross or Elliot and Phillip from using coercion upon one another?
They're not assholes?

Seriously, if you think people need shackles to prevent them from doing harm to one another, You have even less faith in humanity than I. (And that's saying something!)

BTC1MYRkuLv4XPBa6bGnYAronz55grPAGcxja
Need Dispute resolution? Public Key ID: 0x11D341CF
No person has the right to initiate force, threat of force, or fraud against another person or their property. VIM VI REPELLERE LICET
smellyBobby
Member
**
Offline Offline

Activity: 112
Merit: 10


View Profile
June 15, 2011, 03:46:40 AM
 #51

Yea I do.

I need a job!!!!

Justice Dragons: http://forum.bitcoin.org/index.php?topic=16351.msg267881#msg267881

Help me buy deodorant!!! 17bmVSoD8QNBLaPDRAXkFdapBPdgA72YjB
smellyBobby
Member
**
Offline Offline

Activity: 112
Merit: 10


View Profile
June 15, 2011, 03:49:48 AM
 #52

I prefer to pretend to use force and bite randomly but not frequently to keep them all guessing. I hate navel gazing debates. I expect others to use force, so in order not to use heavy force I mindhack. They do it to us. Mindhacks are fair game.

/\/\1|\|3 /\/\1|\|D |-|4(|<Z 0\/\/|\|Z 4LLZ

I need a job!!!!

Justice Dragons: http://forum.bitcoin.org/index.php?topic=16351.msg267881#msg267881

Help me buy deodorant!!! 17bmVSoD8QNBLaPDRAXkFdapBPdgA72YjB
myrkul
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 532
Merit: 500


FIAT LIBERTAS RVAT CAELVM


View Profile WWW
June 15, 2011, 03:52:29 AM
 #53

Yea I do.

Well, in that case, there's no way I can convince you that ANY society, save one of robots, will work. If it helps, though it's not stated on these pages, both Elliot and Mr. Gross are armed.

BTC1MYRkuLv4XPBa6bGnYAronz55grPAGcxja
Need Dispute resolution? Public Key ID: 0x11D341CF
No person has the right to initiate force, threat of force, or fraud against another person or their property. VIM VI REPELLERE LICET
smellyBobby
Member
**
Offline Offline

Activity: 112
Merit: 10


View Profile
June 15, 2011, 04:03:20 AM
 #54

You have more faith than me (Y) Cry.

I need a job!!!!

Justice Dragons: http://forum.bitcoin.org/index.php?topic=16351.msg267881#msg267881

Help me buy deodorant!!! 17bmVSoD8QNBLaPDRAXkFdapBPdgA72YjB
myrkul
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 532
Merit: 500


FIAT LIBERTAS RVAT CAELVM


View Profile WWW
June 15, 2011, 04:07:15 AM
 #55

You have more faith than me (Y) Cry.

Which, as I said, is saying something. I trust that people will act in their own self interest, while you seem to view every human being as a raving lunatic, barely restrained from doing untold violence upon all around them. You may want to seek counseling for that paranoia.

BTC1MYRkuLv4XPBa6bGnYAronz55grPAGcxja
Need Dispute resolution? Public Key ID: 0x11D341CF
No person has the right to initiate force, threat of force, or fraud against another person or their property. VIM VI REPELLERE LICET
smellyBobby
Member
**
Offline Offline

Activity: 112
Merit: 10


View Profile
June 15, 2011, 04:15:57 AM
 #56

So who has the bigger gun? -> Who has the bigger amount of coercive force? What is stopping them from harming the other? No one. Only the environment. Only if there are a set of exceptional circumstances where the average payoff from the environment is less than the major party taking from the minor party. This is in their self-interest.

I need a job!!!!

Justice Dragons: http://forum.bitcoin.org/index.php?topic=16351.msg267881#msg267881

Help me buy deodorant!!! 17bmVSoD8QNBLaPDRAXkFdapBPdgA72YjB
AntiVigilante
Member
**
Offline Offline

Activity: 98
Merit: 10



View Profile
June 15, 2011, 04:25:00 AM
 #57

So who has the bigger gun? -> Who has the bigger amount of coercive force? What is stopping them from harming the other? No one. Only the environment. Only if there are a set of exceptional circumstances where the average payoff from the environment is less than the major party taking from the minor party. This is in their self-interest.


No it isn't. We are physically and emotionally built to survive not to conquer. Conquerors suffer a heavy load on their psychology whether it's guilt or mistrust of subordinates. Our intellect gets lost trying to go beyond thriving, but it's the only way we can live among each other.

The potential of causing more harm to myself from an overbearing state over the potential of my neighbor trying to rob me is plenty reason to avoid it.

I try to stay ahead of the curve. It's in my self interest to do so. I just try to learn the signals when others deviate.

Proposal: http://forum.bitcoin.org/index.php?topic=11541.msg162881#msg162881
Inception: https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/296
Goal: http://forum.bitcoin.org/index.php?topic=12536.0
Means: Code, donations, and brutal criticism. I've got a thick skin. 1Gc3xCHAzwvTDnyMW3evBBr5qNRDN3DRpq
myrkul
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 532
Merit: 500


FIAT LIBERTAS RVAT CAELVM


View Profile WWW
June 15, 2011, 04:29:48 AM
 #58

A Derringer will kill you just as dead as a .50 Desert Eagle.

A big gun does not make you safe from the guy with the little gun, nor vice-versa.

Nor will a greater amount of coercive force (say, a large army) necessarily triumph over a smaller force. Ask the British, or LBJ and Nixon.

BTC1MYRkuLv4XPBa6bGnYAronz55grPAGcxja
Need Dispute resolution? Public Key ID: 0x11D341CF
No person has the right to initiate force, threat of force, or fraud against another person or their property. VIM VI REPELLERE LICET
smellyBobby
Member
**
Offline Offline

Activity: 112
Merit: 10


View Profile
June 15, 2011, 04:42:49 AM
 #59

So who has the bigger gun? -> Who has the bigger amount of coercive force? What is stopping them from harming the other? No one. Only the environment. Only if there are a set of exceptional circumstances where the average payoff from the environment is less than the major party taking from the minor party. This is in their self-interest.


No it isn't. We are physically and emotionally built to survive not to conquer. ...........

The potential of causing more harm to myself from an overbearing state over the potential of my neighbor trying to rob me is plenty reason to avoid it.

I try to stay ahead of the curve. It's in my self interest to do so. I just try to learn the signals when others deviate.

We are built to conquer, in my mind external agents and the environment are the same. One agent will conquer another if upon face value his coercive force is greater than the other party, but if this results in a negative outcome from the greater community(environment), then the agent will not proceed. But there is a range within the agent's intelligence where the agent can not gauge the outcome of the three party scenario(2 Human parties interacting and the environment). To me this is where the agent's natural altruistic/exploitative characteristics exhibit themselves.

I need a job!!!!

Justice Dragons: http://forum.bitcoin.org/index.php?topic=16351.msg267881#msg267881

Help me buy deodorant!!! 17bmVSoD8QNBLaPDRAXkFdapBPdgA72YjB
AntiVigilante
Member
**
Offline Offline

Activity: 98
Merit: 10



View Profile
June 15, 2011, 04:54:44 AM
 #60

So who has the bigger gun? -> Who has the bigger amount of coercive force? What is stopping them from harming the other? No one. Only the environment. Only if there are a set of exceptional circumstances where the average payoff from the environment is less than the major party taking from the minor party. This is in their self-interest.


No it isn't. We are physically and emotionally built to survive not to conquer. ...........

The potential of causing more harm to myself from an overbearing state over the potential of my neighbor trying to rob me is plenty reason to avoid it.

I try to stay ahead of the curve. It's in my self interest to do so. I just try to learn the signals when others deviate.

Quote
We are built to conquer, in my mind external agents and the environment are the same.

Physically and emotionally we are not. What you mean is we are built to want to conquer and that may be true. But in the end our psychological inclinations do not jive with our psychological capacity. The one who wakes up to this is the one who wastes less precious psychological energy. He's also most capable in defending himself because he is not distracted by overextending his psyche.

Quote
One agent will conquer another if upon face value his coercive force is greater than the other party, but if this results in a negative outcome from the greater community(environment), then the agent will not proceed. But there is a range within the agent's intelligence where the agent can not gauge the outcome of the three party scenario(2 Human parties interacting and the environment). To me this is where the agent's natural altruistic/exploitative characteristics exhibit themselves.

You keep leaving out human capacity. The stronger ones burn out faster.

Proposal: http://forum.bitcoin.org/index.php?topic=11541.msg162881#msg162881
Inception: https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/296
Goal: http://forum.bitcoin.org/index.php?topic=12536.0
Means: Code, donations, and brutal criticism. I've got a thick skin. 1Gc3xCHAzwvTDnyMW3evBBr5qNRDN3DRpq
smellyBobby
Member
**
Offline Offline

Activity: 112
Merit: 10


View Profile
June 15, 2011, 05:11:28 AM
 #61


Physically and emotionally we are not. What you mean is we are built to want to conquer and that may be true. But in the end our psychological inclinations do not jive with our psychological capacity. The one who wakes up to this is the one who wastes less precious psychological energy. He's also most capable in defending himself because he is not distracted by overextending his psyche.


Firstly thanks for the response hopefully this will getting interesting.

I would say that our physical and emotional attributes are the product, of our underlying requirement to conquer/exist(maybe this is where we disagree maybe I'm changing my words?) in our environment, a requirement to exist in this universe. Maybe I'm going to far into the abstract/theoretical realm? Do see this differently?

If I was to apply the principle of determinism, then I could say that all intelligence is simply the result of a sequence of causal events from the environment, therefore intelligence = environment.

I need a job!!!!

Justice Dragons: http://forum.bitcoin.org/index.php?topic=16351.msg267881#msg267881

Help me buy deodorant!!! 17bmVSoD8QNBLaPDRAXkFdapBPdgA72YjB
AntiVigilante
Member
**
Offline Offline

Activity: 98
Merit: 10



View Profile
June 15, 2011, 06:06:54 AM
 #62


Physically and emotionally we are not. What you mean is we are built to want to conquer and that may be true. But in the end our psychological inclinations do not jive with our psychological capacity. The one who wakes up to this is the one who wastes less precious psychological energy. He's also most capable in defending himself because he is not distracted by overextending his psyche.


Firstly thanks for the response hopefully this will getting interesting.

I'll try.

Quote
I would say that our physical and emotional attributes are the product, of our underlying requirement to conquer/exist(maybe this is where we disagree maybe I'm changing my words?) in our environment, a requirement to exist in this universe. Maybe I'm going to far into the abstract/theoretical realm? Do see this differently?

Our physical and emotional capacity evolve over generations. Our physical and emotional adaptability can take years to improve. Our physical and emotional tendencies can vary in minutes.  This causes internal tension and potential waste of energy. What you end up with is a moving compromise between diversity of ideas versus efficiency of ideas.

Quote
If I was to apply the principle of determinism, then I could say that all intelligence is simply the result of a sequence of causal events from the environment, therefore intelligence = environment.

The more concepts you put in one context, the risk of dividing by zero increases. Some things like intelligence push outward as environment. Others like opportunity, resources, and talent push, twist, and pinch as part of environment.

In fact let me throw this at you:
Talent * Resources = Wealth
Talent * Opportunity = Power
Opportunity * Resources = Riches

As for intent try this puzzle (no wrong answers as I haven't reasoned it all out myself):
What am I after:
If I increase Wealth invested where there is increased Opportunity -> delta Talent * Resources / delta Opportunity = ? I'd say Growth
If I increase Power invoked where there are increased Resources -> delta Talent * Opportunity / delta Resources = ? I'd say Invasion
If I increase Riches risked where there is increased Talent -> delta Opportunity * Resources / delta Talent = ? I'd say Prospecting

All these are forms of speculation and they do not fit neatly in an environment calculation.

Proposal: http://forum.bitcoin.org/index.php?topic=11541.msg162881#msg162881
Inception: https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/296
Goal: http://forum.bitcoin.org/index.php?topic=12536.0
Means: Code, donations, and brutal criticism. I've got a thick skin. 1Gc3xCHAzwvTDnyMW3evBBr5qNRDN3DRpq
The Script
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 336
Merit: 250


View Profile
June 15, 2011, 08:51:23 AM
 #63

I started as a Social Democrat, evolved into a regular Communist, then turned into a market anarchist. Go figure.

To me that just says you are capable of rationally reviewing facts and changing your mind when you find new data to convince you.  You would be surprised how many people cling stubbornly to beliefs that they cannot back up.  Sad

Anyway, welcome, brother.

Is your name a reference to the C.S. Lewis book?  (or totally unrelated?)
EnterpriseE1701E
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 28
Merit: 0


View Profile
June 15, 2011, 11:24:36 AM
 #64

Liberal->Nietzschean->Derridean->Utilitarian->Utilitarian Anarchist.

To those who don't think utilitarianism can manifest itself in a ideology, I don't think any insult is adequate for you.
smellyBobby
Member
**
Offline Offline

Activity: 112
Merit: 10


View Profile
June 21, 2011, 06:18:19 AM
 #65


Sorry for the delay Smiley .


Physically and emotionally we are not. What you mean is we are built to want to conquer and that may be true. But in the end our psychological inclinations do not jive with our psychological capacity. The one who wakes up to this is the one who wastes less precious psychological energy. He's also most capable in defending himself because he is not distracted by overextending his psyche.


Ok it seems we are negotiating definitions here. I do agree with your ideas, I'll try to clarify what I think of what you think.

Ideas/Concepts
  • An intelligences existence is determined by its ability to dominate the environment(smellyBobby).
  • As human intelligence has evolved, human intelligence has developed genetic altruistic capacities(my interpretation of what your saying).
  • A human lifetime is characterized by the contrasting interactions, the actions performed by the altruistic component of human intelligence and the
    actions performed by the selfish component of human intelligence(my interpretation of what your saying)

I'll explain how I think points 1 and 2 link. I agree that people on average are not purely selfish. What I'm saying is that sure in normal circumstances, where coercive force between two parties is similar, the genetic altruistic component of human intelligence will prevail. But my interpretation of evolutionary observation is; Evolution has chosen human intelligences that are altruistic when the coercive difference between two parties is similar. But if we alter the coercive difference between two parties, then I think there is a deviation from this behavior, and there will be a tendency towards selfishness. I would argue this because there is no natural factor that will select against such behavior and based on general observations of how species interact; we can basically eat what-ever we want, food-chains, etc. If anything there maybe a natural advantage selecting for selfishness in these instances.

Quote from: AntiVigilante
Quote from: smellyBobby
If I was to apply the principle of determinism, then I could say that all intelligence is simply the result of a sequence of causal events from the environment, therefore intelligence = environment.

The more concepts you put in one context, the risk of dividing by zero increases. Some things like intelligence push outward as environment. Others like opportunity, resources, and talent push, twist, and pinch as part of environment.

In fact let me throw this at you:
Talent * Resources = Wealth
Talent * Opportunity = Power
Opportunity * Resources = Riches

As for intent try this puzzle (no wrong answers as I haven't reasoned it all out myself):
What am I after:
If I increase Wealth invested where there is increased Opportunity -> delta Talent * Resources / delta Opportunity = ? I'd say Growth
If I increase Power invoked where there are increased Resources -> delta Talent * Opportunity / delta Resources = ? I'd say Invasion
If I increase Riches risked where there is increased Talent -> delta Opportunity * Resources / delta Talent = ? I'd say Prospecting

All these are forms of speculation and they do not fit neatly in an environment calculation.

I think that there are other operations that should be used to express these relations. Also to me the concepts of resources and opportunity are very similar. What distinguishes them is the amount of coercive control an intelligence has over each one. Resource is something requiring little coercive control and an opportunity is something that requires significant coercive control, therefore requiring coercive help from the environment so the intelligence can use methods of coercion that require less energy. Because historically there is generally a link between economic wealth and crime, I would say that power and wealth are two forms of coercive control. Also talent should be replaced with (talent * intention). 




I need a job!!!!

Justice Dragons: http://forum.bitcoin.org/index.php?topic=16351.msg267881#msg267881

Help me buy deodorant!!! 17bmVSoD8QNBLaPDRAXkFdapBPdgA72YjB
smellyBobby
Member
**
Offline Offline

Activity: 112
Merit: 10


View Profile
June 22, 2011, 01:59:09 AM
 #66

In conjunction with my previous post and my previous assertions:


The issues I have with "arbitrators" are:

  • Coercive-less arbitrators are functionless, as mentioned before the arbitrator and individuals were both armed therefore they are in fact coercive arbitrators.
  • Coercive arbitrators are guns for hire, the concept of coercive arbitrators and police IMO are the same, except there are now multiple police forces.
  • Coercive arbitrators will require a fee that is proportional to the coercive difference between two parties.
  • Therefore the most wealthy arbitrators will be those working in communities where there is a large coercive gap between parties.
  • The cost of arbitration will be born by the weaker party.
  • Weaker parties will generally be compelled to hire arbitrators.
  • Coercive arbitrators are nothing more than farmers. They serve no productive function for this society, except resolving disputes.

Arbitrators will have an incentive to create a large coercive gap between parties within the society. The only good thing is that this "new" type of coercive entity will not be a "single coercive police force". But there is nothing stopping arbitrators becoming larger. There is nothing stopping parties becoming larger. Arbitrators will be the new police/army and everyone else will be at the mercy of arbitrators. This sounds like most third world countries.

I need a job!!!!

Justice Dragons: http://forum.bitcoin.org/index.php?topic=16351.msg267881#msg267881

Help me buy deodorant!!! 17bmVSoD8QNBLaPDRAXkFdapBPdgA72YjB
myrkul
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 532
Merit: 500


FIAT LIBERTAS RVAT CAELVM


View Profile WWW
June 22, 2011, 02:05:34 AM
 #67

In conjunction with my previous post and my previous assertions:


The issues I have with "arbitrators" are:

  • Coercive-less arbitrators are functionless, as mentioned before the arbitrator and individuals were both armed therefore they are in fact coercive arbitrators.

I stopped reading right here, because your equation of gun=coercion proves you to be a moron.[/list]

BTC1MYRkuLv4XPBa6bGnYAronz55grPAGcxja
Need Dispute resolution? Public Key ID: 0x11D341CF
No person has the right to initiate force, threat of force, or fraud against another person or their property. VIM VI REPELLERE LICET
smellyBobby
Member
**
Offline Offline

Activity: 112
Merit: 10


View Profile
June 22, 2011, 02:17:15 AM
 #68

Its okay, I too would also stop reading if something contradicts my beliefs. Maybe I should have used the word "weaponless" does that make it easier to understand?

I need a job!!!!

Justice Dragons: http://forum.bitcoin.org/index.php?topic=16351.msg267881#msg267881

Help me buy deodorant!!! 17bmVSoD8QNBLaPDRAXkFdapBPdgA72YjB
myrkul
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 532
Merit: 500


FIAT LIBERTAS RVAT CAELVM


View Profile WWW
June 22, 2011, 02:35:01 AM
 #69

You're still equating armed with coercive. Just because someone has a gun does not mean they will use it to force you to do something.

Porcs in NH open carry all the time. Not one of them has mugged anyone yet.

I explained elsewhere, maybe this thread, maybe elsewhere, I honestly can't remember, and frankly can't be bothered to look, Precisely how a non-coercive Abritrator would 'enforce' their decision.

BTC1MYRkuLv4XPBa6bGnYAronz55grPAGcxja
Need Dispute resolution? Public Key ID: 0x11D341CF
No person has the right to initiate force, threat of force, or fraud against another person or their property. VIM VI REPELLERE LICET
smellyBobby
Member
**
Offline Offline

Activity: 112
Merit: 10


View Profile
June 22, 2011, 03:08:49 AM
 #70

Stop teasing us and please tell us how it is possible to create a Society where “police/arbitrators” walk around without weapons and yet they can still uphold the liberties of all citizens, this is such a amazingly wonderful thing. I would greatly appreciate you teaching me how it is possible for coercive-less agents to uphold the “liberties” of people. If this is possible we would no longer need weapons ! We could all leave in harmony knowing that there are coercive-less "police/arbitrators" to resolve any disputes within our community. And are you saying that Mr Gross had a dummy gun?

I need a job!!!!

Justice Dragons: http://forum.bitcoin.org/index.php?topic=16351.msg267881#msg267881

Help me buy deodorant!!! 17bmVSoD8QNBLaPDRAXkFdapBPdgA72YjB
myrkul
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 532
Merit: 500


FIAT LIBERTAS RVAT CAELVM


View Profile WWW
June 22, 2011, 03:36:00 AM
 #71

I'll use little words so you won't get confused.

The arbitrators are not police. They do not have the ability or authority to arrest, any more than the average person on the street.

They resolve disputes. That. Is. All. They. Do.

If it helps your public-school stunted mind to wrap around the concept, you may think of them as lawyers.

The reason they don't have any special coercive powers is because... and get ready for this, it's a shocker... Everyone can have weapons. Nobody's disarmed, so nobody's powerless. The weapons are for defense. I do not pretend that all violence would be eradicated, So of course people would need to defend themselves against possible theft attempts, rape, murder, etc.

There would likely be defense agencies, as well. People specifically hired to defend geographical areas, persons, or buildings. These are the people you are conflating with arbitrators in your unfounded, unresearched screed. Defense agencies are not armies, nor are they police forces. They do not conquest, they do not oppress. They defend. Use of coercive force would not be justifiable without the cloak of legitimacy that 'government' gives.

I admit, I used a few big words. If you'd like to know what they mean, just ask.

BTC1MYRkuLv4XPBa6bGnYAronz55grPAGcxja
Need Dispute resolution? Public Key ID: 0x11D341CF
No person has the right to initiate force, threat of force, or fraud against another person or their property. VIM VI REPELLERE LICET
smellyBobby
Member
**
Offline Offline

Activity: 112
Merit: 10


View Profile
June 22, 2011, 04:24:23 AM
 #72

Thankyou for being so patient with me I am dwarfed by your omniscience. I must admit I am having trouble understanding concepts such as coercive-less “police/arbitrators/lawyers” that uphold the liberties of all people.

But now everyone is going to have guns? Can my gun be bigger than yours? Am I allowed to carry around a rocket launcher if you have one? Well I don’t feel to safe so am I allowed to drive around in a tank because everyone has rocket launchers?  What about a mini-nuclear rocket launcher? So does that mean everyone else will have a tank too? And I’m guessing we must all have the same weapon otherwise if your weapon is better than mine you could take my wallet? That sounds pretty cool we can all drive around in tanks. But we must all obey the golden rule: we are all only allowed to use them for self-defence.

So if we all walk around with guns, rocket-launchers and tanks and only use them for self-defense then the coercive-less “police/arbitrators/lawyers” will not need weapons. Ahhh I see this makes so much sense! So this is what we all have to do in order to make sure we all obey each others contract. What about if my evil brother’s rocket launcher is better than yours and he wants your wallet?

And now there are geographic defense agencies aswell? Wow there is so much to learn, so many things to make this work. One day I hope to be just as intelligent as you.

So these geographic defense agencies obviously have weapons so they can defend the area. But we can’t call them an army or police force, what about a defense force? Would they be like the Australian Defense Force? And they would also obey the golden rule and not attack people within the geographic area, steal from other territories

So to enforce these contracts that you initially mentioned, we are going to need

              -Coercive-less “police/arbitrators/lawyers”.

              -Everyone will need to have weapons possibly we all get tanks, that would be fun!

              -And we need a geographic defense agency, but it’s not an army or police force and we have to pay for it, but its not a tax.

Wow this society sounds so different from the one I currently live in maybe we should have a revolution!?

I need a job!!!!

Justice Dragons: http://forum.bitcoin.org/index.php?topic=16351.msg267881#msg267881

Help me buy deodorant!!! 17bmVSoD8QNBLaPDRAXkFdapBPdgA72YjB
myrkul
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 532
Merit: 500


FIAT LIBERTAS RVAT CAELVM


View Profile WWW
June 22, 2011, 04:27:16 AM
 #73

 Roll Eyes You're wasting my time. Troll elsewhere.

BTC1MYRkuLv4XPBa6bGnYAronz55grPAGcxja
Need Dispute resolution? Public Key ID: 0x11D341CF
No person has the right to initiate force, threat of force, or fraud against another person or their property. VIM VI REPELLERE LICET
smellyBobby
Member
**
Offline Offline

Activity: 112
Merit: 10


View Profile
June 23, 2011, 03:07:09 AM
Last edit: June 24, 2011, 08:15:18 AM by smellyBobby
 #74

I want share a story with you. I hope it makes sense, I was a boy when I was first told this story so hopefully it will make sense to you.

The Story of Justice Dragons.

When I was a boy, an older person in my community shared a story with a group of children about Justice Dragons. They said Justice Dragons have amazing abilities. They can be in multiple places at once, they can be invisible, control people and their duty is to maintain Justice in the community and protect the community from the environment. They said Justice Dragons come from people. When people gather, without knowing it they combine some of their life energy and a Justice Dragon is created. The bigger the group the more powerful a Justice Dragon is. Justice Dragons are always created when people gather.

They said that although Justice Dragons are initially created for good, they can become evil. Instead of protecting the community they can harm and hurt the community. Also when meeting other people you must always be aware of their Justice Dragon. Their Justice Dragon is shaped by their community and what their community values. Sometimes outside Justice Dragons are good and they can help your community, sometimes they are bad and will take from your community.

So when people come together and create their Justice Dragon, they must always make sure that their Justice Dragon is adhering to the communities principles. As the community grows more powerful so will their Justice Dragon and therefore so will the need to watch and check their Justice Dragon.

They said that many communities have forgotten about this golden rule. They have forgotten to watch and train their Justice Dragon and consequently their Justice Dragon is now hurting their community and other outside communities. They have forgotten to teach their children about Justice Dragons and now the children are blind to Justice Dragons, and forget that when-ever people gather there will always be Justice Dragons.

And there are those who think that all Justice Dragons are evil and harm the community. But they forget that to destroy Justice Dragons you must destroy communities. They forget that even if they destroy the Justice Dragon, new Justice Dragons will come from the communities that follow. They forget that when people gather, they must train, watch, and punish their Justice Dragon. They must be aware of their Justice Dragon and never forget that it is always there and needs to be watched.

I need a job!!!!

Justice Dragons: http://forum.bitcoin.org/index.php?topic=16351.msg267881#msg267881

Help me buy deodorant!!! 17bmVSoD8QNBLaPDRAXkFdapBPdgA72YjB
em3rgentOrdr
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 434
Merit: 251


youtube.com/ericfontainejazz now accepts bitcoin


View Profile WWW
June 24, 2011, 07:37:40 AM
 #75

I want share a story with you. I hope it makes sense, I was a boy when I was first told this story so hopefully it will make sense to you.

The Story of Justice Dragons.

When I was a boy, an older person in my community shared a story with a group of children about Justice Dragons. They said Justice Dragons have amazing abilities. They can be in multiple places at once, they can be invisible, control people and their duty is to maintain Justice in the community and protect the community from the environment. They said Justice Dragons come from people. When people gather, without knowing it they combine some of their life energy and a Justice Dragon is created. The bigger the group the more powerful a Justice Dragon is. Justice Dragons are always created when people gather.

They said that although Justice Dragons are initially created for good, they can become evil. Instead of protecting the community they can harm and hurt the community. Also when meeting other people you must always be aware of their Justice Dragon. Their Justice Dragon is shaped by their community and what their community values. Sometimes outside Justice Dragons are good and they can help your community, sometimes they are bad and will take from your community.

So when people come together and create their Justice Dragon, they must always make sure that their Justice Dragon is adhering to the communities principles. As the community grows more powerful so will their Justice Dragon and therefore so will the need to watch and check their Justice Dragon.

They said that many communities have forgotten about this golden rule. They have forgotten to watch and train their Justice Dragon and consequently their Justice Dragon is now hurting their community and other outside communities. They have forgotten to teach their children about Justice Dragons and now the children are blind to Justice Dragons, and forget that when-ever people gather there will always be Justice Dragons.

And there are those who think that Justice Dragons are evil and harm the community. But they forget that to destroy Justice Dragons you must destroy communities. They forget that even if they destroy the Justice Dragon, new Justice Dragons will come from the communities that follow. They forget that when people gather, they must train, watch, and punish their Justice Dragon. They must be aware of their Justice Dragon and never forget that it is always there and needs to be watched.

What is the tl;dr summary?

"We will not find a solution to political problems in cryptography, but we can win a major battle in the arms race and gain a new territory of freedom for several years.

Governments are good at cutting off the heads of a centrally controlled networks, but pure P2P networks are holding their own."
myrkul
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 532
Merit: 500


FIAT LIBERTAS RVAT CAELVM


View Profile WWW
June 24, 2011, 07:42:07 AM
 #76


tl;dr: Trololol.

BTC1MYRkuLv4XPBa6bGnYAronz55grPAGcxja
Need Dispute resolution? Public Key ID: 0x11D341CF
No person has the right to initiate force, threat of force, or fraud against another person or their property. VIM VI REPELLERE LICET
smellyBobby
Member
**
Offline Offline

Activity: 112
Merit: 10


View Profile
June 24, 2011, 07:46:43 AM
 #77

It is a new religion Smiley .

I need a job!!!!

Justice Dragons: http://forum.bitcoin.org/index.php?topic=16351.msg267881#msg267881

Help me buy deodorant!!! 17bmVSoD8QNBLaPDRAXkFdapBPdgA72YjB
The Script
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 336
Merit: 250


View Profile
June 24, 2011, 07:47:13 AM
 #78

It's not that long of a post guys...   Roll Eyes

Basically my interpretation is that governments (Justice Dragons) arise spontaneously from within communities and are so interconnected to them that destroying the government will destroy the community. It is the communities responsibility to keep watch so the government doesn't turn evil.

It's our fault governments are evil because we created them.

Is that a good summary, smellybobby?   Smiley
smellyBobby
Member
**
Offline Offline

Activity: 112
Merit: 10


View Profile
June 24, 2011, 07:50:59 AM
 #79

Yea basically. You should teach your kids Tongue . Tell them to watch the police, watch the army, watch the government. THEY MUST WATCH Smiley Remember dragons breath fire.

I need a job!!!!

Justice Dragons: http://forum.bitcoin.org/index.php?topic=16351.msg267881#msg267881

Help me buy deodorant!!! 17bmVSoD8QNBLaPDRAXkFdapBPdgA72YjB
The Script
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 336
Merit: 250


View Profile
June 24, 2011, 07:55:34 AM
 #80

Yea basically. You should teach your kids Tongue . Tell them to watch the police, watch the army, watch the government. THEY MUST WATCH Smiley Remember dragons breath fire.

Damn, your fast.  Smiley. I'm furiously tapping away on my iPad to keep up, but don't how much longer I'll be motivated to do so. 

See, I will teach my kids that we don't need Justice Dragons.  I will teach them it is better to live in a society where people take responsibility for actions and seek to resolve issues through arbitration and dispute resolution, rather than have to always be on guard so you don't get devoured by a blood-thirsty dragon.
smellyBobby
Member
**
Offline Offline

Activity: 112
Merit: 10


View Profile
June 24, 2011, 07:57:07 AM
 #81

I guess that is what makes us different. Justice Dragons will always exist as long as there are communities.

I need a job!!!!

Justice Dragons: http://forum.bitcoin.org/index.php?topic=16351.msg267881#msg267881

Help me buy deodorant!!! 17bmVSoD8QNBLaPDRAXkFdapBPdgA72YjB
em3rgentOrdr
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 434
Merit: 251


youtube.com/ericfontainejazz now accepts bitcoin


View Profile WWW
June 24, 2011, 07:57:32 AM
 #82

Yea basically. You should teach your kids Tongue . Tell them to watch the police, watch the army, watch the government. THEY MUST WATCH Smiley Remember dragons breath fire.

http://www.copblock.org/

I'm watching the police, army, and government.  Nothing much effect, though. Embarrassed  How about instead of watching these nasty dragons, we simply terminate them?

"We will not find a solution to political problems in cryptography, but we can win a major battle in the arms race and gain a new territory of freedom for several years.

Governments are good at cutting off the heads of a centrally controlled networks, but pure P2P networks are holding their own."
smellyBobby
Member
**
Offline Offline

Activity: 112
Merit: 10


View Profile
June 24, 2011, 07:59:54 AM
 #83

Like I said I believe Justice Dragons will always exist as long as there are human communities. They are a result of human interaction.

I need a job!!!!

Justice Dragons: http://forum.bitcoin.org/index.php?topic=16351.msg267881#msg267881

Help me buy deodorant!!! 17bmVSoD8QNBLaPDRAXkFdapBPdgA72YjB
The Script
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 336
Merit: 250


View Profile
June 24, 2011, 08:04:26 AM
 #84

Like I said I believe Justice Dragons will always exist as long as there are human communities. They are a result of human interaction.

You may be right, but I hope not. I want to believe that humans can do better than having a lurking beast always waiting to destroy and dominate them.  Sad

Anyway, we've reached the point of basic premises and disagree, but thanks for the discussion. Cheers.
smellyBobby
Member
**
Offline Offline

Activity: 112
Merit: 10


View Profile
June 24, 2011, 08:05:38 AM
 #85

Smiley

I need a job!!!!

Justice Dragons: http://forum.bitcoin.org/index.php?topic=16351.msg267881#msg267881

Help me buy deodorant!!! 17bmVSoD8QNBLaPDRAXkFdapBPdgA72YjB
Atom
Member
**
Offline Offline

Activity: 70
Merit: 10

"Basics Of Generational Dynamics" - Look it up!


View Profile WWW
June 24, 2011, 08:05:42 AM
 #86

I became aware that things were not as they seemed as one goes bankrupt - Very slowly at first, and then all at once.   I've now gone from voting for Barack Obama (but only because McCain sold out past-me thought) to watching lectures on anarcho-capitalist societal models for fun.

I've got my popcorn and fedora, excited we get to watch the world change over the next few years.

BitTalk
with Atlas & Atom
A Show for the Bitcoin Universe, Fresh Episodes Weekly!
Episode 3 out now at BitTalk.tv

Liked this weeks episode of BitTalk?  Send us your 2¢ (.02BTC) 
13RVBjpo3xLeDBkB2NM64N8sWK4fariZUu
em3rgentOrdr
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 434
Merit: 251


youtube.com/ericfontainejazz now accepts bitcoin


View Profile WWW
June 24, 2011, 08:06:59 AM
 #87

Like I said I believe Justice Dragons will always exist as long as there are human communities. They are a result of human interaction.

Makes more sense to just strike the root.  http://strike-the-root.com/

How about hiring some private competing Justice Dragons to protect us from neighboring Justice Dragons?

"We will not find a solution to political problems in cryptography, but we can win a major battle in the arms race and gain a new territory of freedom for several years.

Governments are good at cutting off the heads of a centrally controlled networks, but pure P2P networks are holding their own."
em3rgentOrdr
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 434
Merit: 251


youtube.com/ericfontainejazz now accepts bitcoin


View Profile WWW
June 24, 2011, 08:08:04 AM
Last edit: June 24, 2011, 03:11:14 PM by em3rgentOrdr
 #88

I became aware that things were not as they seemed as one goes bankrupt - Very slowly at first, and then all at once.   I've now gone from voting for Barack Obama (but only because McCain sold out past-me thought) to watching lectures on anarcho-capitalist societal models for fun.

I've got my popcorn and fedora, excited we get to watch the world change over the next few years.

Welcome to the journey, my friend.  Many of us have gone through the same path as you.

"We will not find a solution to political problems in cryptography, but we can win a major battle in the arms race and gain a new territory of freedom for several years.

Governments are good at cutting off the heads of a centrally controlled networks, but pure P2P networks are holding their own."
The Script
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 336
Merit: 250


View Profile
June 24, 2011, 08:13:09 AM
 #89

+1 to both of emergent's last posts Cheesy

edit: Wait, that would be +2 then, right? Math....  Tongue

dannickherpderp
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 33
Merit: 0


View Profile
June 24, 2011, 03:54:07 PM
 #90

Once upon a time I was a social democrat.  I believed in making programs to help the less fortunate because I believed the "system" in place inherently kept them down.  This system was a collection of private corporations and greedy individuals who did not care for those below them.  I believed that drugs were a harmful evil inflicted on society and should be stopped.  I believe a whole lot of things in which I believed there was moral backing for them, but these beliefs were founded entirely on emotional response and I had no real educational backing behind them but I fundamentally felt that it was the duty of the strong to protect the weak and the duty of the wealthy to protect the poor.

I began to get into debates with a friend of mine on facebook who is quite forcefully Anarchist-Capitalist and at the same time Ron Paul began to get a bit of press during the 2008 republican primaries.  I read a book called Economics in One lesson.  From then I began to see that the government caused more problems than it solved and while I still believe it is the duty of the strong to protect the weak the question is now should they be FORCED to do it against their will?

I now answer emphatically NO.

I now self-identify as a libertarian.  I believe a free market in all goods is the best way to ensure prosperity because of my academic study on the matter, not because of some emotional reaction.  I read works by Friedman, Von Mises, Hazlitt, Hayek and Ron Paul.  I even read the arguments by Keyenes and his ilk and found I disagreed with it.  And that leads me where I am today, a lone libertarian in California, where most people only think there are two schools of political thought:  Democrat and Republican.
freespirit
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Activity: 183
Merit: 100


View Profile
June 24, 2011, 04:07:15 PM
 #91

I've evolved to agree with Ayn Rand:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s1RxKW-P5V8
Quote
I object to the idea that people have the right to vote on everything. The traditional American system was a system based on the idea that majority will prevail only in public or political affairs; and that it was limited by inalienable individual rights. Therefore I do not believe that a majority can vote a man's life or property or freedom away from him. Therefore I do not believe that if a majority votes on any issue that this makes the issue right. It doesn't.

To those who are concerned with American GOP's obscurantism, she also spoke of this back in 1961: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oTf6NK0wsiA
The Script
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 336
Merit: 250


View Profile
June 24, 2011, 06:26:09 PM
 #92

Once upon a time I was a social democrat.  I believed in making programs to help the less fortunate because I believed the "system" in place inherently kept them down.  This system was a collection of private corporations and greedy individuals who did not care for those below them.  I believed that drugs were a harmful evil inflicted on society and should be stopped.  I believe a whole lot of things in which I believed there was moral backing for them, but these beliefs were founded entirely on emotional response and I had no real educational backing behind them but I fundamentally felt that it was the duty of the strong to protect the weak and the duty of the wealthy to protect the poor.

I began to get into debates with a friend of mine on facebook who is quite forcefully Anarchist-Capitalist and at the same time Ron Paul began to get a bit of press during the 2008 republican primaries.  I read a book called Economics in One lesson.  From then I began to see that the government caused more problems than it solved and while I still believe it is the duty of the strong to protect the weak the question is now should they be FORCED to do it against their will?

I now answer emphatically NO.

I now self-identify as a libertarian.  I believe a free market in all goods is the best way to ensure prosperity because of my academic study on the matter, not because of some emotional reaction.  I read works by Friedman, Von Mises, Hazlitt, Hayek and Ron Paul.  I even read the arguments by Keyenes and his ilk and found I disagreed with it.  And that leads me where I am today, a lone libertarian in California, where most people only think there are two schools of political thought:  Democrat and Republican.

People like you are my heroes.  Stay strong, my friend.
em3rgentOrdr
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 434
Merit: 251


youtube.com/ericfontainejazz now accepts bitcoin


View Profile WWW
June 24, 2011, 07:18:41 PM
 #93

Once upon a time I was a social democrat.  I believed in making programs to help the less fortunate because I believed the "system" in place inherently kept them down.  This system was a collection of private corporations and greedy individuals who did not care for those below them.

...

I began to get into debates with a friend of mine on facebook who is quite forcefully Anarchist-Capitalist and at the same time Ron Paul began to get a bit of press during the 2008 republican primaries.  I read a book called Economics in One lesson.  From then I began to see that the government caused more problems than it solved and while I still believe it is the duty of the strong to protect the weak the question is now should they be FORCED to do it against their will?

I now answer emphatically NO.

I now self-identify as a libertarian...

Congratulations.  I once had self-identified as a "social democrat" as well.  Every time I discover a new convert to "libertarianism" such as yourself, I feel hope for the future of humanity.

"We will not find a solution to political problems in cryptography, but we can win a major battle in the arms race and gain a new territory of freedom for several years.

Governments are good at cutting off the heads of a centrally controlled networks, but pure P2P networks are holding their own."
myrkul
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 532
Merit: 500


FIAT LIBERTAS RVAT CAELVM


View Profile WWW
June 24, 2011, 07:32:27 PM
 #94

I now self-identify as a libertarian.  I believe a free market in all goods is the best way to ensure prosperity because of my academic study on the matter, not because of some emotional reaction.  I read works by Friedman, Von Mises, Hazlitt, Hayek and Ron Paul.  I even read the arguments by
Keyenes and his ilk and found I disagreed with it.  And that leads me where I am today, a lone libertarian in California, where most people only think there are two schools of political thought:  Democrat and Republican.

Keep fighting the good fight. When it gets to be too much, there's always New Hampshire.

BTC1MYRkuLv4XPBa6bGnYAronz55grPAGcxja
Need Dispute resolution? Public Key ID: 0x11D341CF
No person has the right to initiate force, threat of force, or fraud against another person or their property. VIM VI REPELLERE LICET
dannickherpderp
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 33
Merit: 0


View Profile
June 24, 2011, 07:36:25 PM
 #95

Once upon a time I was a social democrat.  I believed in making programs to help the less fortunate because I believed the "system" in place inherently kept them down.  This system was a collection of private corporations and greedy individuals who did not care for those below them.  I believed that drugs were a harmful evil inflicted on society and should be stopped.  I believe a whole lot of things in which I believed there was moral backing for them, but these beliefs were founded entirely on emotional response and I had no real educational backing behind them but I fundamentally felt that it was the duty of the strong to protect the weak and the duty of the wealthy to protect the poor.

I began to get into debates with a friend of mine on facebook who is quite forcefully Anarchist-Capitalist and at the same time Ron Paul began to get a bit of press during the 2008 republican primaries.  I read a book called Economics in One lesson.  From then I began to see that the government caused more problems than it solved and while I still believe it is the duty of the strong to protect the weak the question is now should they be FORCED to do it against their will?

I now answer emphatically NO.

I now self-identify as a libertarian.  I believe a free market in all goods is the best way to ensure prosperity because of my academic study on the matter, not because of some emotional reaction.  I read works by Friedman, Von Mises, Hazlitt, Hayek and Ron Paul.  I even read the arguments by Keyenes and his ilk and found I disagreed with it.  And that leads me where I am today, a lone libertarian in California, where most people only think there are two schools of political thought:  Democrat and Republican.

People like you are my heroes.  Stay strong, my friend.

Maybe you could kick a few bitcoins my way for being so heroic!  I'll put my wallet in my sig when I get home LOL
Babylon
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 938
Merit: 500

CryptoTalk.Org - Get Paid for every Post!


View Profile
June 25, 2011, 12:01:43 AM
 #96

My parents were hard core liberal progressives.  I turned to libertarian capitalism as a teenager, due to reading a lot of science fiction.  After growing up and actually interacting with the real world this has evolved into libertarian socialism  (also known as Anarcho-Syndicalism)

 
                                . ██████████.
                              .████████████████.
                           .██████████████████████.
                        -█████████████████████████████
                     .██████████████████████████████████.
                  -█████████████████████████████████████████
               -███████████████████████████████████████████████
           .-█████████████████████████████████████████████████████.
        .████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████
       .██████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████.
       .██████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████.
       ..████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████..
       .   .██████████████████████████████████████████████████████.
       .      .████████████████████████████████████████████████.

       .       .██████████████████████████████████████████████
       .    ██████████████████████████████████████████████████████
       .█████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████.
        .███████████████████████████████████████████████████████████
           .█████████████████████████████████████████████████████
              .████████████████████████████████████████████████
                   ████████████████████████████████████████
                      ██████████████████████████████████
                          ██████████████████████████
                             ████████████████████
                               ████████████████
                                   █████████
.CryptoTalk.org.|.MAKE POSTS AND EARN BTC!.🏆
myrkul
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 532
Merit: 500


FIAT LIBERTAS RVAT CAELVM


View Profile WWW
June 25, 2011, 12:14:21 AM
 #97

My parents were hard core liberal progressives.  I turned to libertarian capitalism as a teenager, due to reading a lot of science fiction.  After growing up and actually interacting with the real world this has evolved into libertarian socialism  (also known as Anarcho-Syndicalism)

I would be interested in hearing about your transition from AnCap to AnSyn. It's certain to be enlightening.

BTC1MYRkuLv4XPBa6bGnYAronz55grPAGcxja
Need Dispute resolution? Public Key ID: 0x11D341CF
No person has the right to initiate force, threat of force, or fraud against another person or their property. VIM VI REPELLERE LICET
em3rgentOrdr
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 434
Merit: 251


youtube.com/ericfontainejazz now accepts bitcoin


View Profile WWW
June 25, 2011, 12:18:12 AM
 #98

My parents were hard core liberal progressives.  I turned to libertarian capitalism as a teenager, due to reading a lot of science fiction.  After growing up and actually interacting with the real world this has evolved into libertarian socialism  (also known as Anarcho-Syndicalism)

I would be interested in hearing about your transition from AnCap to AnSyn. It's certain to be enlightening.

Actually I used to identify as an Anarcho-Capitalist.  But since about 2 years, I have dropped that label.  Now I consider myself a "Pragmatic Agorist/Voluntaryist", since I no longer see capitalistic businesses or social arrangements as necessarily always the best.  I'm perfectly happy with many forms of Voluntary Communism or Syndicalism, provided there is no coercion and all relevant parties consent.

"We will not find a solution to political problems in cryptography, but we can win a major battle in the arms race and gain a new territory of freedom for several years.

Governments are good at cutting off the heads of a centrally controlled networks, but pure P2P networks are holding their own."
chessdragon
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 28
Merit: 0


View Profile
June 25, 2011, 12:22:24 AM
 #99

Sorry, but I'm not naive enough to think there's any universal system of government or human interaction which will achieve any optimization of overall human morale or happiness. If you start thinking as a fundamentalist you're blinding yourself to reality.

Humans are inclined towards freedom and security. How they choose to implement those elements in government or society changes; I think it's particularly foolish to assert with much conviction that you believe you know the best civil system.
em3rgentOrdr
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 434
Merit: 251


youtube.com/ericfontainejazz now accepts bitcoin


View Profile WWW
June 25, 2011, 12:30:30 AM
 #100

Sorry, but I'm not naive enough to think there's any universal system of government or human interaction which will achieve any optimization of overall human morale or happiness. If you start thinking as a fundamentalist you're blinding yourself to reality.

Humans are inclined towards freedom and security. How they choose to implement those elements in government or society changes; I think it's particularly foolish to assert with much conviction that you believe you know the best civil system.

+1.  Yeah, that is one of the main reasons I became an anarchist.  Too many aspiring politicians out there who think they can implement the perfect system.

"We will not find a solution to political problems in cryptography, but we can win a major battle in the arms race and gain a new territory of freedom for several years.

Governments are good at cutting off the heads of a centrally controlled networks, but pure P2P networks are holding their own."
billyjoeallen
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1106
Merit: 1007


Hide your women


View Profile WWW
June 26, 2011, 02:00:35 AM
 #101

A market anarchist is simply an anti-monopolist when it comes to governance, violence, and dispute resolution.

An anarcho-capitalist is a market anarchist that understands economics. The term would also apply to entrepreneurs in a Stateless society.

Anarchy is a big tent. There's plenty of room for difference of opinion. Even the Non-Agression Principle can be interpreted and applied in different ways, especially if the definition of "property" varies.

insert coin here:
Dash XfXZL8WL18zzNhaAqWqEziX2bUvyJbrC8s



1Ctd7Na8qE7btyueEshAJF5C7ZqFWH11Wc
J180
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Activity: 121
Merit: 100


View Profile
June 26, 2011, 09:32:24 PM
 #102

My parents were hard core liberal progressives.  I turned to libertarian capitalism as a teenager, due to reading a lot of science fiction.  After growing up and actually interacting with the real world this has evolved into libertarian socialism  (also known as Anarcho-Syndicalism)

I would be interested in hearing about your transition from AnCap to AnSyn. It's certain to be enlightening.

Actually I used to identify as an Anarcho-Capitalist.  But since about 2 years, I have dropped that label.  Now I consider myself a "Pragmatic Agorist/Voluntaryist", since I no longer see capitalistic businesses or social arrangements as necessarily always the best.  I'm perfectly happy with many forms of Voluntary Communism or Syndicalism, provided there is no coercion and all relevant parties consent.

I'm curious about that since once of the arguments I read from Anarcho-Capitalists is that Anacho-Syndicalism could exist inside their society, but not the other way around. E.g. Under AC you just need to get a group of people interested, buy the right property and live inside your own commune. It could even trade with outsiders.  While if a group of capitalists did this in an AS society, then their production would necessarily have to be taxed and redistributed.

If that's true, isn't Anarchocapitalism the best of both worlds?
em3rgentOrdr
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 434
Merit: 251


youtube.com/ericfontainejazz now accepts bitcoin


View Profile WWW
June 26, 2011, 09:49:20 PM
 #103

My parents were hard core liberal progressives.  I turned to libertarian capitalism as a teenager, due to reading a lot of science fiction.  After growing up and actually interacting with the real world this has evolved into libertarian socialism  (also known as Anarcho-Syndicalism)

I would be interested in hearing about your transition from AnCap to AnSyn. It's certain to be enlightening.

Actually I used to identify as an Anarcho-Capitalist.  But since about 2 years, I have dropped that label.  Now I consider myself a "Pragmatic Agorist/Voluntaryist", since I no longer see capitalistic businesses or social arrangements as necessarily always the best.  I'm perfectly happy with many forms of Voluntary Communism or Syndicalism, provided there is no coercion and all relevant parties consent.

I'm curious about that since once of the arguments I read from Anarcho-Capitalists is that Anacho-Syndicalism could exist inside their society, but not the other way around. E.g. Under AC you just need to get a group of people interested, buy the right property and live inside your own commune. It could even trade with outsiders.  While if a group of capitalists did this in an AS society, then their production would necessarily have to be taxed and redistributed.

If that's true, isn't Anarchocapitalism the best of both worlds?

You're exactly right.  Anarcho-Syndicalism is perfectly permitted to exist within an Anarcho-Capitalist society, but not the other way around.  The anarcho-syndicalists don't even necessarily have to purchase the property in an anarcho-capitalist society provided that they legitimately homesteaded it or otherwise voluntarily obtained ownership of their commune.  But since "Anarcho-Capitialsim" is such a scary word to the uninitiated, I prefer to instead just say "Voluntaryism", since it has a much more positive connotation and doesn't specifically favor one particular economic arrangement over another, provided it is voluntary.

"We will not find a solution to political problems in cryptography, but we can win a major battle in the arms race and gain a new territory of freedom for several years.

Governments are good at cutting off the heads of a centrally controlled networks, but pure P2P networks are holding their own."
Babylon
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 938
Merit: 500

CryptoTalk.Org - Get Paid for every Post!


View Profile
June 27, 2011, 07:06:11 PM
 #104

My parents were hard core liberal progressives.  I turned to libertarian capitalism as a teenager, due to reading a lot of science fiction.  After growing up and actually interacting with the real world this has evolved into libertarian socialism  (also known as Anarcho-Syndicalism)

I would be interested in hearing about your transition from AnCap to AnSyn. It's certain to be enlightening.

It's been due partly to interactions with Anarchists, the ones that were actually out there doing things, trying to reshape the world have been mostly AnSyn.  Creating Bitcoin being the notable exception (I think Satoshi is an AnCap, not certain about that) A lot of it has also been due to my interactions with bosses.  These guys are usually incompetent, and almost always petty tyrants of one sort or another, I can't be in favor of a system where they all own their own little feudal manors and we all bow down to them.  I can't imagine that the people would tolerate this.

 
                                . ██████████.
                              .████████████████.
                           .██████████████████████.
                        -█████████████████████████████
                     .██████████████████████████████████.
                  -█████████████████████████████████████████
               -███████████████████████████████████████████████
           .-█████████████████████████████████████████████████████.
        .████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████
       .██████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████.
       .██████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████.
       ..████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████..
       .   .██████████████████████████████████████████████████████.
       .      .████████████████████████████████████████████████.

       .       .██████████████████████████████████████████████
       .    ██████████████████████████████████████████████████████
       .█████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████.
        .███████████████████████████████████████████████████████████
           .█████████████████████████████████████████████████████
              .████████████████████████████████████████████████
                   ████████████████████████████████████████
                      ██████████████████████████████████
                          ██████████████████████████
                             ████████████████████
                               ████████████████
                                   █████████
.CryptoTalk.org.|.MAKE POSTS AND EARN BTC!.🏆
Babylon
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 938
Merit: 500

CryptoTalk.Org - Get Paid for every Post!


View Profile
June 27, 2011, 07:09:19 PM
 #105

My parents were hard core liberal progressives.  I turned to libertarian capitalism as a teenager, due to reading a lot of science fiction.  After growing up and actually interacting with the real world this has evolved into libertarian socialism  (also known as Anarcho-Syndicalism)

I would be interested in hearing about your transition from AnCap to AnSyn. It's certain to be enlightening.

Actually I used to identify as an Anarcho-Capitalist.  But since about 2 years, I have dropped that label.  Now I consider myself a "Pragmatic Agorist/Voluntaryist", since I no longer see capitalistic businesses or social arrangements as necessarily always the best.  I'm perfectly happy with many forms of Voluntary Communism or Syndicalism, provided there is no coercion and all relevant parties consent.

I'm curious about that since once of the arguments I read from Anarcho-Capitalists is that Anacho-Syndicalism could exist inside their society, but not the other way around. E.g. Under AC you just need to get a group of people interested, buy the right property and live inside your own commune. It could even trade with outsiders.  While if a group of capitalists did this in an AS society, then their production would necessarily have to be taxed and redistributed.

If that's true, isn't Anarchocapitalism the best of both worlds?

in an Anarchist society of any sort there is no central authority to tax and redistribute production, so the AnCaps would not be taxed and redistributed.

in an AnSyn society if people really wished to be exploited by a capitalist they would be free to do so, meanwhile in AnCap society the resources are all already "owned" so formation of a syndicalist commune is not really possible.

I don't expect society as a whole to be syndicalist or capitalist in nature,  I just hope or it to be Anarchist and allow the capitalists, syndicalists and other sorts to form their own smaler soceities within the larger framework.

 
                                . ██████████.
                              .████████████████.
                           .██████████████████████.
                        -█████████████████████████████
                     .██████████████████████████████████.
                  -█████████████████████████████████████████
               -███████████████████████████████████████████████
           .-█████████████████████████████████████████████████████.
        .████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████
       .██████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████.
       .██████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████.
       ..████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████..
       .   .██████████████████████████████████████████████████████.
       .      .████████████████████████████████████████████████.

       .       .██████████████████████████████████████████████
       .    ██████████████████████████████████████████████████████
       .█████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████.
        .███████████████████████████████████████████████████████████
           .█████████████████████████████████████████████████████
              .████████████████████████████████████████████████
                   ████████████████████████████████████████
                      ██████████████████████████████████
                          ██████████████████████████
                             ████████████████████
                               ████████████████
                                   █████████
.CryptoTalk.org.|.MAKE POSTS AND EARN BTC!.🏆
BitterTea
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 294
Merit: 250



View Profile
June 27, 2011, 07:38:51 PM
 #106

in an Anarchist society of any sort there is no central authority to tax and redistribute production, so the AnCaps would not be taxed and redistributed.

in an AnSyn society if people really wished to be exploited by a capitalist they would be free to do so, meanwhile in AnCap society the resources are all already "owned" so formation of a syndicalist commune is not really possible.

I don't expect society as a whole to be syndicalist or capitalist in nature,  I just hope or it to be Anarchist and allow the capitalists, syndicalists and other sorts to form their own smaler soceities within the larger framework.

I appreciate this point of view and hope that there are more Anarchists that share it than one would infer from reading http://reddit.com/r/anarchism Smiley

I label myself a voluntaryist now, as both anarchist and capitalist have too much emotional baggage. I think that given an anarchist environment, many varied methods of meeting human demands will flourish. Perhaps one will be shown through practice to be vastly superior to all others and voluntarily adopted by a majority, but I doubt it will be the case as long as we have differing goals and values.

In a fairly short period of time I transitioned from a political apathist, to self identified liberal (valued social over economic freedom), to a minarchist (realizing that economic freedom was just important), to an anarchist (realizing that over a long enough period of time, governments cannot in theory or practice protect freedom).
myrkul
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 532
Merit: 500


FIAT LIBERTAS RVAT CAELVM


View Profile WWW
June 27, 2011, 08:05:33 PM
 #107

My parents were hard core liberal progressives.  I turned to libertarian capitalism as a teenager, due to reading a lot of science fiction.  After growing up and actually interacting with the real world this has evolved into libertarian socialism  (also known as Anarcho-Syndicalism)

I would be interested in hearing about your transition from AnCap to AnSyn. It's certain to be enlightening.

It's been due partly to interactions with Anarchists, the ones that were actually out there doing things, trying to reshape the world have been mostly AnSyn.  Creating Bitcoin being the notable exception (I think Satoshi is an AnCap, not certain about that) A lot of it has also been due to my interactions with bosses.  These guys are usually incompetent, and almost always petty tyrants of one sort or another, I can't be in favor of a system where they all own their own little feudal manors and we all bow down to them.  I can't imagine that the people would tolerate this.

TBH, Neither do I. That's why I'm not worried. Bosses can indeed be pricks. I expect market competition to do away with them just as any negative market factor.

I usually identify myself to non-anarchists as a Voluntarist, and AnCap to other anarchists. Voluntarist neatly escapes all that baggage BitterTea mentioned, and it's a lot harder to Co-opt.

BTC1MYRkuLv4XPBa6bGnYAronz55grPAGcxja
Need Dispute resolution? Public Key ID: 0x11D341CF
No person has the right to initiate force, threat of force, or fraud against another person or their property. VIM VI REPELLERE LICET
J180
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Activity: 121
Merit: 100


View Profile
June 27, 2011, 11:20:16 PM
 #108

in an Anarchist society of any sort there is no central authority to tax and redistribute production, so the AnCaps would not be taxed and redistributed.

in an AnSyn society if people really wished to be exploited by a capitalist they would be free to do so, meanwhile in AnCap society the resources are all already "owned" so formation of a syndicalist commune is not really possible.

I don't expect society as a whole to be syndicalist or capitalist in nature,  I just hope or it to be Anarchist and allow the capitalists, syndicalists and other sorts to form their own smaler soceities within the larger framework.

I think your being unreasonable going from "resources are all already owned" to "forming a commune not possible". You would have to buy the land first indeed, but I don't think that deserves the title of 'impossible'. Land isn't very expensive, especially when a group of people put their money together. Even if you want to take over a pre-existing company, the employees would only need to save up for maybe 6 months or a year to buy it. If you contest that I'm willing to try the number crunching to work it out.

Other then that I don't think your society is that bad. I would argue that the 'capitalist' societies would end up being more efficient, and thus end up being predominate. But the beauty of this system is that we could agree on reaching it for different reasons (i.e. while disagreeing on how it would it turn out).

My main issue with AnSyn would be if the capitalist group didn't have private property, i.e that they would be invaded and taxed by the other communes. So your version is one which I have a lot more enthusiasm in.
Anonymous
Guest

June 27, 2011, 11:32:42 PM
 #109

I don't know how an Anarchist society is going to exist without a monopoly on force.
myrkul
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 532
Merit: 500


FIAT LIBERTAS RVAT CAELVM


View Profile WWW
June 27, 2011, 11:37:08 PM
 #110

I don't know how an Anarchist society isn't going to exist without a monopoly on force.

Too many negatives, Atlas. Could you de-tangle that?

BTC1MYRkuLv4XPBa6bGnYAronz55grPAGcxja
Need Dispute resolution? Public Key ID: 0x11D341CF
No person has the right to initiate force, threat of force, or fraud against another person or their property. VIM VI REPELLERE LICET
smellyBobby
Member
**
Offline Offline

Activity: 112
Merit: 10


View Profile
June 28, 2011, 05:15:15 AM
 #111

I don't know how an Anarchist society is going to exist without a monopoly on force.

It can't.

You can not reduce people to computers. This is what an equalization of coercive force implies.

I need a job!!!!

Justice Dragons: http://forum.bitcoin.org/index.php?topic=16351.msg267881#msg267881

Help me buy deodorant!!! 17bmVSoD8QNBLaPDRAXkFdapBPdgA72YjB
BitterTea
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 294
Merit: 250



View Profile
June 28, 2011, 05:17:13 AM
 #112

I don't know how an Anarchist society is going to exist without a monopoly on force.

It can't.

You can not reduce people to computers. This is what an equalization of coercive force implies.

I think he's talking about socialist anarchism, where private property is not allowed.

A monopoly on force is not necessary or beneficial just like a monopoly on food is not necessary or beneficial.
Babylon
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 938
Merit: 500

CryptoTalk.Org - Get Paid for every Post!


View Profile
June 28, 2011, 05:32:53 PM
 #113

I don't know how an Anarchist society is going to exist without a monopoly on force.

It can't.

You can not reduce people to computers. This is what an equalization of coercive force implies.

I think he's talking about socialist anarchism, where private property is not allowed.

A monopoly on force is not necessary or beneficial just like a monopoly on food is not necessary or beneficial.

here's where you are misunderstanding Socialist Anarchism.  It's an Anarchy, nothing is "not allowed"  private property just doesn't exist without a monopoly of force to protect it.  it's a philosophical difference, not a practical one.

 
                                . ██████████.
                              .████████████████.
                           .██████████████████████.
                        -█████████████████████████████
                     .██████████████████████████████████.
                  -█████████████████████████████████████████
               -███████████████████████████████████████████████
           .-█████████████████████████████████████████████████████.
        .████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████
       .██████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████.
       .██████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████.
       ..████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████..
       .   .██████████████████████████████████████████████████████.
       .      .████████████████████████████████████████████████.

       .       .██████████████████████████████████████████████
       .    ██████████████████████████████████████████████████████
       .█████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████.
        .███████████████████████████████████████████████████████████
           .█████████████████████████████████████████████████████
              .████████████████████████████████████████████████
                   ████████████████████████████████████████
                      ██████████████████████████████████
                          ██████████████████████████
                             ████████████████████
                               ████████████████
                                   █████████
.CryptoTalk.org.|.MAKE POSTS AND EARN BTC!.🏆
myrkul
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 532
Merit: 500


FIAT LIBERTAS RVAT CAELVM


View Profile WWW
June 28, 2011, 05:49:23 PM
 #114

here's where you are misunderstanding Socialist Anarchism.  It's an Anarchy, nothing is "not allowed"  private property just doesn't exist without a monopoly of force to protect it.  it's a philosophical difference, not a practical one.

It doesn't have to be monopoly force. It just has to keep the damn hippy squatters off my land. Wink

BTC1MYRkuLv4XPBa6bGnYAronz55grPAGcxja
Need Dispute resolution? Public Key ID: 0x11D341CF
No person has the right to initiate force, threat of force, or fraud against another person or their property. VIM VI REPELLERE LICET
BitterTea
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 294
Merit: 250



View Profile
June 28, 2011, 06:38:45 PM
 #115

I don't know how an Anarchist society is going to exist without a monopoly on force.

It can't.

You can not reduce people to computers. This is what an equalization of coercive force implies.

I think he's talking about socialist anarchism, where private property is not allowed.

A monopoly on force is not necessary or beneficial just like a monopoly on food is not necessary or beneficial.

here's where you are misunderstanding Socialist Anarchism.  It's an Anarchy, nothing is "not allowed"  private property just doesn't exist without a monopoly of force to protect it.  it's a philosophical difference, not a practical one.

Sorry, that was worded poorly. Most of the socialist anarchists I've spoken with advocate the use of force in order to prevent ownership of private property, rather than say, just boycotting the property owner. Such use of force is akin to a state, from my point of view.

I can use my own hands in order to defend my property (means of production), or pay someone else to do it for me. It's only a monopoly on force if there is a single entity that may legitimately use force. Do you mean that as a property owner, I have a monopoly on force? If so, that seems like a rather self referential definition of property and monopoly, though I can see how it could seem to be state-like from your perspective.

Do you think that an individual has the right to use force in the defense of his possessions from others? What about property? What about both of those, but a group instead of an individual?
myrkul
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 532
Merit: 500


FIAT LIBERTAS RVAT CAELVM


View Profile WWW
June 28, 2011, 07:11:21 PM
 #116

Sorry, that was worded poorly. Most of the socialist anarchists I've spoken with advocate the use of force in order to prevent ownership of private property, rather than say, just boycotting the property owner. Such use of force is akin to a state, from my point of view.

I can use my own hands in order to defend my property (means of production), or pay someone else to do it for me. It's only a monopoly on force if there is a single entity that may legitimately use force. Do you mean that as a property owner, I have a monopoly on force? If so, that seems like a rather self referential definition of property and monopoly, though I can see how it could seem to be state-like from your perspective.

Do you think that an individual has the right to use force in the defense of his possessions from others? What about property? What about both of those, but a group instead of an individual?

Which is what I said, but worded much more eloquently. +1.

BTC1MYRkuLv4XPBa6bGnYAronz55grPAGcxja
Need Dispute resolution? Public Key ID: 0x11D341CF
No person has the right to initiate force, threat of force, or fraud against another person or their property. VIM VI REPELLERE LICET
The Script
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 336
Merit: 250


View Profile
June 29, 2011, 08:41:59 AM
 #117

Sorry, that was worded poorly. Most of the socialist anarchists I've spoken with advocate the use of force in order to prevent ownership of private property, rather than say, just boycotting the property owner. Such use of force is akin to a state, from my point of view.

I can use my own hands in order to defend my property (means of production), or pay someone else to do it for me. It's only a monopoly on force if there is a single entity that may legitimately use force. Do you mean that as a property owner, I have a monopoly on force? If so, that seems like a rather self referential definition of property and monopoly, though I can see how it could seem to be state-like from your perspective.

Do you think that an individual has the right to use force in the defense of his possessions from others? What about property? What about both of those, but a group instead of an individual?

Which is what I said, but worded much more eloquently. +1.

I dunno, "hippy squatters" is hard to top.  Wink
lemonginger
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Activity: 210
Merit: 100


firstbits: 121vnq


View Profile
July 01, 2011, 04:29:00 AM
 #118

amorphous (but very concerned with freedom and justice and fairness) -> Libertarian (capital L) -> Green Party -> Anarchism (amorphous) -> Anarcho-Communist -> Autonomism -> Anarchism(amorphous)

Have a strong tendency towards mutualism or an open ended non-coercive society with weak property rights

Personally I have very strong egalitarian tendencies and would like to live and work with others that have strong egalitarian tendencies in a mixed communal/market/gift economy.

But i don't feel any need to force those views on others.
blogospheroid
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Activity: 133
Merit: 100


View Profile
July 01, 2011, 04:54:43 AM
 #119

Apolitical -> Libertarian -> Georgist Classic Liberal -> Spencer Heath -> Competitive jurisdictions advocate

I believe in a strong right to exit jurisdictions that are not favourable.

I still don't have an idea of what level of "debt" to people can be considered valid before exiting.

The US Guv taxes people 10 years after leaving. That is clearly not right.
But OTOH
Parents should have some claim on their children after bringing them up, but what claim is valid before children can make their move out?
- Open questions.
em3rgentOrdr
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 434
Merit: 251


youtube.com/ericfontainejazz now accepts bitcoin


View Profile WWW
July 01, 2011, 06:07:13 AM
 #120

Parents should have some claim on their children after bringing them up, but what claim is valid before children can make their move out?

I don't know if the parents have any claim at all on the children.  The parents made a concious decision when creating the child, but the child was not consulted about which parents he/she would be ruled by.  The child was not a contracting party, so he/she should be free to leave.

"We will not find a solution to political problems in cryptography, but we can win a major battle in the arms race and gain a new territory of freedom for several years.

Governments are good at cutting off the heads of a centrally controlled networks, but pure P2P networks are holding their own."
blogospheroid
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Activity: 133
Merit: 100


View Profile
July 01, 2011, 08:07:12 AM
 #121

Parents should have some claim on their children after bringing them up, but what claim is valid before children can make their move out?

I don't know if the parents have any claim at all on the children.  The parents made a concious decision when creating the child, but the child was not consulted about which parents he/she would be ruled by.  The child was not a contracting party, so he/she should be free to leave.

I agree that according to libertarian logic, what you are saying is correct.

One question - Do you feel a moral obligation to your parents who took care of you? If you do, then I'm just saying that there is some feeling within that a debt is owed.

and One comment - Societies where children are an indulgence and not a resource for their parents, are shrinking in the long term due to lower birth rates in today's world. Simple supply and demand.

If there are 2 competitive jurisdictions, one where the pure libertarian logic is applied and another where a certain debt is assumed, then there is a greater probability on the margin, of people leaving from the libertarian society and going to the other one, once they become parents.

Sovereign
Member
**
Offline Offline

Activity: 80
Merit: 10



View Profile
July 01, 2011, 03:03:47 PM
 #122

I was always against tyranny. However, as a child I started liking communism because it promised 'social justice', with it's everybody gets what he needs, everybody produces what he can  infantile fantasies. After learning about democracy and republics, I believed in democracy, because everybody should have a right to vote, everybody should have a right to participate.

Then I began to realize the fallacies of democracy, that it is nothing more than a majority infringing the right of the minority, and moved slightly towards more republican views, such as constitutional government. This step opened the door to having civil rights and individual rights being of core importance in determining societal organization. Of course, after prioritizing individual rights, one can quickly see the contradictions of constitutional republican governments (read Frederic Bastiat: The Law). That let to espousing a minarchist limited government view. Government only when necessary.


Then logic and reason eventually guided me towards voluntaryism, that any action taken, anyone affected by that action must agree to that action as much as possible.

12uB1LSPrAqeEefLJTDfd6rKsu3KjiFBpa
hugolp
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1148
Merit: 1001


Radix-The Decentralized Finance Protocol


View Profile
July 01, 2011, 03:13:07 PM
 #123

I was a social-democrat raised by a couple of social-democrat parents. I was probably your typical lefty ignorant on economics and guided by emotional rethoric. But I always had a strong anti-authoritarian strike, and disliked when the left would become abusive. With 19 yo I decided that politicians were all corrupted and stoped following politics. That is until I was 28 that I discovered Ron Paul randomly through a Youtube video. I was surprised that a republican, that I was taught was an ignorant crazy jesus follower with lots of weapons, was preaching against the wars and against the abuses of that thing called central bank. That lead me to start researching about central banks and monetary policy and history. Murray Rothbard popped there, austrian economics, then free banking. Through my interest for monetary policy I understood the political philosophy of liberty. It made sense, but it was quite an emotinal ride to change the views I had been indoctrinated with. I was a minarchists, until I discover mutualism. Reading mutualist theory I became convinced that anarchism is a real posibility. I would not define myself as a mutualist or an anarcho-capitalists. Im a market anarchists, a voluntaryist.


               ▄████████▄
               ██▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀
              ██▀
             ███
▄▄▄▄▄       ███
██████     ███
    ▀██▄  ▄██
     ▀██▄▄██▀
       ████▀
        ▀█▀
The Radix DeFi Protocol is
R A D I X

███████████████████████████████████

The Decentralized

Finance Protocol
Scalable
▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄
██▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀██
██                   ██
██                   ██
████████████████     ██
██            ██     ██
██            ██     ██
██▄▄▄▄▄▄      ██     ██
██▀▀▀▀██      ██     ██
██    ██      ██     
██    ██      ██
███████████████████████

███
Secure
      ▄▄▄▄▄
    █████████
   ██▀     ▀██
  ███       ███

▄▄███▄▄▄▄▄▄▄███▄▄
██▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀██
██             ██
██             ██
██             ██
██             ██
██             ██
██    ███████████

███
Community Driven
      ▄█   ▄▄
      ██ ██████▄▄
      ▀▀▄█▀   ▀▀██▄
     ▄▄ ██       ▀███▄▄██
    ██ ██▀          ▀▀██▀
    ██ ██▄            ██
   ██ ██████▄▄       ██▀
  ▄██       ▀██▄     ██
  ██▀         ▀███▄▄██▀
 ▄██             ▀▀▀▀
 ██▀
▄██
▄▄
██
███▄
▀███▄
 ▀███▄
  ▀████
    ████
     ████▄
      ▀███▄
       ▀███▄
        ▀████
          ███
           ██
           ▀▀

███
Radix is using our significant technology
innovations to be the first layer 1 protocol
specifically built to serve the rapidly growing DeFi.
Radix is the future of DeFi
█████████████████████████████████████

   ▄▄█████
  ▄████▀▀▀
  █████
█████████▀
▀▀█████▀▀
  ████
  ████
  ████

Facebook

███

             ▄▄
       ▄▄▄█████
  ▄▄▄███▀▀▄███
▀▀███▀ ▄██████
    █ ███████
     ██▀▀▀███
           ▀▀

Telegram

███

▄      ▄███▄▄
██▄▄▄ ██████▀
████████████
 ██████████▀
   ███████▀
 ▄█████▀▀

Twitter

██████

...Get Tokens...
freespirit
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Activity: 183
Merit: 100


View Profile
July 01, 2011, 04:23:58 PM
 #124

everybody should have a right to vote, everybody should have a right to participate.
This is a dangerous assumption.

That's what created the current state of affairs (in Europe especially) when people who do not pay taxes (or pay little) have a right to vote on - effectively - how collected [from other people] taxes are spent and how much taxes should be imposed [on other people]. This is not freedom. This is legalized stealing. (poorer/lazier/scammers/etc. people slowly vote out other people's property for themselves) Plus it is not sustainable anyway, look what's going on with Greece right now. Bloated "public sector" and "welfare state" => insane borrowing => bankruptcy [of the government]. And guess what they are doing to fix this? They are increasing taxes! [besides other otherwise reasonable measures]

That's also what created a number of socialist dictatorships (in South America and elsewhere) as poor people often vote for someone who "will provide for them".

Either only actual taxpayers should be allowed to vote or the governments should not meddle with people's property/finances (they should not have a right to "tax" anyone, instead we should only pay them for actual services provided). I like the second option better. You do not pay your telephone or electricity provider a percentage of your income. (not to mention a "progressive" percentage) Why governments are any different?
lemonginger
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Activity: 210
Merit: 100


firstbits: 121vnq


View Profile
July 02, 2011, 03:48:29 AM
 #125


Sorry, that was worded poorly. Most of the socialist anarchists I've spoken with advocate the use of force in order to prevent ownership of private property, rather than say, just boycotting the property owner. Such use of force is akin to a state, from my point of view.


Are you sure those libertarian socialists weren't arguing for the use of force to prevent an individual from stealing property from common ownership? (and initiating force against a whole group of people?)
billyjoeallen
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1106
Merit: 1007


Hide your women


View Profile WWW
July 02, 2011, 04:57:58 AM
 #126


Sorry, that was worded poorly. Most of the socialist anarchists I've spoken with advocate the use of force in order to prevent ownership of private property, rather than say, just boycotting the property owner. Such use of force is akin to a state, from my point of view.


Are you sure those libertarian socialists weren't arguing for the use of force to prevent an individual from stealing property from common ownership? (and initiating force against a whole group of people?)

There is obviously some disagreement on exactly what is property and how it is legitimately acquired, held and transferred.  Common law emerges to deal with potential conflicts. This body of law varies in both substance and application over time and from place to place. Having said that, something owned by everybody is effectively something owned by nobody. Society is an abstraction, a group of individuals.

Ownership is basically control, and unless there is unanimity among the owners, someone is disenfranchised and without control. That is the grounds for conflict. Private ownership minimizes property conflict but we recognize that it is impossible to eliminate conflict entirely.

insert coin here:
Dash XfXZL8WL18zzNhaAqWqEziX2bUvyJbrC8s



1Ctd7Na8qE7btyueEshAJF5C7ZqFWH11Wc
lemonginger
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Activity: 210
Merit: 100


firstbits: 121vnq


View Profile
July 02, 2011, 02:46:50 PM
 #127

Having said that, something owned by everybody is effectively something owned by nobody. Society is an abstraction, a group of individuals. Ownership is basically control, and unless there is unanimity among the owners, someone is disenfranchised and without control. That is the grounds for conflict. Private ownership minimizes property conflict but we recognize that it is impossible to eliminate conflict entirely.

And, that, in a nutshell, is the primary difference (and it is a huge difference) between left-libertarians and right-libertarians. Left-libs tend towards thinking that things, prior to being owned, are "held in trust" for the benefit of all beings, now and in the future, and that if someone takes that out of that trust, other beings at the very least deserve recompense

Furthermore, that many things cannot actually be owned - air, oceans, land(this last one is a particular sticking point and has led to many schisms yes? from Proudhon to Bakunin to Thomas Paine to George etc etc), other sentient beings (again they can be weakly/partially owned -- it would be a crime if I took your dogs from you, but ALSO a crime if you tortured them -- you do not have the right to do whatever you want to another sentient being just because you "own" it)...and we haven't even got to whether labor is alienable or not yet Smiley

(and that the "individual" is, at the end of the day, a fictional construct as well - though keep in mind I'm a Buddhist sociologist who also studied neuroscience, so I have all kinds of issues with the idea of a rational and isolated "self" from all sorts of angles -- micro and macro)
bitplane
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 321
Merit: 250

Firstbits: 1gyzhw


View Profile WWW
July 02, 2011, 06:45:44 PM
 #128

Started as an anarchist, slowly became a socialist and eventually a pragmatist. Politics is an abstract space that can be explored infinitely in all directions, there is no ultimate truth or correct way, only what is useful and what is not.
billyjoeallen
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1106
Merit: 1007


Hide your women


View Profile WWW
July 02, 2011, 07:50:57 PM
 #129

Having said that, something owned by everybody is effectively something owned by nobody. Society is an abstraction, a group of individuals. Ownership is basically control, and unless there is unanimity among the owners, someone is disenfranchised and without control. That is the grounds for conflict. Private ownership minimizes property conflict but we recognize that it is impossible to eliminate conflict entirely.

And, that, in a nutshell, is the primary difference (and it is a huge difference) between left-libertarians and right-libertarians. Left-libs tend towards thinking that things, prior to being owned, are "held in trust" for the benefit of all beings, now and in the future, and that if someone takes that out of that trust, other beings at the very least deserve recompense

Furthermore, that many things cannot actually be owned - air, oceans, land(this last one is a particular sticking point and has led to many schisms yes? from Proudhon to Bakunin to Thomas Paine to George etc etc), other sentient beings (again they can be weakly/partially owned -- it would be a crime if I took your dogs from you, but ALSO a crime if you tortured them -- you do not have the right to do whatever you want to another sentient being just because you "own" it)...and we haven't even got to whether labor is alienable or not yet Smiley

(and that the "individual" is, at the end of the day, a fictional construct as well - though keep in mind I'm a Buddhist sociologist who also studied neuroscience, so I have all kinds of issues with the idea of a rational and isolated "self" from all sorts of angles -- micro and macro)

Held in trust by whom? Who decides what constitutes an appropriate "benefit" or what recompense is required?  Without unanimity, someone is being ruled over and someone is acting as a ruler. That can't properly be called "anarchy".

Christians hold that all things belong to God and we are merely stewards. You apparently want Christianity without Christ. So I ask again: who decides? Are not these 'deciders" archons?

insert coin here:
Dash XfXZL8WL18zzNhaAqWqEziX2bUvyJbrC8s



1Ctd7Na8qE7btyueEshAJF5C7ZqFWH11Wc
myrkul
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 532
Merit: 500


FIAT LIBERTAS RVAT CAELVM


View Profile WWW
July 02, 2011, 08:06:08 PM
 #130

And, that, in a nutshell, is the primary difference (and it is a huge difference) between left-libertarians and right-libertarians. Left-libs tend towards thinking that things, prior to being owned, are "held in trust" for the benefit of all beings, now and in the future, and that if someone takes that out of that trust, other beings at the very least deserve recompense

See, now this just opens a whole can of worms. Like bja said, Who gets the compensation? I agree, Humans do value unspoiled wilderness, Which is why parkland should be just as profitable as say, A housing development (Not in raw intake, of course, but much lower costs of upkeep keep the margin about the same.) At the same time, if either plot of land is allowed to become polluted, or aesthetically degraded, the profit value would drop significantly, so its in the owner's best interest to keep it clean.

Also: Are you defining dogs as sentient slaves?

BTC1MYRkuLv4XPBa6bGnYAronz55grPAGcxja
Need Dispute resolution? Public Key ID: 0x11D341CF
No person has the right to initiate force, threat of force, or fraud against another person or their property. VIM VI REPELLERE LICET
billyjoeallen
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1106
Merit: 1007


Hide your women


View Profile WWW
July 02, 2011, 08:42:55 PM
 #131

It's a big can can of worms. Which human's consent is required if not all of them?  Who gets to decide? Why limit common ownership to humans? To primates? to mammals? to animals? to living things?

Rules are "enforced" which means someone or something has to do the enforcing.  Unenforceable rules are bad rules, no matter how just, no matter how well-intended. Enforceable rules may or may not be good rules, depending on what results they produce. Good results are produced when rules are in harmony with physical and economic laws. Laws (supply and demand, gravity), as opposed to rules, are self-enforcing.
 
One cannot prevent he exploitation of commonly owned (un-owned) natural resources to any significant degree because any attempt runs into the problem of concentrated costs and distributed benefits.  Any tree-hugging crusader would pay far more than they personally benefit and eventually go broke or die.

Contrarily, Statism concentrates benefits and distributes costs. This is why leftists are almost all Statists, but also why Statism is self-defeating.  The State itself is a commonly owned resource that faces the very same tragedy of the commons as the natural world. Eventually there is always an irrepressible temptation to loot the State of it's resources like a commonly owned and over-fished lake. Careful observers will notice this race to the bottom is occurring right now in America and virtually every other country on Earth.

insert coin here:
Dash XfXZL8WL18zzNhaAqWqEziX2bUvyJbrC8s



1Ctd7Na8qE7btyueEshAJF5C7ZqFWH11Wc
Babylon
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 938
Merit: 500

CryptoTalk.Org - Get Paid for every Post!


View Profile
July 03, 2011, 06:54:44 AM
 #132

I don't know how an Anarchist society is going to exist without a monopoly on force.

It can't.

You can not reduce people to computers. This is what an equalization of coercive force implies.

I think he's talking about socialist anarchism, where private property is not allowed.

A monopoly on force is not necessary or beneficial just like a monopoly on food is not necessary or beneficial.

here's where you are misunderstanding Socialist Anarchism.  It's an Anarchy, nothing is "not allowed"  private property just doesn't exist without a monopoly of force to protect it.  it's a philosophical difference, not a practical one.

Sorry, that was worded poorly. Most of the socialist anarchists I've spoken with advocate the use of force in order to prevent ownership of private property, rather than say, just boycotting the property owner. Such use of force is akin to a state, from my point of view.

I can use my own hands in order to defend my property (means of production), or pay someone else to do it for me. It's only a monopoly on force if there is a single entity that may legitimately use force. Do you mean that as a property owner, I have a monopoly on force? If so, that seems like a rather self referential definition of property and monopoly, though I can see how it could seem to be state-like from your perspective.

Do you think that an individual has the right to use force in the defense of his possessions from others? What about property? What about both of those, but a group instead of an individual?

I don't believe in rights.  They're legal fictions created by governments, much like property and corporations.

 
                                . ██████████.
                              .████████████████.
                           .██████████████████████.
                        -█████████████████████████████
                     .██████████████████████████████████.
                  -█████████████████████████████████████████
               -███████████████████████████████████████████████
           .-█████████████████████████████████████████████████████.
        .████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████
       .██████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████.
       .██████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████.
       ..████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████..
       .   .██████████████████████████████████████████████████████.
       .      .████████████████████████████████████████████████.

       .       .██████████████████████████████████████████████
       .    ██████████████████████████████████████████████████████
       .█████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████.
        .███████████████████████████████████████████████████████████
           .█████████████████████████████████████████████████████
              .████████████████████████████████████████████████
                   ████████████████████████████████████████
                      ██████████████████████████████████
                          ██████████████████████████
                             ████████████████████
                               ████████████████
                                   █████████
.CryptoTalk.org.|.MAKE POSTS AND EARN BTC!.🏆
Babylon
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 938
Merit: 500

CryptoTalk.Org - Get Paid for every Post!


View Profile
July 03, 2011, 06:58:51 AM
 #133

Apolitical -> Libertarian -> Georgist Classic Liberal -> Spencer Heath -> Competitive jurisdictions advocate

I believe in a strong right to exit jurisdictions that are not favourable.

I still don't have an idea of what level of "debt" to people can be considered valid before exiting.

The US Guv taxes people 10 years after leaving. That is clearly not right.
But OTOH
Parents should have some claim on their children after bringing them up, but what claim is valid before children can make their move out?
- Open questions.

I think children have some claim on their parents, not the other way around.  Parents brought children into the world, without their consent, that creates an obligation to provide for the well being of those children until they are capable of providing for their own well being or until they choose to change the nature of the relationship. 

I am very much in favor of the ability to depart a community, however there are many cases where obligations will need to be discharged while terminating the relationship.  Those are when obligations have been assumed, voluntarially, by the person who is now leaving.  Unless the community chooses to quit him of those obligations in order to get him out smoothly.

 
                                . ██████████.
                              .████████████████.
                           .██████████████████████.
                        -█████████████████████████████
                     .██████████████████████████████████.
                  -█████████████████████████████████████████
               -███████████████████████████████████████████████
           .-█████████████████████████████████████████████████████.
        .████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████
       .██████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████.
       .██████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████.
       ..████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████..
       .   .██████████████████████████████████████████████████████.
       .      .████████████████████████████████████████████████.

       .       .██████████████████████████████████████████████
       .    ██████████████████████████████████████████████████████
       .█████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████.
        .███████████████████████████████████████████████████████████
           .█████████████████████████████████████████████████████
              .████████████████████████████████████████████████
                   ████████████████████████████████████████
                      ██████████████████████████████████
                          ██████████████████████████
                             ████████████████████
                               ████████████████
                                   █████████
.CryptoTalk.org.|.MAKE POSTS AND EARN BTC!.🏆
Babylon
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 938
Merit: 500

CryptoTalk.Org - Get Paid for every Post!


View Profile
July 03, 2011, 07:05:53 AM
 #134

Parents should have some claim on their children after bringing them up, but what claim is valid before children can make their move out?

I don't know if the parents have any claim at all on the children.  The parents made a concious decision when creating the child, but the child was not consulted about which parents he/she would be ruled by.  The child was not a contracting party, so he/she should be free to leave.

I agree that according to libertarian logic, what you are saying is correct.

One question - Do you feel a moral obligation to your parents who took care of you? If you do, then I'm just saying that there is some feeling within that a debt is owed.

and One comment - Societies where children are an indulgence and not a resource for their parents, are shrinking in the long term due to lower birth rates in today's world. Simple supply and demand.

If there are 2 competitive jurisdictions, one where the pure libertarian logic is applied and another where a certain debt is assumed, then there is a greater probability on the margin, of people leaving from the libertarian society and going to the other one, once they become parents.



The children are likely to move to the libertarian society, when they have the ability to do so.

 
                                . ██████████.
                              .████████████████.
                           .██████████████████████.
                        -█████████████████████████████
                     .██████████████████████████████████.
                  -█████████████████████████████████████████
               -███████████████████████████████████████████████
           .-█████████████████████████████████████████████████████.
        .████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████
       .██████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████.
       .██████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████.
       ..████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████..
       .   .██████████████████████████████████████████████████████.
       .      .████████████████████████████████████████████████.

       .       .██████████████████████████████████████████████
       .    ██████████████████████████████████████████████████████
       .█████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████.
        .███████████████████████████████████████████████████████████
           .█████████████████████████████████████████████████████
              .████████████████████████████████████████████████
                   ████████████████████████████████████████
                      ██████████████████████████████████
                          ██████████████████████████
                             ████████████████████
                               ████████████████
                                   █████████
.CryptoTalk.org.|.MAKE POSTS AND EARN BTC!.🏆
blogospheroid
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Activity: 133
Merit: 100


View Profile
July 03, 2011, 02:33:17 PM
 #135

The children are likely to move to the libertarian society, when they have the ability to do so.

In today's world, it is mainly adults who move between nations. I don't expect this to be significantly different in most situations.

The main questions topmost on the mind of competitive jurisdiction advocates
 -  the relationship between various phyles and how they react to people leaving and the debts that the communities they leave say are still left on them.
 - What will trigger war?
dannickherpderp
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 33
Merit: 0


View Profile
July 05, 2011, 06:29:11 PM
 #136

I just switched over to communism because they promised me more cookies and a brand new Hyundai!

So long, suckers!
Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 [All]
  Print  
 
Jump to:  

Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.19 | SMF © 2006-2009, Simple Machines Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!