So, people are irrational and can't take care of themselves through freetrade...

[Anonymous]

...so how the hell is democracy going to work if they aren't rational enough to choose good leaders?

[MountainMan]

Rationally constructed laws and objective individuals hired/assigned/elected/appointed to do the arbitration and dispensation of justice?

Unrestricted democracy results in Hugo Chavez as President4Lyfe. Democratic Republic gets you Barack Obama for 4 years (so far.) Bush for 8. Clinton for 8. etc.

Laws are neat. Lawyers, not so much.

How about a decentralized system of Law and Government? p2pgov?

[myrkul]

How about a decentralized system of Law and Government? p2pgov?

It's called Anarcho-capitalism.

[Anonymous]

How about a decentralized system of Law and Government? p2pgov?

It's called Anarcho-capitalism.

+1

[MountainMan]

It was more a question of implementation than categorization. How do you establish identity, rights, citizenship, and the rest without having some sort of fundamental state concept. E.g. BitCoins are governed by the algorithms in the software.

Let's say you incorporated all the concepts of government into a distributed system. Running the node gives you identity. Private law results in arbitration over the network or locally.

What's the difference between the eventual evolution of such a distributed network into something approximating what we consider States to be today?

[myrkul]

What's the difference between the eventual evolution of such a distributed network into something approximating what we consider States to be today?

Voluntarism. You can set up whatever system you want, so long as everyone is free to choose a different system or none at all.

[NghtRppr]

What's the difference between the eventual evolution of such a distributed network into something approximating what we consider States to be today?

"If consequences dictate my course of action then it's only wrong if I get caught."

[MountainMan]

As far as I know, modern states are voluntary? I can even do dual citizenship across some States if I so desire.

I would like to see a decentralized government system, because it would result in efficiency orders of magnitude beyond what we have now (at least in the US.) Everything could be designed for transparency, without the opportunity for abuse.

The problem with allowing everyone to choose their own thing is lack of consistency between situations. That's the benefit of a State - stability.

[NghtRppr]

As far as I know, modern states are voluntary?

You need to understand the difference between secession and emigration. Here's how it went down with my ancestors that have owned this land since before the formation of the state.

Agent: Hey there, we're forming a state.
Farmer: That's awesome! I'm a good neighbor and I look forward to trading with you.
Agent: No, you don't understand. You're part of it now. You have to pay taxes.
Farmer: What?! I didn't agree to that. I want no part of it.
Agent: That's fine, you can just abandon your property if you don't like it.
Farmer: That's extortion! That's theft! You're just a highway robber.
Agent: No, I'm an agent of the people. Well, everyone but you anyways.

That's not voluntary. If I could secede then it would be but I can't.

[MountainMan]

Why wouldn't that be true in a p2p government? Some collective grabs guns and bombs and decides they want stable borders, so anyone inside a radius of 5 miles is assimilated?

Again, the State simply did what powerful agents/individuals/groups do in these scenarios, to maximize benefit and minimize risks.

[myrkul]

As far as I know, modern states are voluntary? I can even do dual citizenship across some States if I so desire.

I would like to see a decentralized government system, because it would result in efficiency orders of magnitude beyond what we have now (at least in the US.) Everything could be designed for transparency, without the opportunity for abuse.

The problem with allowing everyone to choose their own thing is lack of consistency between situations. That's the benefit of a State - stability.

Just try telling your local government that you'd like to opt out of their services.

Come to that - That's my issue... Governments are opt-out (if you could, which you can't), similar to certain ad programs or 'services' on some social networks. you are given no choice about them, they are given to you - and you are charged for them - whether or not you want them. I'd rather they were Opt-in.

[MountainMan]

Sure they're opt out. Renounce your citizenship and move to Somalia. Just because it's not practical doesn't mean it's not possible.

Decentralizing government would make that much more practical, I would think. By no means am I advocating the status quo. I would like to see something different, but my opinions lean towards a more structured system than Anarcho-Capitalism.

[myrkul]

Sure they're opt out. Renounce your citizenship and move to Somalia. Just because it's not practical doesn't mean it's not possible.

Decentralizing government would make that much more practical, I would think. By no means am I advocating the status quo. I would like to see something different, but my opinions lean towards a more structured system than Anarcho-Capitalism.

AnCap is pretty structured, as these things go. It's simply letting other firms compete with the government in the areas of defense and courts, and removing non-voluntary tax.

[MountainMan]

I think it'd be difficult to balance using profits for massive infrastructure versus mandatory taxation. And I don't think the whole "pay to play" concept is all that bad when it comes to things like roads, public transportation, and so on. I do believe we're moving into an age of self-sufficiency, where things like vertical farming and sustainable energy production will start offsetting the traditional sources of food and power, shifting the majority of economic focus to more abstract things.

Also, I like the idea that across a giant geographical region, I can be assured of consistent laws and rights. With AnCap, if North Dakota wanted to implement capital punishment for misdemeanor trespassing, and South Dakota didn't even have it on the books, then a lot of South Dakotans are going to get offed because of inconsistency. OK, that was an extreme and ridiculous, but imagine how a slew of subtle differences in laws could create difficulties between unsuspecting citizens? A semi-decentralized state might be better.

[myrkul]

if North Dakota wanted to implement capital punishment for misdemeanor trespassing, and South Dakota didn't even have it on the books, then a lot of South Dakotans are going to get offed because of inconsistency.

See, that's pretty much what we have now. Here: Read this, then come back and debate.

[NghtRppr]

OK, that was an extreme and ridiculous, but imagine how a slew of subtle differences in laws could create difficulties between unsuspecting citizens?

Look at any relativity free market. Are you overwhelmed by incompatibilities? Most video connections are HDMI these days. Most gadgets take AA or AAA batteries. Most cell phones use mini USB to chargel. Most cameras use SD memory cards. Most cars have CD players. I could go on and on. There aren't government regulations that force any of this to happen. Businesses want to make money and while there is money to be made in variety, that only goes so far and only when it makes sense. If people want standardized laws, they will get it. If people want different laws but to be able to know when those laws apply, they will get that too. Someone could make a GPS device that detects your location and shows the laws that apply in that area depending on which court system you subscribe to or whatever. Don't underestimate how smart people can be when they are acting out of their own selfish interest to obtain wealth.

[onesalt]

...so how the hell is democracy going to work if they aren't rational enough to choose good leaders?

Just because your prefered candidate didn't win doesn't mean that everyone other than you is an idiot, by the way. People reach different conclusions to different problems based on their ethics and morals and suchlike.

[MountainMan]

Look at any relativity free market. Are you overwhelmed by incompatibilities? Most video connections are HDMI these days. Most gadgets take AA or AAA batteries. Most cell phones use mini USB to chargel. Most cameras use SD memory cards. Most cars have CD players. I could go on and on. There aren't government regulations that force any of this to happen. Businesses want to make money and while there is money to be made in variety, that only goes so far and only when it makes sense. If people want standardized laws, they will get it. If people want different laws but to be able to know when those laws apply, they will get that too. Someone could make a GPS device that detects your location and shows the laws that apply in that area depending on which court system you subscribe to or whatever. Don't underestimate how smart people can be when they are acting out of their own selfish interest to obtain wealth.

Don't underestimate how lazy and how nasty people can be, either. I've experienced enough spontaneously developing cultures in online games to know that mega-collaborations with shared "laws" are an almost inevitable result of anarchy.

The difference is, nasty, lazy people in real life get other people killed, hurt, or imprisoned. There's a huge difference between various interpretations of "human rights" and the size of battery you put in your latest dongle. The benefit of founding principles and a centralized system is consistency and reliability. Unless AnCap or p2pgov can meet or exceed that benefit, it will never work.

[em3rgentOrdr]

How do you establish identity, rights, citizenship, and the rest without having some sort of fundamental state concept.

Who says there is even a need for a collective "identity"?  Of course we may individually desire a personal identity, but why should you be able to force your concept of an identity upon everyone living in your geographic area?

Why do you need the concept of "rights"?  Just agree to not aggress against your neighbor, and set up contracts for cases of disputes between shared resources and inevitable interactions.  Hire a private dispute resolution agency for security.

Why should people be "citizens"?  While it is one thing to identify yourself as part of a racial/cultural/ethnic group, it is not OK to force people to submit to the taxes and numerous laws enacted by your legislators and enforced by your armed gangs.

[myrkul]

The difference is, nasty, lazy people in real life get other people killed, hurt, or imprisoned. There's a huge difference between various interpretations of "human rights" and the size of battery you put in your latest dongle. The benefit of founding principles and a centralized system is consistency and reliability. Unless AnCap or p2pgov can meet or exceed that benefit, it will never work.

You didn't read that wiki article, did you? I can tell because you still don't think AnCap has founding principles.

Murray Rothbard does a fine job of explaining it, so I'll let him:

"No one may threaten or commit violence ('aggress') against another man's person or property. Violence may be employed only against the man who commits such violence; that is, only defensively against the aggressive violence of another. In short, no violence may be employed against a nonaggressor. Here is the fundamental rule from which can be deduced the entire corpus of libertarian theory."

If that ain't consistent, I don't know what is.