Bitcoin Forum
December 03, 2016, 09:47:48 AM *
News: To be able to use the next phase of the beta forum software, please ensure that your email address is correct/functional.
 
   Home   Help Search Donate Login Register  
Poll
Question: What is your opinion of the Maximum role of Government in society?
Absolute: Government should control all services and prices. - 4 (4.7%)
Moderate: the Government should control some services, and not others (explain) - 23 (26.7%)
Minimal: The Government should limit itself to courts and military. - 32 (37.2%)
None: All services and goods should be provided privately (or collectively). - 27 (31.4%)
Total Voters: 85

Pages: « 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 [9] 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 »
  Print  
Author Topic: Maximum role of Government?  (Read 23062 times)
Hawker
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 700



View Profile
July 09, 2011, 07:41:10 AM
 #161

Do tell how a land registry, court system and police to enforce judgements can exist without a state?

The same way you start any other business. What exactly are you having a problem with understanding? It helps if you're a little bit more specific so I don't have to write an entire legal system in response to a single question.

Do you visualise multiple competing land registries, each of which claims to be legitimate and any of which can define whether or not you are the legitimate owner of a property?


1480758468
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1480758468

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1480758468
Reply with quote  #2

1480758468
Report to moderator
1480758468
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1480758468

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1480758468
Reply with quote  #2

1480758468
Report to moderator
Advertised sites are not endorsed by the Bitcoin Forum. They may be unsafe, untrustworthy, or illegal in your jurisdiction. Advertise here.
JA37
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 378


View Profile
July 09, 2011, 07:45:23 AM
 #162

That's the theory, but the practice doesn't seem to really hold water.  It's based entirely upon the business model that new drugs are priced at the cost of production plus a portion of the costs of research, which is how it actually works today.  However, there could be, and likely are, better ways to mitigate the financial risks of research.  For example, you never pay for UL testing, producers pay for that.  Why would they do this?  Because their insurance is cheaper.  They either pay UL to test their products for public safety and function, or they pay much more in insurance premiums.  It's a kind of subscription service.  Likewise,  insurance companies, or health care foundations, could fund the research using a subscription model.
No, the drugs are priced based on what the market will pay for them. Nothing else.
Are there better ways of doing things? Yes, I believe there is. Does that mean that the current system doesn't work, like someone stated? Absolutely not.
Is your way? Uncertain. You'll have to come up with a system that works in every country, kind of how patents do today.

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
July 09, 2011, 07:50:39 AM
 #163

Ever hear of a federated system?

Those multiple competing agencies will all communicate.

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
Hawker
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 700



View Profile
July 09, 2011, 07:56:00 AM
 #164

Ever hear of a federated system?

Those multiple competing agencies will all communicate.

We are not talking about agencies.  We are talking about the land registry - the place where property ownership is recorded, where banks register mortgages, where rights of way and liens are listed. 

Do you visualise multiple competing land registries?

myrkul
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 532


FIAT LIBERTAS RVAT CAELVM


View Profile WWW
July 09, 2011, 08:05:16 AM
 #165

Ever hear of a federated system?

Those multiple competing agencies will all communicate.

We are not talking about agencies.  We are talking about the land registry - the place where property ownership is recorded, where banks register mortgages, where rights of way and liens are listed. 

Do you visualise multiple competing land registries?

As I said, yes, and they will all communicate talk.

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
Hawker
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 700



View Profile
July 09, 2011, 08:35:49 AM
 #166

Ever hear of a federated system?

Those multiple competing agencies will all communicate.

We are not talking about agencies.  We are talking about the land registry - the place where property ownership is recorded, where banks register mortgages, where rights of way and liens are listed. 

Do you visualise multiple competing land registries?

As I said, yes, and they will all communicate talk.

Again you are describing agencies that communicate about the contents of a single registry.  Competing registries means that I go to registry 1, register my claim and get a deed that I own the land.  You go to registry 2, register your claim to the same area and get a deed that you own the same land.

Would you agree thats a bad idea?  And that a single registry of ownership is better?

myrkul
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 532


FIAT LIBERTAS RVAT CAELVM


View Profile WWW
July 09, 2011, 08:46:07 AM
 #167

Ever hear of a federated system?

Those multiple competing agencies will all communicate.

We are not talking about agencies.  We are talking about the land registry - the place where property ownership is recorded, where banks register mortgages, where rights of way and liens are listed. 

Do you visualise multiple competing land registries?

As I said, yes, and they will all communicate talk.

Again you are describing agencies that communicate about the contents of a single registry.  Competing registries means that I go to registry 1, register my claim and get a deed that I own the land.  You go to registry 2, register your claim to the same area and get a deed that you own the same land.

Would you agree thats a bad idea?  And that a single registry of ownership is better?

If I am suggesting multiple agencies that communicate about a single registry. Why are you hung up on disproving a concept I am not suggesting?

Are you that focused on being right?

Fine. Yes, multiple registries is a bad idea. But that does not preclude multiple registrars.

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
Hawker
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 700



View Profile
July 09, 2011, 08:52:14 AM
 #168

Ever hear of a federated system?

Those multiple competing agencies will all communicate.

We are not talking about agencies.  We are talking about the land registry - the place where property ownership is recorded, where banks register mortgages, where rights of way and liens are listed. 

Do you visualise multiple competing land registries?

As I said, yes, and they will all communicate talk.

Again you are describing agencies that communicate about the contents of a single registry.  Competing registries means that I go to registry 1, register my claim and get a deed that I own the land.  You go to registry 2, register your claim to the same area and get a deed that you own the same land.

Would you agree thats a bad idea?  And that a single registry of ownership is better?

If I am suggesting multiple agencies that communicate about a single registry. Why are you hung up on disproving a concept I am not suggesting?

Are you that focused on being right?

Fine. Yes, multiple registries is a bad idea. But that does not preclude multiple registrars.

So we are agreed you need have 1 land ownership registry.  To arbitrate disputes about ownership, you will need a court system and it will need police to enforce decisions like re-possessions.

Sounds like you are rebuilding the state one basic right at a time Smiley

NghtRppr
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 476


View Profile
July 09, 2011, 08:55:52 AM
 #169

Do you visualise multiple competing land registries, each of which claims to be legitimate and any of which can define whether or not you are the legitimate owner of a property?

That's for the market to decide. There's nothing preventing that from happening.

There's several different agencies I can register my pure breed dog with, each with different advantages.
myrkul
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 532


FIAT LIBERTAS RVAT CAELVM


View Profile WWW
July 09, 2011, 08:59:27 AM
 #170

So we are agreed you need have 1 land ownership registry.  To arbitrate disputes about ownership, you will need a court system and it will need police to enforce decisions like re-possessions.

Sounds like you are rebuilding the state one basic right at a time Smiley

A-hyuk a-hyuk... you got the stoopid yank thar... huh huh huh. Roll Eyes

A land database is is just that. a database. You can have competing courts (called arbitration agencies) and police forces (called security firms) without a state. I'm not saying we don't need the services. I am saying we don't need the monopoly that currently provides those services.

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
Hawker
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 700



View Profile
July 09, 2011, 09:09:17 AM
 #171

So we are agreed you need have 1 land ownership registry.  To arbitrate disputes about ownership, you will need a court system and it will need police to enforce decisions like re-possessions.

Sounds like you are rebuilding the state one basic right at a time Smiley

A-hyuk a-hyuk... you got the stoopid yank thar... huh huh huh. Roll Eyes

A land database is is just that. a database. You can have competing courts (called arbitration agencies) and police forces (called security firms) without a state. I'm not saying we don't need the services. I am saying we don't need the monopoly that currently provides those services.

Arbitration agencies can only compete if there is a single set of laws for them to follow.  If you have a single set of laws you have a state. 


NghtRppr
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 476


View Profile
July 09, 2011, 09:13:22 AM
 #172

Arbitration agencies can only compete if there is a single set of laws for them to follow.  If you have a single set of laws you have a state.

What makes a state a state is its involuntary nature. There's nothing wrong with everyone voluntarily agreeing not to wear hats or anything else that isn't a violation of rights. The voluntary aspect is the key. Why are you so eager to have something called a state anyways? What are you after other than trying to prove libertarians wrong?
Hawker
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 700



View Profile
July 09, 2011, 09:18:02 AM
 #173

Arbitration agencies can only compete if there is a single set of laws for them to follow.  If you have a single set of laws you have a state.

What makes a state a state is its involuntary nature. There's nothing wrong with everyone voluntarily agreeing not to wear hats or anything else that isn't a violation of rights. The voluntary aspect is the key. Why are you so eager to have something called a state anyways? What are you after other than trying to prove libertarians wrong?

Of course its involuntary.  If 2 reasonable adults have a legitimate dispute as to ownership of a bit of land and a court decided one of them is the true owner, the loser can't say "I am opting out of this involuntary state" and keep the land.

myrkul
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 532


FIAT LIBERTAS RVAT CAELVM


View Profile WWW
July 09, 2011, 09:23:50 AM
 #174

Arbitration agencies can only compete if there is a single set of laws for them to follow.  If you have a single set of laws you have a state.

What makes a state a state is its involuntary nature. There's nothing wrong with everyone voluntarily agreeing not to wear hats or anything else that isn't a violation of rights. The voluntary aspect is the key. Why are you so eager to have something called a state anyways? What are you after other than trying to prove libertarians wrong?

Of course its involuntary.  If 2 reasonable adults have a legitimate dispute as to ownership of a bit of land and a court decided one of them is the true owner, the loser can't say "I am opting out of this involuntary state" and keep the land.

Well, you're half right (I've bolded it). The loser can't opt out, because he voluntarily signed an agreement to abide by the court's 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
Hawker
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 700



View Profile
July 09, 2011, 09:31:30 AM
 #175

Arbitration agencies can only compete if there is a single set of laws for them to follow.  If you have a single set of laws you have a state.

What makes a state a state is its involuntary nature. There's nothing wrong with everyone voluntarily agreeing not to wear hats or anything else that isn't a violation of rights. The voluntary aspect is the key. Why are you so eager to have something called a state anyways? What are you after other than trying to prove libertarians wrong?

Of course its involuntary.  If 2 reasonable adults have a legitimate dispute as to ownership of a bit of land and a court decided one of them is the true owner, the loser can't say "I am opting out of this involuntary state" and keep the land.

Well, you're half right (I've bolded it). The loser can't opt out, because he voluntarily signed an agreement to abide by the court's decision.

No - you can't assume the loser signed an agreement to abide by the court's decision.  Many of these disputes arise after a death and are about inheritances. 

Anyway, think through the logic of your position.  The court is interpreting the law.  And the law means there is a state. 

myrkul
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 532


FIAT LIBERTAS RVAT CAELVM


View Profile WWW
July 09, 2011, 09:36:32 AM
 #176

No - you can't assume the loser signed an agreement to abide by the court's decision.  Many of these disputes arise after a death and are about inheritances. 

Anyway, think through the logic of your position.  The court is interpreting the law.  And the law means there is a state. 

No. the law is right here (And it's the only one needed): The Non-aggression principle


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
Hawker
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 700



View Profile
July 09, 2011, 09:51:15 AM
 #177

No - you can't assume the loser signed an agreement to abide by the court's decision.  Many of these disputes arise after a death and are about inheritances. 

Anyway, think through the logic of your position.  The court is interpreting the law.  And the law means there is a state. 

No. the law is right here (And it's the only one needed): The Non-aggression principle



Thats an abstract ideal - like religion of the Declaration of Independence.  No state needed for that.

But you need a lot more than that to resolve a property dispute.  You need inheritance laws, laws that cover rights of way, mortgages and so on.  That does need a set of laws and the entity that enforces those laws is called a state.

myrkul
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 532


FIAT LIBERTAS RVAT CAELVM


View Profile WWW
July 09, 2011, 09:57:46 AM
 #178

Thats an abstract ideal - like religion of the Declaration of Independence.  No state needed for that.

But you need a lot more than that to resolve a property dispute.  You need inheritance laws, laws that cover rights of way, mortgages and so on.  That does need a set of laws and the entity that enforces those laws is called a state.

No, you really don't.

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
Hawker
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 700



View Profile
July 09, 2011, 10:01:45 AM
 #179

Thats an abstract ideal - like religion of the Declaration of Independence.  No state needed for that.

But you need a lot more than that to resolve a property dispute.  You need inheritance laws, laws that cover rights of way, mortgages and so on.  That does need a set of laws and the entity that enforces those laws is called a state.

No, you really don't.

From your article: "Anarchists use this argument in their attempts to convert other libertarians to their views, while opponents of libertarianism use it to support the claim that consistent application of libertarian principles would result in the complete abolition of the state - which, in their view, is an extremist and absurd position to hold."

Your position is indeed absurd.  I can see why you don't believe it will ever win popular support. 

myrkul
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 532


FIAT LIBERTAS RVAT CAELVM


View Profile WWW
July 09, 2011, 10:09:11 AM
 #180

I admire you for trying so hard to defend such an outlandish position Smiley

It's kind of sad that keeping your hands to yourself is seen as "outlandish".

Or in this case, 'absurd'

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 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 »
  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!