Distribution of Wealth

[Anonymous]

You are quite correct, the world is in shades of gray.

A free society is never going to be easy to achieve, and nobody really knows quite how it will work.  But it is a worthy goal to work towards.

Good luck changing people.

[1713889233]

1713889233

[1713889233]

1713889233

[1713889233]

1713889233

[1713889233]

1713889233

[BitterTea]

You are quite correct, the world is in shades of gray.

A free society is never going to be easy to achieve, and nobody really knows quite how it will work.  But it is a worthy goal to work towards.

Good luck changing people.

I'll pay you 5 BTC to change your avatar to Eeyore.

[fergalish]

The case with MTGox is black and white, either people are forced with violence to use it, or not.   So my argument even when it is simplified to a black and white contrast, still holds strong.

Even still I disagree.  Suppose there is some advantage to using MtGox.  Anyone who exercises their right to avoid it will lose and is therefore forced to use it to remain competitive even though they might not agree with MtGox's policies (e.g. the dark pools).  Let me give you another example.  I don't like cellular phones for several reasons, and yet it's essential for my work.  Nobody has violently forced me to have one, yet I must have one.  Society itself is coercing me to have a cell phone.  But no individual is responsible, it's just an outcome of the system in which we all operate.

To satisfy BitterTea's curiosity, my example was this.  Boy meets girl, girl gets pregnant.  Neither wanted a child, nobody violently forced them to have a child, yet they will have a child (let's say neither boy nor girl will consider abortion, for whatever reasons).  There's a simple (if unwritten) contract: "let's have sex".  But it has unintended consequences, not foreseen in the contract, and that's all you need to make the wonderful utopia of anarchism & free-market crumble, one conflict at a time.

[gene]

The case with MTGox is black and white, either people are forced with violence to use it, or not.   So my argument even when it is simplified to a black and white contrast, still holds strong.

Even still I disagree.  Suppose there is some advantage to using MtGox.  Anyone who exercises their right to avoid it will lose and is therefore forced to use it to remain competitive even though they might not agree with MtGox's policies (e.g. the dark pools).  Let me give you another example.  I don't like cellular phones for several reasons, and yet it's essential for my work.  Nobody has violently forced me to have one, yet I must have one.  Society itself is coercing me to have a cell phone.  But no individual is responsible, it's just an outcome of the system in which we all operate.

To satisfy BitterTea's curiosity, my example was this.  Boy meets girl, girl gets pregnant.  Neither wanted a child, nobody violently forced them to have a child, yet they will have a child (let's say neither boy nor girl will consider abortion, for whatever reasons).  There's a simple (if unwritten) contract: "let's have sex".  But it has unintended consequences, not foreseen in the contract, and that's all you need to make the wonderful utopia of anarchism & free-market crumble, one conflict at a time.

Yup. Externalities: what anarcho-capitalists (libertarians) fail to understand or will simply ignore.

[grondilu]

Yup. Externalities: what anarcho-capitalists (libertarians) fail to understand or will simply ignore.

Anarcho-capitalism or libertarianism doesn't magically prevent human beings from making mistakes or being unwise.  The point is just that no-one has the right to prevent people from acting according to their freedom just because of that.

In your example of sex between a boy and an girl:  what do you want to do?  Prevent them from seeing each other and have sex?  Punish them very hardly if they do?  Who the f.ck do you think you are to mess with other people's business and private life?

[fergalish]

In your example of sex between a boy and an girl:  what do you want to do?  Prevent them from seeing each other and have sex?  Punish them very hardly if they do?  Who the f.ck do you think you are to mess with other people's business and private life?

Read the thread grondilu, and try to maintain your usual politeness please.  I was posing a problem, not a solution.  da2ce7 stated that all interactions were either voluntary or violent.  I gave an example in which this is not the case - raising the child was neither voluntary nor violent.  Neither of them wanted the child, nobody forces them to have it.  And da2ce7 agrees, in fact, that life is not all black & white.

[da2ce7]

There's a simple (if unwritten) contract: "let's have sex".  But it has unintended consequences, not foreseen in the contract, and that's all you need to make the wonderful utopia of anarchism & free-market crumble, one conflict at a time.

What part of 'lets-have-sex' doesn't have the implied possibility of having a child, everyone knows that condoms brake.

However that isn't the point, with unintended consequences you just have to deal with it.  Life is full of uncertainty.  A better way of looking at this problem is did the people having sex voluntary do it or not.  Because if it was voluntary there is no issue.

Finally, the woman voluntary decided to keep the child, and the farther voluntary decided to help care for it.  The mother could put the child up for adoption, or a host of other options.  I'm sure that if she didn't want it at all, there would be somebody else in the society wanting to look after it.

Other than self-defense, there is always a voluntary option.

[fergalish]

What part of 'lets-have-sex' doesn't have the implied possibility of having a child, everyone knows that condoms brake.
However that isn't the point, with unintended consequences you just have to deal with it.  Life is full of uncertainty.

Unintended pregnancies can have serious sociological effects (though I admit some are probably more to do with a misguided society).  But if you doubt that, then I hope you'll at least agree that they can cause real problems for the new parents.

This question is for grondilu as much as for da2ce7:  Like I said in my last post, I don't propose a solution to this problem.  What solution do *you* propose?  Would you have everyone sign a contract before hopping into bed, with clauses specifying the responsibilities of each party should a pregnancy occur?  How about STDs?  Another clause for them?  What if you're drunk when you sign - are you still responsible?  What if the guy can't get it up (failure to fulfill the terms of the contract)?  da2ce7 - you're absolutely right, life *is* full of uncertainties, and no contract can foresee them all.  Therefore, unpleasant circumstances and conflict can always arise, even though all actions were voluntary and non-violent, and *there will always be conflicts that cannot be solved by enforcing the terms of the contract*.

...with unintended consequences you just have to deal with it.

And if there's a conflict over who should do that - who should "deal with it", then what?  Do you run to your private police and force someone to do something they didn't specifically, contractually and voluntarily agree to?

A better way of looking at this problem is did the people having sex voluntary do it or not.  Because if it was voluntary there is no issue.

But there *is* an issue, even if the sex was voluntary.  Who pays for the child?  Who pays for the mother's welfare while she can't work?  These things *cannot* be ignored.  And talking about adoption might work for some, and not for others - be assured that women develop a very strong emotional attachment even to an unborn baby, so giving a baby up for adoption might cause *other* problems for the mother (health, depression etc).  But even adoption doesn't solve the mother's problems during and after the pregnancy (e.g. hospital bills, post-natal depression, other stuff...).

[BitterTea]

Are you insinuating that only a state, with amonopoly in the use of force, can answer these questions? Nobody is saying that there won't be law without a state, just that the law will be poly centric.

[fergalish]

Are you insinuating that only a state, with amonopoly in the use of force, can answer these questions? Nobody is saying that there won't be law without a state, just that the law will be poly centric.

That's an interesting statement.  Let me repeat, in answer to you, that I am not proposing any solutions.  Unplanned pregnancy can be a serious problem for people, and I am posing the problem, not suggesting any solution.  I'm still waiting for the libertarians and anarchists of this forum to explain how they would improve on the current situation.

But you say the law will be poly-centric?  Firstly, my (perhaps incorrect) understanding of anarchism is that you're wrong - there is *no law*, no law at all.  For corporations, there are no regulations.  Any person or corporation can do as it pleases.  Street justice, private policing and the free market will see that any abusers are punished.  A fine utopia I agree, but, I think, not functional in the long-term.  But what I think is not relevant here.

I assume then that this "poly-centric" concept of law pertains to a libertarian society.  Can you explain what a poly-centric law is please? I know what poly-centrism is, but I can't understand what a poly-centric legal structure might be like.

[kiba]

That's an interesting statement.  Let me repeat, in answer to you, that I am not proposing any solutions.  Unplanned pregnancy can be a serious problem for people, and I am posing the problem, not suggesting any solution.  I'm still waiting for the libertarians and anarchists of this forum to explain how they would improve on the current situation.

Must we devise solution to every little problem in the world?

[error]

That's an interesting statement.  Let me repeat, in answer to you, that I am not proposing any solutions.  Unplanned pregnancy can be a serious problem for people, and I am posing the problem, not suggesting any solution.  I'm still waiting for the libertarians and anarchists of this forum to explain how they would improve on the current situation.

Must we devise solution to every little problem in the world?

He's not proposing any solutions, but he wants the "libertarians and anarchists" to propose solutions! HAHAHAHAHA.

The only "solution" necessary is for you to accept responsibility for your own actions.

[fergalish]

Must we devise solution to every little problem in the world?

No.  But it would be nice.  And it might win you converts.  But if you can't improve on the current situation, then you must admit failure in that area.  Also, I think alot of people would disagree that unplanned pregnancy is a little problem.  As a matter of fact, I'd bet that the majority of unplanned pregnancies present a big problem to the mother.

He's not proposing any solutions, but he wants the "libertarians and anarchists" to propose solutions! HAHAHAHAHA.
The only "solution" necessary is for you to accept responsibility for your own actions.

Well, look back a bit and you'll see that grondilu's language clearly forbids me from offering solutions.  But you want to change the status quo, so the onus is on you to explain why.  Right now we have laws that forcibly oblige people to be responsible for their actions, and despite that, many people behave irresponsibly.  Why would they suddenly become models of responsibility if the law is eliminated?  Do you seriously think that all (say) young men, on the day law is banished forever, would suddenly start manning-up and taking responsibility for their unplanned children?  It's my turn to laugh now.

And, really, this discussion is not just about unplanned pregnancy.  It's not just about "little problems".  It's about what libertarians/anarchists/whoever will do when there is a conflict arising from unintended and unforeseen consequences of a voluntary contract.  Right now we have a justice system which allocates responsibility according to certain (very very complicated) rules.  Apart from simplifying the rules, how can the elimination of law (or the introduction of poly-centric law, whatever that is) improve the situation?  That's what I'd like to see you answer.

[maybe we should start a  new thread - this is gone way beyond the distribution of wealth.  Can an admin please see if it would be appropriate to start a "politics" section in the forum?]

[BitterTea]

But if you can't improve on the current situation, then you must admit failure in that area. I'm still waiting for the libertarians and anarchists of this forum to explain how they would improve on the current situation.

I can't tell you how things would be, for if I could, I would advocate centrally planned solutions. I can however tell you how things could be.

The problem you propose could be solved by one of the many dispute resolution systems, one of which is poly-centric law.

Poly-centric law is where no one entity can dictate the law for everyone. An individual must agree to the law in order to be bound by it. If you want to see an example of how this can work in today's world, look at international law. Each country has its own set of laws, and they resolve disputes between those legal systems in various ways. A stateless legal system could be similar, but I think would tend to operate with much less violence.

[marcus_of_augustus]

It's about what libertarians/anarchists/whoever will do when there is a conflict arising from unintended and unforeseen consequences of a voluntary contract.

Socialism has got all the answers and makes everything better, if you don't like our "better" we send you to re-education camps or prison if you get real uppity.

[JA37]

Socialism has got all the answers and makes everything better, if you don't like our "better" we send you to re-education camps or prison if you get real uppity.

Oh please.
If socialism is such an hell on earth, why are the scandinavian countries so successful? How many Norwegian re-education camps have you seen? How many political prisoners are there in Sweden? How many Finns are taken away and shot by the secret police?

Socialism has its share of problems, but so does the anarcho-capitalism that people here seem to love so much.
Want to experience the result of a weak government? Go to Somalia.

I believe that a free market needs to be regulated to be efficient. How much is a matter of opinion.
IMHO a complete laissez-faire economy would be catastrophic for the large majority. As would a planned economy.

[kiba]

Oh please.
If socialism is such an hell on earth, why are the scandinavian countries so successful? How many Norwegian re-education camps have you seen? How many political prisoners are there in Sweden? How many Finns are taken away and shot by the secret police?

Then explain why Norway is a successful country. Surely you have a theory of why these countries are so successful.

Socialism has its share of problems, but so does the anarcho-capitalism that people here seem to love so much.
Want to experience the result of a weak government? Go to Somalia.

Then explain how your conclusion fit the evidence? Don't forget that people will claim that foreign intervention is the result of the conflict.
 

I believe that a free market needs to be regulated to be efficient. How much is a matter of opinion.
IMHO a complete laissez-faire economy would be catastrophic for the large majority. As would a planned economy.

An opinion supported by no theory and no cause and effect of any kind and no empirical evidence of any kind.

moa's argument may been a bunch of snark backed with nothingness, but don't respond with such a weak counterargument.

[Anonymous]

Socialism has got all the answers and makes everything better, if you don't like our "better" we send you to re-education camps or prison if you get real uppity.

Oh please.
If socialism is such an hell on earth, why are the scandinavian countries so successful? How many Norwegian re-education camps have you seen? How many political prisoners are there in Sweden? How many Finns are taken away and shot by the secret police?

Socialism has its share of problems, but so does the anarcho-capitalism that people here seem to love so much.
Want to experience the result of a weak government? Go to Somalia.

I believe that a free market needs to be regulated to be efficient. How much is a matter of opinion.
IMHO a complete laissez-faire economy would be catastrophic for the large majority. As would a planned economy.

How about you let people choose what they want  ? Its not about one system or the other its about freedom of choice. If youre FORCED to live under it rather than CHOOSE to live under it. There is nothing wrong with any system that is voluntarily chosen - even slavery and communism . Its not the system that is the problem its the use of force to make you  live under one particular system.

That was the original intent of the United States. To supposedly create differing systems and experiment. The problem now is the feds forcing their will on everyone rather than allowing freedom of choice. If socialism is worldwide and universal and everything else is disallowed then moving just replaces one slave master with another. All we ask for is free will not forced choice.

[grondilu]

I believe that a free market needs to be regulated to be efficient. How much is a matter of opinion.
IMHO a complete laissez-faire economy would be catastrophic for the large majority. As would a planned economy.

How about you let people choose what they want  ? Its not about one system or the other its about freedom of choice.

+1

I have nothing against regulations, as long as there are several sets of them, and you can chose which one seems to you to be the most fair.

Otherwise it is just like saying that Poker is the only allowed card game, that other games such as  black jack, bridge etc. are forbidden.

[BitterTea]

I have nothing against regulations, as long as there are several sets of them, and you can chose which one seems to you to be the most fair.

I think a more important point is that regulation does not necessarily have to be statist regulation, and does not necessarily have to be enforced through violence. In fact, I would argue that statist regulation almost always ends up causing problems, not fixing them.