smellyBobby
Member
Offline
Activity: 112
Merit: 10
|
|
June 15, 2011, 02:28:22 AM |
|
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 , 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.
|
|
|
|
myrkul
|
|
June 15, 2011, 02:39:06 AM |
|
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.
|
|
|
|
smellyBobby
Member
Offline
Activity: 112
Merit: 10
|
|
June 15, 2011, 02:47:40 AM Last edit: June 15, 2011, 03:04:06 AM by smellyBobby |
|
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......
|
|
|
|
Anonymous
Guest
|
|
June 15, 2011, 02:52:15 AM |
|
Now, could the cost be considered negligible? Such as having to breathe a little harder in the negotiating room? Hahaha.
|
|
|
|
myrkul
|
|
June 15, 2011, 03:05:42 AM |
|
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)
|
|
|
|
smellyBobby
Member
Offline
Activity: 112
Merit: 10
|
|
June 15, 2011, 03:11:35 AM |
|
Who does the arbitration between the party and the arbitrator?
|
|
|
|
myrkul
|
|
June 15, 2011, 03:26:51 AM |
|
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: “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.
|
|
|
|
smellyBobby
Member
Offline
Activity: 112
Merit: 10
|
|
June 15, 2011, 03:37:33 AM |
|
What is stopping Mr Gross or Elliot and Phillip from using coercion upon one another?
|
|
|
|
AntiVigilante
Member
Offline
Activity: 98
Merit: 10
|
|
June 15, 2011, 03:42:54 AM |
|
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.
|
|
|
|
myrkul
|
|
June 15, 2011, 03:44:45 AM |
|
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!)
|
|
|
|
smellyBobby
Member
Offline
Activity: 112
Merit: 10
|
|
June 15, 2011, 03:46:40 AM |
|
Yea I do.
|
|
|
|
smellyBobby
Member
Offline
Activity: 112
Merit: 10
|
|
June 15, 2011, 03:49:48 AM |
|
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
|
|
|
|
myrkul
|
|
June 15, 2011, 03:52:29 AM |
|
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.
|
|
|
|
smellyBobby
Member
Offline
Activity: 112
Merit: 10
|
|
June 15, 2011, 04:03:20 AM |
|
You have more faith than me (Y) .
|
|
|
|
myrkul
|
|
June 15, 2011, 04:07:15 AM |
|
You have more faith than me (Y) . 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.
|
|
|
|
smellyBobby
Member
Offline
Activity: 112
Merit: 10
|
|
June 15, 2011, 04:15:57 AM |
|
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.
|
|
|
|
AntiVigilante
Member
Offline
Activity: 98
Merit: 10
|
|
June 15, 2011, 04:25:00 AM |
|
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.
|
|
|
|
myrkul
|
|
June 15, 2011, 04:29:48 AM |
|
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.
|
|
|
|
smellyBobby
Member
Offline
Activity: 112
Merit: 10
|
|
June 15, 2011, 04:42:49 AM |
|
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.
|
|
|
|
AntiVigilante
Member
Offline
Activity: 98
Merit: 10
|
|
June 15, 2011, 04:54:44 AM |
|
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.
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. 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.
|
|
|
|
|