How to run an Anarchy

[TheGer]

Dude stop making up symantic differences that don't exist. 

You plainly don't understand Law or Laws.  To say laws are consequences for specific behavior is retarded.  At least look up the words you're talking about in the dictionary.  Sorry to be blunt but that post is just stupid.  I suggest you stop trying to put everyones opinions into a neat little box you can use to boost your own fallible point of view.

Here we run into the difference between Law and laws

Law is social order, and can be achieved without laws, which are codified consequences for specific behaviors. Laws result in an inflexible legal system, in which something that is not prohibited, even though it is wrong, is not punishable, and worse, allows for punishment of some act simply because it is prohibited.

[myrkul]

Really? So, then, What, exactly is a law, if not the definition of a specific, prohibited behavior, and the consequences thereof?

Because the dictionary definition: 'any written or positive rule or collection of rules prescribed under the authority of the state or nation,' Sure seems to agree with mine.

(Let's go ahead and define 'rule' while we're at it: a principle or regulation governing conduct, action, procedure, arrangement, etc. )

[Blackhawke]

While criminals will create problems due to not following Law, most people in the group will thus creating a stable environment for the group to flourish.  This is ofcourse assuming the laws are just and freely accepted by all.

Which gets us to the bigger point: We are not "a country of laws" as the politicians like to say. That's their propaganda to try to get society to follow the laws they create, whether they're just and right or not.

No, in reality we are cultures: Groups with common social norms, and "just laws" are those laws that are in agreement with the society's cultural norms. By this definition, most laws are "unjust" and serve only our political masters and their ends.

[TheGer]

Dude seriously wake up.  Your so called definition of  Law "a specific, prohibited behavior, and the consequences thereof?" does not allign with "'any written or positive rule or collection of rules prescribed under the authority of the state or nation".  Like I said before stop making up your own definitions for words.  I can see by your last post you at least took my advice and looked up the actual meaning of the word this time.

But yet again though you try to make it fit in with your own personal definition of how you think stuff should be.

[myrkul]

Let me show you:

A person shall be guilty of theft if he dishonestly appropriates property belonging to another with the intention of permanently depriving the other of it.

Definition of specific, prohibited behavior.

Punishments.

(1)Offences under this Act shall be punishable either on conviction on indictment or on summary conviction.

(2)A person convicted on indictment shall be liable—

(a)for an offence under section 1 or section 2 of this Act, to imprisonment for a term not exceeding five years; and

(b)for an offence under section 3 of this Act, to imprisonment for a term not exceeding two years.

(3)A person convicted summarily of any offence under this Act shall be liable—

(a)to imprisonment for a term not exceeding six months; or

(b)to a fine not exceeding the prescribed sum for the purposes of [F1section 32 of the Magistrates’ Courts Act 1980] (punishment on summary conviction of offences triable either way: £1,000 or other sum substituted by order under that Act),

Definition of consequences.

(both of these are from the Theft act of 1978, UK. Just happened to be the easiest law to find)

[TheGer]

Geez it's like talking to a wall.

Let me SHOW YOU.

"A person shall be guilty of theft if he dishonestly appropriates property belonging to another with the intention of permanently depriving the other of it."

The Law in this case is DON'T FUCKING STEAL!

What they do you when you steal has nothing to due with the law itself, it's just a deterrent of enough severity to make people think twice or thrice about being retarded.

Let me show you:

A person shall be guilty of theft if he dishonestly appropriates property belonging to another with the intention of permanently depriving the other of it.

Definition of specific, prohibited behavior.

Punishments.

(1)Offences under this Act shall be punishable either on conviction on indictment or on summary conviction.

(2)A person convicted on indictment shall be liable—

(a)for an offence under section 1 or section 2 of this Act, to imprisonment for a term not exceeding five years; and

(b)for an offence under section 3 of this Act, to imprisonment for a term not exceeding two years.

(3)A person convicted summarily of any offence under this Act shall be liable—

(a)to imprisonment for a term not exceeding six months; or

(b)to a fine not exceeding the prescribed sum for the purposes of [F1section 32 of the Magistrates’ Courts Act 1980] (punishment on summary conviction of offences triable either way: £1,000 or other sum substituted by order under that Act),

Definition of consequences.

(both of these are from the Theft act of 1978, UK. Just happened to be the easiest law to find)

[myrkul]

Geez it's like talking to a wall.

My sentiments exactly.

If the consequences aren't part of the law, why was it written down as part of the law?

[TheGer]

Lol you waste my time.

You keep your word semantics and made up definitions for stuff.  I'll stick to common sense and proper understanding of defined material.

If you refuse to understand there's a difference between a Law and the Penalties for breaking a Law you are truely a Legend in your own mind and I bow out of this conversation.

Let the Dead bury the Dead.

[myrkul]

Perhaps you would be happier if we didn't use the word 'Law'?

What word would you rather use to define the piece of paper which includes a prohibited action and it's consequences?

[TheGer]

It's called a Penal Code.  Easily Googled on the Internets.....

[myrkul]

It's called a Penal Code.  Easily Googled on the Internets.....

Very well.

Laws create structure and stability within a group.  You are correct Laws don't stop criminals, but just as in pre-recorded history, if you broke the rules binding a tribe together you were ostrcized from that group and no longer had its protection or resources.

While criminals will create problems due to not following Law, most people in the group will thus creating a stable environment for the group to flourish.  This is ofcourse assuming the laws are just and freely accepted by all.

Then did you actually mean 'Penal code' when you said Laws, anywhere in there? Because it's the penal code I have issue with, the actual, codified behavior->punishment list which, as I said, allows things which it should not, simply because there's no rule against it, and punishes behavior it should not, simply because there is.

[TheGer]

I meant what I said.

[myrkul]

Then I don't think we were arguing over anything of substance, save pedantry.

[TheGer]

I was just showing you an error in your argument.  If you don't consider your argument anything of substance that's on you

[myrkul]

I was just showing you an error in your argument.  If you don't consider your argument anything of substance that's on you

I don't consider the error to be anything of substance.

[TheGer]

Well, that's completely up to you.  I'm just pointing stuff out to keep everyone's pages the same.

[AyeYo]

I told you already. In the land of the blind, the one eyed man is king.

Sweden is very different from Switzerland, which you would know if you bothered looking into either country.

Again: if guns kill people, do pencils make mistakes?

So, in the absence of anarchy you'd go for socialistic Switzerland?

I have looked into them. I've been to both. I know people from both countries. Please tell me a few significant differences that you see.

Asked an answered. Look at my response to myrkul you you don't understand the answer.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Taxation_in_Switzerland
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Banking_in_Switzerland

If I had to pick a specific country to go to, Hong Kong would actually be my first choice.

Better read up a little more.  Hong Kong is just as regulated as any other country, they just have effective regulations.

http://www.info.gov.hk/hkma/

http://www.mallesons.com/MarketInsights/marketAlerts/2011/Leaps_and_bounds_how_the_Hong_Kong_regulatory_landscape_will_change_in_2011-12/Pages/default.aspx


So where are you off to now?  Keep pointing out prospering countries and pretend they're libertarian leaning, and we'll keep pointing out how strong their central authority actually is.


Know where all the countries closest to libertarian ideas are?  Right here:



I have a feeling you wouldn't want to move to any of them though.  Better to stay here and enjoy the cushy, yet terribly, terribly oppressive and oh so  coercive living of a "socialist" nation.

I was unaware that Socialism, as in Angola, is Libertarian.

Most African countries are ruled by dictators. Try again.

The exceptions are Botswana (which certainly isn't great but has been improving rapidly compared to its neighbors) and Somalia (which has been invaded by UN backed thugs repeatedly, yet is still light years ahead of where it was under communist dictatorship).

It would seem you are arguing with a stereotype of Libertarians rather than bothering to see what we actually stand for.  Again I ask myself why I even bother.

PROTIP: Read the time indicated by the articles you are providing.

The articles you are providing on Hong Kong are indicating that there WILL BE new regulations, something I already knew. They still aren't even marginally as pervasive as those elsewhere. Up until recently, Hong Kong had no minimum wage, either.

At any rate, I indicated the country I would prefer to go to right now, not whether it is trending in a libertarian direction. That is an entirely different issue (before you ask, Iceland would be one of the better performing ones in that category). You do realize there is a reason I am not bothering to move anywhere, right?

Know where the country closest to your ideals is? Right here:

Clearly you missed (or intentionally overlooked) the link to Hong Kong's central bank/centralized financial planning institution, which is much more powerful and proactive than the Fed in the US.  On the other hand, most non-developed African nations are free of regulations, functioning governments, order, police forces, etc.  They are FAR closer to being libertarian than any nation in the developed word.

However, I do understand the desire to link your beliefs with a well-off, developed nation that is prospering (no matter how unlibertarian it actually is).  More accurating linking your beliefs with chaotic hell hole nations just doesn't bode well for your system.  It's so much better to point to one or two unregulated areas in an otherwise heavily centrally planned nationed and claim it's prospering because of libertarian principles.  

[LastBattle]

I told you already. In the land of the blind, the one eyed man is king.

Sweden is very different from Switzerland, which you would know if you bothered looking into either country.

Again: if guns kill people, do pencils make mistakes?

So, in the absence of anarchy you'd go for socialistic Switzerland?

I have looked into them. I've been to both. I know people from both countries. Please tell me a few significant differences that you see.

Asked an answered. Look at my response to myrkul you you don't understand the answer.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Taxation_in_Switzerland
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Banking_in_Switzerland

If I had to pick a specific country to go to, Hong Kong would actually be my first choice.

Better read up a little more.  Hong Kong is just as regulated as any other country, they just have effective regulations.

http://www.info.gov.hhkma/k/

http://www.mallesons.com/MarketInsights/marketAlerts/2011/Leaps_and_bounds_how_the_Hong_Kong_regulatory_landscape_will_change_in_2011-12/Pages/default.aspx


So where are you off to now?  Keep pointing out prospering countries and pretend they're libertarian leaning, and we'll keep pointing out how strong their central authority actually is.


Know where all the countries closest to libertarian ideas are?  Right here:



I have a feeling you wouldn't want to move to any of them though.  Better to stay here and enjoy the cushy, yet terribly, terribly oppressive and oh so  coercive living of a "socialist" nation.

I was unaware that Socialism, as in Angola, is Libertarian.

Most African countries are ruled by dictators. Try again.

The exceptions are Botswana (which certainly isn't great but has been improving rapidly compared to its neighbors) and Somalia (which has been invaded by UN backed thugs repeatedly, yet is still light years ahead of where it was under communist dictatorship).

It would seem you are arguing with a stereotype of Libertarians rather than bothering to see what we actually stand for.  Again I ask myself why I even bother.

PROTIP: Read the time indicated by the articles you are providing.

The articles you are providing on Hong Kong are indicating that there WILL BE new regulations, something I already knew. They still aren't even marginally as pervasive as those elsewhere. Up until recently, Hong Kong had no minimum wage, either.

At any rate, I indicated the country I would prefer to go to right now, not whether it is trending in a libertarian direction. That is an entirely different issue (before you ask, Iceland would be one of the better performing ones in that category). You do realize there is a reason I am not bothering to move anywhere, right?

Know where the country closest to your ideals is? Right here:

Clearly you missed (or intentionally overlooked) the link to Hong Kong's central bank/centralized financial planning institution, which is much more powerful and proactive than the Fed in the US.  On the other hand, most non-developed African nations are free of regulations, functioning governments, order, police forces, etc.  They are FAR closer to being libertarian than any nation in the developed word.

However, I do understand the desire to link your beliefs with a well-off, developed nation that is prospering (no matter how unlibertarian it actually is).  More accurating linking your beliefs with chaotic hell hole nations just doesn't bode well for your system.  It's so much better to point to one or two unregulated areas in an otherwise heavily centrally planned nationed and claim it's prospering because of libertarian principles.  

Sure would be cool if you had the slightest idea what libertarianism advocates.

Also, go out and learn what "incidental" and "essential" traits are.

Also, strong central banks are irrelevant, seeing as how just about every nation (including pseudo-nations like the "rebels" in Libya) has a central bank. Notice how I didn't say it was anything approaching perfect, it was just better than the alternatives.

[qbg]

Excellent. I'll buy a hammer, some nails, and some wood, set the hammer outside with the nails and wood, and Hey Presto, a new deck. That's how it works, right?

No, you have to look at it too. Please go right away and come back here when it's done.

OK, so can we agree that tools are tools? Or would a better hammer suddenly make the deck leap together? Maybe, a Nailgun?

Do robots count?

[myrkul]

Excellent. I'll buy a hammer, some nails, and some wood, set the hammer outside with the nails and wood, and Hey Presto, a new deck. That's how it works, right?

No, you have to look at it too. Please go right away and come back here when it's done.

OK, so can we agree that tools are tools? Or would a better hammer suddenly make the deck leap together? Maybe, a Nailgun?

Do robots count?

Sure, if they can program themselves (Not each other) and self-assemble from scratch.