Your ideological evolution.

[smellyBobby]

In the terms you define it yes.

[1714850088]

1714850088

[1714850088]

1714850088

[1714850088]

1714850088

[1714850088]

1714850088

[1714850088]

1714850088

[myrkul]

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)

[smellyBobby]

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.

[smellyBobby]

[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.

[GideonGono]

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.

[myrkul]

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.

[whackedspinach]

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]

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.

[smellyBobby]

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".

[smellyBobby]

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

Thanks for the interest! 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.

[myrkul]

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?

[smellyBobby]

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.

[myrkul]

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?

[smellyBobby]

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.

[myrkul]

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?

[smellyBobby]

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.

[myrkul]

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

[smellyBobby]

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.

[myrkul]

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

[LastBattle]

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