Bitcoin Forum
December 10, 2016, 11:02:00 AM *
News: Latest stable version of Bitcoin Core: 0.13.1  [Torrent].
 
   Home   Help Search Donate Login Register  
Pages: « 1 2 3 [4] 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 »  All
  Print  
Author Topic: How to run an Anarchy  (Read 15855 times)
dutt
Member
**
Offline Offline

Activity: 111



View Profile
June 24, 2011, 11:21:42 PM
 #61

You need guns, lots of guns.

1481367720
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1481367720

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1481367720
Reply with quote  #2

1481367720
Report to moderator
Advertised sites are not endorsed by the Bitcoin Forum. They may be unsafe, untrustworthy, or illegal in your jurisdiction. Advertise here.
1481367720
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1481367720

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1481367720
Reply with quote  #2

1481367720
Report to moderator
1481367720
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1481367720

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1481367720
Reply with quote  #2

1481367720
Report to moderator
1481367720
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1481367720

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1481367720
Reply with quote  #2

1481367720
Report to moderator
MoonShadow
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1666



View Profile
June 25, 2011, 12:13:04 AM
 #62

You need guns, lots of guns.

Those we have.

"The powers of financial capitalism had another far-reaching aim, nothing less than to create a world system of financial control in private hands able to dominate the political system of each country and the economy of the world as a whole. This system was to be controlled in a feudalist fashion by the central banks of the world acting in concert, by secret agreements arrived at in frequent meetings and conferences. The apex of the systems was to be the Bank for International Settlements in Basel, Switzerland, a private bank owned and controlled by the world's central banks which were themselves private corporations. Each central bank...sought to dominate its government by its ability to control Treasury loans, to manipulate foreign exchanges, to influence the level of economic activity in the country, and to influence cooperative politicians by subsequent economic rewards in the business world."

- Carroll Quigley, CFR member, mentor to Bill Clinton, from 'Tragedy And Hope'
Perof
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 14


Snap


View Profile
June 25, 2011, 04:42:10 AM
 #63

IMO it depends on what your running before the anarchy.

If you run a capitalist OS it'd be difficult to maintain lawlessness because of, yes, all that organized crime that comes with it, black markets ect. Those people like rules, rules create markets, markets create boundaries. Just like governments they occupy territory with street soldiers and killers in reserve. Claiming land as their own. Buying land with bodies.

To run an anarchy properly, you need community. Thb you may even need structure at some point, but as long as it remains a decentralized localized collective authority I consider it lawlessness as no one explicitly stated making laws was against the rules of anarchy. Not everyone will choose to abide by these laws and that's why you need community to make these people feel alienated and push them out of the community like a child from a mother's womb. Rejecting those who would be better suited elsewhere. In other communities. Alternatively a loosely affiliated nomadic lifestyle of people roaming, not having any guidelines to follow at all. Free to join as soon as you step away from the clusters of humanity. Until you find you're own little place to carve out that is.

Certainly violence would be a problem, but when is it not?

The point of a strong community would primarily be to retaliate against thieves and strengthen the bonds held by the neighborhood. Effectively enabling the protection (say of women and children) without paying the taxation. Indeed social connection is the a most powerful tool of the people.
 Crime would likely be targeted at people who have done something to provoke a grudge if you can wrap your head around that. Generally by the people who cannot be persuaded to live any other way. These people would likely run into trouble more often than others. Putting their lives at risk and potentially causing fatal incidents to occur at a higher rate than say a person raising livestock(doing anything else). Think wild wild west without the need for a sheriff. A self sustaining system of crime and punishment without the need for taxation or military.

No less is desirable. Anarchy is not crime. Anarchy allows crime to work itself out. Which I believe it does. Criminals reproduce with criminals then the criminals keep crime in the family. Then the family has a significantly reduced chance at surviving than a normal family. Seeing as that family has a lot of criminal opponents. People die. Only the strongest remain to profit.

Then only the fittest people, those who refuse to be victimized by the thieves, extortionists, thugs are strong enough to survive the onslaught of fraudsters, scammers with their lively-hoods intact.

Which is where community comes in again. Those willing to work together, like organized criminals, will always get ahead of the rugged individual. Which is why the concept of anarchy as this sort of free for all every man for himself scenario will never work. Because it is already implemented. It's been labeled the free market economy. Fraudsters paradise built of the blood of the innocent. Where cheap drugs and insurance policy reigns over government. The prisons make more money than the artists because of all the return costumers.

The issue is race primarily. You see race interferes with community. Racism causes people to behave strangely and often we have seen nations formed more on genetic (alt. religious) guidelines than physical boundaries. Perceived racial superiority driving one race to ban together to subjugate another. As a unified people or perhaps it just happens by chance, regardless it happens.....a lot. It seems conquering the deep seated race hatred programmed into the administration, prison system and law enforcement agencies is the only viable chance we have at achieving a state of global self perpetuating anarchy.

Anarchy in the modern day. Say in America would be very violent because of the sadism perpetuated by our culture. The hypocrisy and already considerably violent media (socialization) is a bad combo for lawlessness. Oh and then there's all the guns. It would be difficult because our community is shattered and fragmented like our environment. The social atmosphere can be suffocating and it really doesn't inspire what I would call a sense of strong community. Given the loose bonds of trust and overbearing paranoia, yes a lot of people would die if we just up and got rid of all forms of ruling class organization. Eh....


I especially hate it when the police officer tells me I'm driving my car to fast, what does he know?

Yeah fuck that shit.
myrkul
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 532


FIAT LIBERTAS RVAT CAELVM


View Profile WWW
June 25, 2011, 04:56:55 AM
 #64

This bears the earmarks of someone who's not done a lot of study, but has applied a lot of thought.

Some suggestions:

Murray Rothbard
Pierre-Joseph Proudhon
Samuel Konkin III

Climb up on the shoulders of some giants. (Yes, I intentionally put conflicting ideologies in there)

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
LokeRundt
Member
**
Offline Offline

Activity: 98



View Profile
June 25, 2011, 09:50:08 PM
 #65

This bears the earmarks of someone who's not done a lot of study, but has applied a lot of thought.

Some suggestions:

Murray Rothbard
Pierre-Joseph Proudhon
Samuel Konkin III

Climb up on the shoulders of some giants. (Yes, I intentionally put conflicting ideologies in there)

I'd also add Kevin Carson and Anthony DeJasay to that list

Hippy Anarchy
*shrug*
em3rgentOrdr
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 434


youtube.com/ericfontainejazz now accepts bitcoin


View Profile WWW
June 25, 2011, 11:10:48 PM
 #66

This bears the earmarks of someone who's not done a lot of study, but has applied a lot of thought.

Some suggestions:

Murray Rothbard
Pierre-Joseph Proudhon
Samuel Konkin III

Climb up on the shoulders of some giants. (Yes, I intentionally put conflicting ideologies in there)

I'd also add Kevin Carson and Anthony DeJasay to that list

Don't forget Lysander Spooner, you spoony bard!

"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."
vector76
Member
**
Offline Offline

Activity: 70


View Profile
June 26, 2011, 02:10:33 PM
 #67

Suits presume legal recourse.  It will be cheap to deal with angry letters.

What makes you think there would be no recourse? Binding arbitration and mediation are the cornerstones of AnCap Society.

Suits presume law.  Without law, you don't have suits, you have complaints.  Arbitration and mediation are also mechanisms of law.  Without law you have non-binding discussions.  You keep referring to the benefits of the legal system while also presuming its absence.


If binding arbitration and mediation are cornerstones of AnCap Society, I think the burden of proof is on you to explain how they are binding without law.

A different angle on the same question is, how are contracts are enforced without law?
em3rgentOrdr
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 434


youtube.com/ericfontainejazz now accepts bitcoin


View Profile WWW
June 26, 2011, 03:47:55 PM
 #68

Suits presume legal recourse.  It will be cheap to deal with angry letters.

What makes you think there would be no recourse? Binding arbitration and mediation are the cornerstones of AnCap Society.

Suits presume law.  Without law, you don't have suits, you have complaints.  Arbitration and mediation are also mechanisms of law.  Without law you have non-binding discussions.  You keep referring to the benefits of the legal system while also presuming its absence.


If binding arbitration and mediation are cornerstones of AnCap Society, I think the burden of proof is on you to explain how they are binding without law.

A different angle on the same question is, how are contracts are enforced without law?


[Facepalm] dude,do you even know what Anarcho-Capitalism is and how its propenets claim it operates?  Have you at the minimum looked it up on wikipedia?

"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."
JA37
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 378


View Profile
June 26, 2011, 04:50:51 PM
 #69

Laws do not prevent anything. They outline consequences. These consequences often do nothing to help the victim, and often do harm to them (charging them to support the person, for instance)

As to you losing your house because you hired a 'Lazy asshat', No. The lazy asshat might, but not you. At least, as long as you can find the lazy asshat. Call it incentive to do due diligence.
Yes, let's argue semantics. That's productive.
Bad consequences for an action prevents you from taking that action, in most cases. Hence laws do prevent things.
How does safety standards laws harm those affected by it? It could hurt the profits of the firms, but then we're back to externalizing costs again. "It's cheaper to actually pay the guy who loses his arm $1mil than to fix the machines who take an arm a year from our employees". And as long as the safety standards are applied equally the playing field is even for everyone competing in the market.

I have a feeling that you've never had anything to do with running a company. It's hard enough to get people to take actions and show initiative. If they are personally responsible for unintended consequences they won't do anything not explicitly told. And finding out who did what and when in a situation where there's a punishment waiting for the person who did wrong is hard. Ask any policeman. So the end result is still that I would be knee deep in 'trouble' in any company of significant size, since it's nearly impossible to know what everyone is doing at any given time.

Look, I know the current system isn't the best, and I'm willing to change it to something better. AnCap isn't it imho.



Ponzi me: http://fxnet.bitlex.org/?ref=588
Thanks to the anonymous person who doubled my BTC wealth by sending 0.02 BTC to: 1BSGbFq4G8r3uckpdeQMhP55ScCJwbvNnG
vector76
Member
**
Offline Offline

Activity: 70


View Profile
June 26, 2011, 06:11:34 PM
 #70

Suits presume legal recourse.  It will be cheap to deal with angry letters.

What makes you think there would be no recourse? Binding arbitration and mediation are the cornerstones of AnCap Society.

Suits presume law.  Without law, you don't have suits, you have complaints.  Arbitration and mediation are also mechanisms of law.  Without law you have non-binding discussions.  You keep referring to the benefits of the legal system while also presuming its absence.


If binding arbitration and mediation are cornerstones of AnCap Society, I think the burden of proof is on you to explain how they are binding without law.

A different angle on the same question is, how are contracts are enforced without law?


[Facepalm] dude,do you even know what Anarcho-Capitalism is and how its propenets claim it operates?  Have you at the minimum looked it up on wikipedia?

I have read it and the answer is not there either.

Consider international relations.  There are matters of convention and international "law" and treaties, and individual countries can make judgements about the actions and interactions of other countries.  The UN can pass resolutions saying what you're doing is bad, and can "authorize" individual countries to take violent action.

Israel and the Palestinians have a dispute.  How can they have a binding agreement if they do not recognize the "authority" of whoever is judging compliance?  They can have an agreement, and they can make promises, but they are not binding in the sense of being compelled to follow them.


Can someone ignore a judgement against them?  If not, aren't they being coerced?  If so, how can anything be binding?

Perhaps a better question is when can someone ignore a judgement against them?  When they don't have a second court that offers a different opinion?  When their gang of enforcers is smaller than the plaintiff's gang of enforcers?
myrkul
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 532


FIAT LIBERTAS RVAT CAELVM


View Profile WWW
June 26, 2011, 06:12:39 PM
 #71

Yes, let's argue semantics. That's productive.
Bad consequences for an action prevents you from taking that action, in most cases. Hence laws do prevent things.
How does safety standards laws harm those affected by it? It could hurt the profits of the firms, but then we're back to externalizing costs again. "It's cheaper to actually pay the guy who loses his arm $1mil than to fix the machines who take an arm a year from our employees". And as long as the safety standards are applied equally the playing field is even for everyone competing in the market.

I have a feeling that you've never had anything to do with running a company. It's hard enough to get people to take actions and show initiative. If they are personally responsible for unintended consequences they won't do anything not explicitly told. And finding out who did what and when in a situation where there's a punishment waiting for the person who did wrong is hard. Ask any policeman. So the end result is still that I would be knee deep in 'trouble' in any company of significant size, since it's nearly impossible to know what everyone is doing at any given time.

Look, I know the current system isn't the best, and I'm willing to change it to something better. AnCap isn't it imho.

That's where you're wrong: Laws don't stop squat. Next time you get mugged, remind them that they're breaking a law. That'll stop 'em for sure. Better yet, keep a copy of the relevant statute in your breast pocket. That way, when they shoot you, the law against murder will deflect the bullet.

As for unsafe working conditions, Would you work at a machine that regularly mangled people? Do you suppose that everyone aside from you is a complete moron? If the answer to either of those questions is yes, then perhaps there do need to be standards in place to protect you from yourself. I suspect that both are 'no', however.

As to the rest, what that boils down to is: "If people actually had to think about the consequences of their actions, nothing would get done!" I'm sorry, I call bullshit on that one.

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
myrkul
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 532


FIAT LIBERTAS RVAT CAELVM


View Profile WWW
June 26, 2011, 06:19:25 PM
 #72

I have read it and the answer is not there either.

Look here: http://forum.bitcoin.org/index.php?topic=21217.msg268418#msg268418 (yes, that goes to this thread)

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
vector76
Member
**
Offline Offline

Activity: 70


View Profile
June 26, 2011, 06:46:59 PM
 #73

I have read it and the answer is not there either.

Look here: http://forum.bitcoin.org/index.php?topic=21217.msg268418#msg268418 (yes, that goes to this thread)

Yes, I acknowledged that before.  The only recourse against criminals is ostracism.

Good luck with that.
myrkul
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 532


FIAT LIBERTAS RVAT CAELVM


View Profile WWW
June 26, 2011, 06:52:21 PM
 #74

I have read it and the answer is not there either.

Look here: http://forum.bitcoin.org/index.php?topic=21217.msg268418#msg268418 (yes, that goes to this thread)

Yes, I acknowledged that before.  The only recourse against criminals is ostracism.

Good luck with that.

I'd say not being able to buy a meal or find a place to sleep is a better punishment than 'three hots and a cot'.

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: 966


Hide your women


View Profile WWW
June 26, 2011, 06:56:42 PM
 #75

I have read it and the answer is not there either.

Look here: http://forum.bitcoin.org/index.php?topic=21217.msg268418#msg268418 (yes, that goes to this thread)

Yes, I acknowledged that before.  The only recourse against criminals is ostracism.

Good luck with that.

Ostracism is one type of opportunity cost. Namely, the opportunity to interact socially. There are many, many types of opportunity costs than can be imposed, none of which violate the NAP.

insert coin here:
1Ctd7Na8qE7btyueEshAJF5C7ZqFWH11Wc

Open an exchange account at CampBX: options, lowest commissions, and best security
https://campbx.com/register.php?r=0Y7YxohTV0B
vector76
Member
**
Offline Offline

Activity: 70


View Profile
June 26, 2011, 07:15:53 PM
 #76

So everyone runs some sort of credit check before selling a sandwich.  Gotcha.
myrkul
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 532


FIAT LIBERTAS RVAT CAELVM


View Profile WWW
June 26, 2011, 07:23:24 PM
 #77

So everyone runs some sort of credit check before selling a sandwich.  Gotcha.

And when he's out of cash?

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
MoonShadow
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1666



View Profile
June 26, 2011, 07:40:52 PM
 #78

I have read it and the answer is not there either.

Look here: http://forum.bitcoin.org/index.php?topic=21217.msg268418#msg268418 (yes, that goes to this thread)

Yes, I acknowledged that before.  The only recourse against criminals is ostracism.

Good luck with that.

I'd say not being able to buy a meal or find a place to sleep is a better punishment than 'three hots and a cot'.

Bear in mind, also, that in such a society that generally honors the NAP, there will be those who will not.  The criminal would have to deal with being labeled a criminal, which largely removes that person's expectations of civil support in the event that another criminal were to take advantage of them.  Most people would simply call that karma, whether or not the second criminal were himself blacklisted.

"The powers of financial capitalism had another far-reaching aim, nothing less than to create a world system of financial control in private hands able to dominate the political system of each country and the economy of the world as a whole. This system was to be controlled in a feudalist fashion by the central banks of the world acting in concert, by secret agreements arrived at in frequent meetings and conferences. The apex of the systems was to be the Bank for International Settlements in Basel, Switzerland, a private bank owned and controlled by the world's central banks which were themselves private corporations. Each central bank...sought to dominate its government by its ability to control Treasury loans, to manipulate foreign exchanges, to influence the level of economic activity in the country, and to influence cooperative politicians by subsequent economic rewards in the business world."

- Carroll Quigley, CFR member, mentor to Bill Clinton, from 'Tragedy And Hope'
JA37
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 378


View Profile
June 26, 2011, 10:19:02 PM
 #79


That's where you're wrong: Laws don't stop squat. Next time you get mugged, remind them that they're breaking a law. That'll stop 'em for sure. Better yet, keep a copy of the relevant statute in your breast pocket. That way, when they shoot you, the law against murder will deflect the bullet.

As for unsafe working conditions, Would you work at a machine that regularly mangled people? Do you suppose that everyone aside from you is a complete moron? If the answer to either of those questions is yes, then perhaps there do need to be standards in place to protect you from yourself. I suspect that both are 'no', however.

As to the rest, what that boils down to is: "If people actually had to think about the consequences of their actions, nothing would get done!" I'm sorry, I call bullshit on that one.

Do you actually believe that the drug addict/ADHD/schizophrenic who robs people on the street are the same that sits in a boardroom and makes calculated decisions about what actions the company should take next? Are you thick or are you just trying to make a cheap point? I'm hoping the latter, although it's a bit insulting. Laws stops normal people from committing crimes. People who care about consequences. The mentally ill/drugged up/desperate don't.

No, I don't think people are morons. Far from it. I do however think that the "It won't happen to me" mindset is quite common. And it usually don't. Until it does.
Given a choice I don't think anyone would work in an unsafe environment, but not all have that choice.
I can tell you a story about a friend of mine who was helping a company outsource parts of their production to a country in Africa. The production caused hazardous gases but when he looked at the factory none of the workers had any protective gear, and the ventilation was insufficient. When he questioned this the manager just pointed to outside the gate and the odd 200 people sitting there. "If someone gets sick, we just take another worker".
This used to be the case in most westernised countries too some 100 years ago. Going to work used to be dangerous. Now it's not. Why is this a problem for you?

As to weather or not people would actually do something if they had to think about consequences. I'm sure some would. But if the negative consequences are greater than the reward, I think not. Better safe than sorry. I'll just go ask my manager what I should do next. Let him worry about the consequences of what we do.

Ponzi me: http://fxnet.bitlex.org/?ref=588
Thanks to the anonymous person who doubled my BTC wealth by sending 0.02 BTC to: 1BSGbFq4G8r3uckpdeQMhP55ScCJwbvNnG
myrkul
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 532


FIAT LIBERTAS RVAT CAELVM


View Profile WWW
June 26, 2011, 10:53:16 PM
 #80

Do you actually believe that the drug addict/ADHD/schizophrenic who robs people on the street are the same that sits in a boardroom and makes calculated decisions about what actions the company should take next? Are you thick or are you just trying to make a cheap point? I'm hoping the latter, although it's a bit insulting. Laws stops normal people from committing crimes. People who care about consequences. The mentally ill/drugged up/desperate don't.

As to weather or not people would actually do something if they had to think about consequences. I'm sure some would. But if the negative consequences are greater than the reward, I think not. Better safe than sorry. I'll just go ask my manager what I should do next. Let him worry about the consequences of what we do.

So, on one hand, you say that people won't care about the consequences of their actions, and on the other, you say they don't. The people who care about consequences, will still care about consequences, and the people who don't, still won't. What I suggest, is making those consequences benefit the victim, rather than punish the victim and culprit, and benefit the State.

As to the example you gave, in a poor economy, jobs are scarce. In a good economy, workers are scarce.

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
Pages: « 1 2 3 [4] 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 »  All
  Print  
 
Jump to:  

Sponsored by , a Bitcoin-accepting VPN.
Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.19 | SMF © 2006-2009, Simple Machines Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!