Bitcoin Forum
July 16, 2018, 01:39:25 PM *
News: Latest stable version of Bitcoin Core: 0.16.1  [Torrent]. (New!)
 
   Home   Help Search Donate Login Register  
Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 [All]
  Print  
Author Topic: Criticisms?  (Read 11539 times)
myrkul
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 532
Merit: 500


FIAT LIBERTAS RVAT CAELVM


View Profile WWW
June 18, 2012, 07:28:46 AM
 #1

I'd like to do a little research.

I'm convinced AnCap can work, but obviously, not everyone is.

I'd like to hear your doubts, your concerns, and your criticisms. Why do you think it will fail?

Things like "Who will build the roads?" and "What happens if someone invades?" or "Corporations will control the world!" are what I want to see.

Things that will be ignored: "You're stupid." (especially if you use "your"), "It's a pathetic ideology." etc.

I'll likely let the questions get up a good head of steam and then answer a bunch of them all at once. Of course, I welcome the other anarchists and libertarians on here to swing in and answer anything they have a mood to.

So. Why do you think we need a government?

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
1531748365
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1531748365

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1531748365
Reply with quote  #2

1531748365
Report to moderator
1531748365
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1531748365

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1531748365
Reply with quote  #2

1531748365
Report to moderator
The World's Betting Exchange

Bet with play money. Win real Bitcoin. 5BTC Prize Fund for World Cup 2018.

Advertised sites are not endorsed by the Bitcoin Forum. They may be unsafe, untrustworthy, or illegal in your jurisdiction. Advertise here.
1531748365
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1531748365

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1531748365
Reply with quote  #2

1531748365
Report to moderator
mollison
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Activity: 157
Merit: 100



View Profile
June 18, 2012, 07:43:30 AM
 #2

When there is no government, armed gangs fight until one of them wins and becomes the government.
bb113
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 728
Merit: 500


View Profile
June 18, 2012, 08:20:12 AM
 #3

When there is no government, armed gangs fight until one of them wins and becomes the government.

This. Any proponent of an AnCap society needs to address this problem as well as that of external threats first.


Quote
Things like "Who will build the roads?" and "What happens if someone invades?" or "Corporations will control the world!" are what I want to see.

Roads can be toll roads, or technology will make them largely obsolete eventually (3-d printers, telecommuting, air travel)

External threats are one of the main problems. There is a reason that you see no AnCap societies when you look around today.

Corporations are a product of the government. You pay a government to be excused from certain laws. So maybe that isn't the word you were looking for.
Foxpup
Legendary
*
Online Online

Activity: 2240
Merit: 1084



View Profile
June 18, 2012, 08:44:48 AM
 #4

When there is no government, armed gangs fight until one of them wins and becomes the government.
The world will be ruled by companies, and companies are smart enough to know that war and crime is bad for business. Sure, governments know that too, but they don't care because they have a monopoly on the use of force. When there's no monopoly on force, it will be priced more reasonably, making unnecessary violence unprofitable. Hopefully.

External threats are one of the main problems. There is a reason that you see no AnCap societies when you look around today.
Suppose all these armed gangs people keep referring to band together against their common enemy? Seriously though, if it becomes a problem, I'm sure the companies ruling the world will try to negotiate peace with the invaders, what with war being a threat to their business and all.

Corporations are a product of the government. You pay a government to be excused from certain laws. So maybe that isn't the word you were looking for.
The word he's looking for is companies (that is, groups of individuals working together to make money; nothing more, nothing less). Companies will rule the world, which is a good thing because companies want money, not votes, and the only for them to get money is to provide what people are willing to pay for, as opposed to government's taking people's money by force and spending it on things the people don't necessarily want.

Will pretend to do unverifiable things (while actually eating an enchilada-style burrito) for bitcoins: 1K6d1EviQKX3SVKjPYmJGyWBb1avbmCFM4
mollison
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Activity: 157
Merit: 100



View Profile
June 18, 2012, 02:01:08 PM
 #5

When there is no government, armed gangs fight until one of them wins and becomes the government.
The world will be ruled by companies, and companies are smart enough to know that war and crime is bad for business.
The best thing there is for business is when the use of force is placed under an objective system of laws, i.e., a [good] government. So, corporations (and honest people in general) would work to set up a government.

The word he's looking for is companies (that is, groups of individuals working together to make money; nothing more, nothing less). Companies will rule the world, which is a good thing because companies want money, not votes, and the only for them to get money is to provide what people are willing to pay for, as opposed to government's taking people's money by force and spending it on things the people don't necessarily want.
Well, if companies rule the world, they are the government (albeit a non-objective one), and they can take people's money by force.

Let me ask, why would you support anarcho-capitalism when you could support having a mininal government that enforces only the basic rule of law, so that there is a capitalist system? Is there something wrong with that solution to you?
Hawker
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1148
Merit: 1001



View Profile
June 18, 2012, 04:53:45 PM
 #6

I'd like to do a little research.

I'm convinced AnCap can work, but obviously, not everyone is.

I'd like to hear your doubts, your concerns, and your criticisms. Why do you think it will fail?

Things like "Who will build the roads?" and "What happens if someone invades?" or "Corporations will control the world!" are what I want to see.

Things that will be ignored: "You're stupid." (especially if you use "your"), "It's a pathetic ideology." etc.

I'll likely let the questions get up a good head of steam and then answer a bunch of them all at once. Of course, I welcome the other anarchists and libertarians on here to swing in and answer anything they have a mood to.

So. Why do you think we need a government?

There are people who believe themselves to be morally superior to you, usually because of some religious thing.  Take away the protection of law, and you have large numbers of disorganised but basically pleasant folk facing a small number of armed, trained and ruthless militants.  They will get weapons and finance from foreign governments.  They have no fear of dying for their cause and will kill you if you get in the way.  Say hello to your new government.

For examples of this, if you take a look at Somalia, it worked fine until foreign powers started to arm local religious militias.  Right now Libya is a mainly pleasant anarchy.  Watch what happens as foreign powers start to take sides.

Now of course AnCap can "work" but will it be better than our democratic systems? Not unless human nature changes.


Foxpup
Legendary
*
Online Online

Activity: 2240
Merit: 1084



View Profile
June 18, 2012, 07:22:08 PM
 #7

The world will be ruled by companies, and companies are smart enough to know that war and crime is bad for business.
The best thing there is for business is when the use of force is placed under an objective system of laws, i.e., a [good] government. So, corporations (and honest people in general) would work to set up a government.
The worst thing there is for business is when the government starts forcing them to pay taxes. Nobody is suggesting that there shouldn't be an objective system of laws, just that said laws shouldn't be created and enforced at the whim of a single, monopolistic entity.

The word he's looking for is companies (that is, groups of individuals working together to make money; nothing more, nothing less). Companies will rule the world, which is a good thing because companies want money, not votes, and the only for them to get money is to provide what people are willing to pay for, as opposed to government's taking people's money by force and spending it on things the people don't necessarily want.
Well, if companies rule the world, they are the government (albeit a non-objective one), and they can take people's money by force.
How? In a free market, no company can force any individual to use them rather than their competitors, and the resulting competition will keep prices down. If your point is that people are forced to use some company for certain services, well, that's already the case now: people are "forced" to buy food or else starve, but nobody would seriously suggest that grocers are taking people's money by force or that they constitute a kind of government. People could also grow their own food if they are willing to put in the time and effort, and in an arnacho-captital system, the same would be true of all vital services. If enough people don't like what the existing companies are doing, they can (and eventually will) put their resources together and form their own company. Compare this situation with every form of government that has ever existed, where if you don't like the government's doing, you not only have to put up with it, you have to keep paying for it, and you'll have force used against you if you don't.

Let me ask, why would you support anarcho-capitalism when you could support having a mininal government that enforces only the basic rule of law, so that there is a capitalist system? Is there something wrong with that solution to you?
Because minimal governments don't tend to stay minimal for very long.

Will pretend to do unverifiable things (while actually eating an enchilada-style burrito) for bitcoins: 1K6d1EviQKX3SVKjPYmJGyWBb1avbmCFM4
mollison
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Activity: 157
Merit: 100



View Profile
June 18, 2012, 07:47:16 PM
 #8

The world will be ruled by companies, and companies are smart enough to know that war and crime is bad for business.
The best thing there is for business is when the use of force is placed under an objective system of laws, i.e., a [good] government. So, corporations (and honest people in general) would work to set up a government.
The worst thing there is for business is when the government starts forcing them to pay taxes. Nobody is suggesting that there shouldn't be an objective system of laws, just that said laws shouldn't be created and enforced at the whim of a single, monopolistic entity.
Then how are laws going to be determined and enforced? I'd like to hear about the nuts and bolts of what you're proposing.

The word he's looking for is companies (that is, groups of individuals working together to make money; nothing more, nothing less). Companies will rule the world, which is a good thing because companies want money, not votes, and the only for them to get money is to provide what people are willing to pay for, as opposed to government's taking people's money by force and spending it on things the people don't necessarily want.
Well, if companies rule the world, they are the government (albeit a non-objective one), and they can take people's money by force.
How? In a free market, no company can force any individual to use them rather than their competitors, and the resulting competition will keep prices down.
Because if the companies are "ruling the world," as you say, then that means they have a monopoly on the use of force, which means they CAN take people's money by force. By the way, no, I don't buy into any of that leftist hogwash that conflates a free market with force which you were addressing in the rest of that paragraph. Presumably, in explaining how the nuts and bolts of the system will work, you will explain why you think that companies can "rule the world" and yet not be able to initiate force against people.

Because minimal governments don't tend to stay minimal for very long.
That is fundamentally a cultural problem. It doesn't have to be that way, if the culture improves. Having a stronger constitution can also help a lot, but that's just an implementation concern (i.e. not as fundamental).
myrkul
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 532
Merit: 500


FIAT LIBERTAS RVAT CAELVM


View Profile WWW
June 18, 2012, 08:55:53 PM
 #9

I feel a little responsible for this line of conversation... I kinda started it all with that reference to the "corporations will rule the world" bit. That's an actual argument I got once, and while it's already been satisfactorily answered, that answer opened up this can of worms, so I'll start my answering here.
The world will be ruled by companies, and companies are smart enough to know that war and crime is bad for business.
The best thing there is for business is when the use of force is placed under an objective system of laws, i.e., a [good] government. So, corporations (and honest people in general) would work to set up a government.
The worst thing there is for business is when the government starts forcing them to pay taxes. Nobody is suggesting that there shouldn't be an objective system of laws, just that said laws shouldn't be created and enforced at the whim of a single, monopolistic entity.
Then how are laws going to be determined and enforced? I'd like to hear about the nuts and bolts of what you're proposing.

Well, the laws we have in place today are the result of a monopoly on justice. Most of those laws, without the monopoly on justice, wouldn't stand. Drug laws, for instance. not everyone agrees that pot is bad for you, so without the monopoly, a ban on marijuana wouldn't be universally enforced. If someone wanted to keep pot out of their private property, that's up to them to decide, and up to them to enforce. Everyone agrees that they would rather not be murdered. Even without a monopoly on justice, murder would still be universally a no-no. Same with other violent crimes. A free-market justice system would be composed of competing arbitration firms deciding cases, rather than a single monolithic "Court system". People would choose the arbitration agency that they trust the most, thus the most trustworthy agencies, with the best policies, would be the most profitable.

Determination of the laws would be primarily case law, with individual incidents providing precedent for later judgments to be based on.

Enforcement is something of a conundrum, because not everyone agrees on what should be done. The question comes down to whether or not retaliatory force is justifiable. If the agency in question considers it to be, then the criminal can expect to be forced to pay back the victim. If the agency in question does not consider retaliatory force to be justifiable, then the criminal can expect to be encouraged to pay back the victim by means of a reputation hit. The agency would likely advertise the criminal's name and face, crime, and lack of restitution. This will reduce the likelihood that others will willingly interact with the criminal, resulting in the criminal being effectively ostracized from polite society. This is a slower method, but is more "humane". Most likely, both means would be used, with retributive force reserved for the more violent and dangerous criminals, and the more humane method used for non-violent crimes, such as breach of contract and the like.

The word he's looking for is companies (that is, groups of individuals working together to make money; nothing more, nothing less). Companies will rule the world, which is a good thing because companies want money, not votes, and the only for them to get money is to provide what people are willing to pay for, as opposed to government's taking people's money by force and spending it on things the people don't necessarily want.
Well, if companies rule the world, they are the government (albeit a non-objective one), and they can take people's money by force.
How? In a free market, no company can force any individual to use them rather than their competitors, and the resulting competition will keep prices down.
Because if the companies are "ruling the world," as you say, then that means they have a monopoly on the use of force, which means they CAN take people's money by force. By the way, no, I don't buy into any of that leftist hogwash that conflates a free market with force which you were addressing in the rest of that paragraph. Presumably, in explaining how the nuts and bolts of the system will work, you will explain why you think that companies can "rule the world" and yet not be able to initiate force against people.

As I said above, this is sort of my fault. I don't believe companies would rule the world. Certainly the corporation, and most likely even the company, as we know it, would cease to exist in a stateless society, and they obviously would not have the monopoly on force required to "rule the world". Any entity who took it upon themselves to try and take over the populace would have a rough time of it, what with the competing defense agencies defending their clients from the would-be State, not to mention the individuals defending themselves. Besides, attack is expensive, in both men and money. Not a smart business move.

Because minimal governments don't tend to stay minimal for very long.
That is fundamentally a cultural problem. It doesn't have to be that way, if the culture improves. Having a stronger constitution can also help a lot, but that's just an implementation concern (i.e. not as fundamental).

I'm inclined to say that it's not a cultural issue, but rather a flaw in the nature of the beast. Any monopoly will naturally seek to expand. A monopoly on violence is uniquely suited to expand in whatever direction it chooses.

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
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1148
Merit: 1001



View Profile
June 18, 2012, 09:52:12 PM
 #10

...snip...

Well, the laws we have in place today are the result of a monopoly on justice. Most of those laws, without the monopoly on justice, wouldn't stand. Drug laws, for instance. not everyone agrees that pot is bad for you, so without the monopoly, a ban on marijuana wouldn't be universally enforced. If someone wanted to keep pot out of their private property, that's up to them to decide, and up to them to enforce. Everyone agrees that they would rather not be murdered. Even without a monopoly on justice, ...snip...

Thats just wrong.  You will still live in a society where people are determined to prevent drug use.  Instead of police you will have vigilantes.  IF you want to legalise dope, you need to convince people; removing the state just means that instead of arrest and trial you get kidnapped and lynched.

mollison
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Activity: 157
Merit: 100



View Profile
June 18, 2012, 10:03:12 PM
 #11

Thats just wrong.  You will still live in a society where people are determined to prevent drug use.  Instead of police you will have vigilantes.  IF you want to legalise dope, you need to convince people; removing the state just means that instead of arrest and trial you get kidnapped and lynched.

Yep. Or maybe you can use certain drugs within the territory that is controlled by your arbitration agency (i.e., gang), but what happens when the gang next door decides they don't want drug use near them and that they have enough force to take over your gang's territory and stop it?

This illustrates the general point that there will be continual disagreements between these agencies. (They will also disagree about even more serious matters, such as whether person X is guilty of murder.) And how will they resolve these disgreements? Well, they'll have to use force. It will be in your interest as an individual to join a gang that has a lot of power and a large and stable or growing territory... which will eventually become a government. Better to just put up with bad drug laws than go through all that! myrkul, this is my response to your last long post responding to me. If you would like to try to explain a safe way for disputes between agencies to be resolved, that would be iteresting.
mollison
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Activity: 157
Merit: 100



View Profile
June 18, 2012, 10:07:45 PM
 #12

I'm inclined to say that it's not a cultural issue, but rather a flaw in the nature of the beast. Any monopoly will naturally seek to expand. A monopoly on violence is uniquely suited to expand in whatever direction it chooses.

No, it really is a cultural issue. We can downsize the US government if people continue to become better educated about the problems with large government, and vote in better representatives.

By the way, government bureaucrats don't stand to gain anything personally by expanding the government, except pursuing their own social goals, social status, and profiteering through corruption. (And at a fundamental level, those things are not really "gains"--they just don't necessarily know that.) With a better culture that values small government in principle and that demands transparency in government, those things could be dealt with. So, this rebuts your point that "any monopoly will naturally seek to expand."
myrkul
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 532
Merit: 500


FIAT LIBERTAS RVAT CAELVM


View Profile WWW
June 18, 2012, 10:25:14 PM
 #13

This illustrates the general point that there will be continual disagreements between these agencies. (They will also disagree about even more serious matters, such as whether person X is guilty of murder.) And how will they resolve these disagreements? Well, they'll have to use force. It will be in your interest as an individual to join a gang that has a lot of power and a large and stable or growing territory... which will eventually become a government. Better to just put up with bad drug laws than go through all that! myrkul, this is my response to your last long post responding to me. If you would like to try to explain a safe way for disputes between agencies to be resolved, that would be interesting.

Arbitration. Arbitration is win/win. War is win/lose, possibly even lose/lose. Why play zero (or negative) sum games, when positive sum ones are available? If you don't know what arbitration is, I can explain it, but the Wikipedia article is sufficiently accurate.

By the way, government bureaucrats don't stand to gain anything personally by expanding the government, except pursuing their own social goals, social status, and profiteering through corruption. (And at a fundamental level, those things are not really "gains"--they just don't necessarily know that.) With a better culture that values small government in principle and that demands transparency in government, those things could be dealt with. So, this rebuts your point that "any monopoly will naturally seek to expand."

Maybe. With a better culture, and "eternal vigilance," we could keep a government small. For a while. A generation, maybe two, or even three. But sooner or later, the corrupt will get into power, or the power will corrupt a good man, and one of those "gains" will look attractive, and then we're off to the races again. I'd rather toss the ring into Mt. Doom, than give it to someone and trust in future generations watching the ringbearer carefully.

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
mollison
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Activity: 157
Merit: 100



View Profile
June 18, 2012, 10:51:44 PM
 #14

[Arbitration. Arbitration is win/win. War is win/lose, possibly even lose/lose. Why play zero (or negative) sum games, when positive sum ones are available? If you don't know what arbitration is, I can explain it, but the Wikipedia article is sufficiently accurate.
I know what arbitration is. My gang will never agree to arbitration with your gang if my gang can just take over your gang's territory. And I definitely want my gang to do that, because if some person under your gang falsely accuses me of murder, I do not want an arbiter to decide that I am guilty and for my gang to hand me over for punishment.

In other words, why play a positive sum game, when I can play a zero sum game whose payoff is larger? And if I can't win the zero sum game, there is probably someone else who can (or whose alliance can), etc.

The positive sum game with the largest payout for everyone, individually and collectively, is to just have a small government.

The US was the first experiment in this, and it actually worked pretty darn well all things considered. The Founders did not get it perfect, and the culture is not in such good shape right now (nor has it been for a long time). That's no reason to conclude that limited government is impossible.

Maybe. With a better culture, and "eternal vigilance," we could keep a government small. For a while. A generation, maybe two, or even three. But sooner or later, the corrupt will get into power, or the power will corrupt a good man, and one of those "gains" will look attractive, and then we're off to the races again. I'd rather toss the ring into Mt. Doom, than give it to someone and trust in future generations watching the ringbearer carefully.

I like the Mt. Doom analogy, but unfortunately, there is no Mt. Doom. A system of "anarco-capitlism" is just as likely to end up with totalitarianism after a few generations (or even within 1 generation) as any other---in fact, probably far more likely to than most. And anyway, it's irrational to worry about the future beyond the time horizon where ourselves and our loved ones are alive.
myrkul
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 532
Merit: 500


FIAT LIBERTAS RVAT CAELVM


View Profile WWW
June 18, 2012, 11:03:21 PM
 #15

[Arbitration. Arbitration is win/win. War is win/lose, possibly even lose/lose. Why play zero (or negative) sum games, when positive sum ones are available? If you don't know what arbitration is, I can explain it, but the Wikipedia article is sufficiently accurate.
I know what arbitration is. My gang will never agree to arbitration with your gang if my gang can just take over your gang's territory. And I definitely want my gang to do that, because if some person under your gang falsely accuses me of murder, I do not want an arbiter to decide that I am guilty and for my gang to hand me over for punishment.

In other words, why play a positive sum game, when I can play a zero sum game whose payoff is larger? And if I can't win the zero sum game, there is probably someone else who can (or whose alliance can), etc.

You might be surprised, but Game Theory actually contradicts this statement. People will consistently pick the win/win over the win/lose, even when the payout of the win/lose is greater. It's also the better strategy, long-term.

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
finkleshnorts
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 336
Merit: 250



View Profile
June 18, 2012, 11:14:46 PM
 #16

I see it like this: we live in a state of anarcho-capitalism. The entity that calls itself "government" in the U.S. is simply the long-standing business of democracy, majority rule, and public interest. It is also a heavily armed and vengeful business. And of course, it is also a corrupt business, like many other businesses. Calling for an end to government (misinformed anarchism) is naive. There will always be people with power over other people. This is an unavoidable fact for any ideology. Pacifism, communo-anarchism, etc. miss this point. "Government" is a meaningless and arbitrary word. A goverment is a business with lots of guns, support, and power. There will always be governments, there will always be businesses, no matter what you may choose to call them. Personally, I am glad that there are businesses that favor majority rule. I think anti-trust laws are a good and necessary thing. Otherwise, businesses with a necessary product and a very high entry threshold (think: power companies... lines, plants, etc) can become fascist monopolies if unregulated. Government is the entity that formally speaks on behalf of the people and prevents these things from happening.
myrkul
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 532
Merit: 500


FIAT LIBERTAS RVAT CAELVM


View Profile WWW
June 18, 2012, 11:21:09 PM
 #17

I think anti-trust laws are a good and necessary thing. Otherwise, businesses with a necessary product and a very high entry threshold (think: power companies... lines, plants, etc) can become fascist monopolies if unregulated. Government is the entity that formally speaks on behalf of the people and prevents these things from happening.

Great. Let's turn those anti-trust laws on this business you call government. Life would be a hell of a lot nicer if that trust were broken up.

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
finkleshnorts
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 336
Merit: 250



View Profile
June 18, 2012, 11:30:29 PM
 #18

I think anti-trust laws are a good and necessary thing. Otherwise, businesses with a necessary product and a very high entry threshold (think: power companies... lines, plants, etc) can become fascist monopolies if unregulated. Government is the entity that formally speaks on behalf of the people and prevents these things from happening.

Great. Let's turn those anti-trust laws on this business you call government. Life would be a hell of a lot nicer if that trust were broken up.

I completely agree.
Vitalik Buterin
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 331
Merit: 305


View Profile
June 19, 2012, 12:23:00 AM
 #19

Now of course AnCap can "work" but will it be better than our democratic systems? Not unless human nature changes.

In 415 BC a democratically elected government attacked a neutral island that refused to join its military alliance and killed all of the men and enslaved all of the children.

Even in the context of a war, such an action would be considerably less likely and less successful in modern times. If not human nature, what did change?

Argumentum ad lunam: the fallacy that because Bitcoin's price is rising really fast the currency must be a speculative bubble and/or Ponzi scheme.
finkleshnorts
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 336
Merit: 250



View Profile
June 19, 2012, 02:21:03 AM
 #20

Now of course AnCap can "work" but will it be better than our democratic systems? Not unless human nature changes.

In 415 BC a democratically elected government attacked a neutral island that refused to join its military alliance and killed all of the men and enslaved all of the children.

Even in the context of a war, such an action would be considerably less likely and less successful in modern times. If not human nature, what did change?

 Going along with the assumption that the likelihood of these types of events occuring in respective time periods can be guaged and compared, would it really be less likely? Very similar things have happened in the past 100 years.

What has changed...

-News travels faster

-People with guns and nukes get more pissed off now at people conquering conquering/enslaving peoples

-For a territory to be called "neutral" now either impossible or dishonest (save for, say, uncontacted tribes, etc). Everyone has ties.




Hawker
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1148
Merit: 1001



View Profile
June 19, 2012, 06:57:55 AM
 #21

Now of course AnCap can "work" but will it be better than our democratic systems? Not unless human nature changes.

In 415 BC a democratically elected government attacked a neutral island that refused to join its military alliance and killed all of the men and enslaved all of the children.

Even in the context of a war, such an action would be considerably less likely and less successful in modern times. If not human nature, what did change?

In 1994, a million people were killed the same way in Rwanda.  But I see your point.  Modern democratic societies are reluctant to use the type of violence you are thinking of.  Take away your modern democratic state and you return to savagery.  Last year the London Police let it be known that they would not intervene to protect property if there was a risk of riots.  Within an hour people were being burnt out of their homes by mobs in balaclavas.  The veneer of law and order is very thin.

Foxpup
Legendary
*
Online Online

Activity: 2240
Merit: 1084



View Profile
June 19, 2012, 08:58:43 AM
 #22

I feel a little responsible for this line of conversation... I kinda started it all with that reference to the "corporations will rule the world" bit. That's an actual argument I got once, and while it's already been satisfactorily answered, that answer opened up this can of worms, so I'll start my answering here.

I was only half-joking when I said companies will rule the world. Naturally, I don't believe they will actually be able to rule people the way governments do, but they will have a large amount of influence over world affairs. They already do, and I don't see any reason why that would change under an anarcho-capitalistic society. Possibly extremely large companies that depend on the government will be forced to collapse or break up, but smaller companies will flourish and grow thanks to the lower barriers to entry. In any case, I don't believe it's a bad thing that companies will be extremely influential in such a society. Since companies are trying to make money from their customers and investors, they have a better incentive to efficiently provide what the people want and need than any system of government. Ultimately, the free market will force unwanted and inefficient and otherwise "evil" companies out of business, so for the most part we won't have to worry about that.

Will pretend to do unverifiable things (while actually eating an enchilada-style burrito) for bitcoins: 1K6d1EviQKX3SVKjPYmJGyWBb1avbmCFM4
myrkul
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 532
Merit: 500


FIAT LIBERTAS RVAT CAELVM


View Profile WWW
June 19, 2012, 10:04:00 AM
 #23

OK, so to sum up, the reasons so far why AnCap won't work are:
  • armed gangs
  • invading armies
  • terrorists
  • Lynch mobs because of smoking a joint
  • companies becoming de facto governments

The first three are handled by defense agencies, as would the fourth one, if it weren't so damn laughable.

Let me explain what a defense agency is. It's a private military force/police department. Most likely, companies will specialize in one part of that, with mutual aid agreements covering any "holes." It's even possible a defense agency would have only other defense agencies as clients, and specialize in repelling large-scale invasion. Defense agencies would compete for your business. Not in the way armies currently compete for tracts of land, but rather, in the way cable and satellite TV providers compete to be the ones showing you reality shows.

Which brings us to the 5th scenario... Honestly, this is the most credible of the bunch. A company decides to use it's admittedly impressive resources to take power and declare itself the new government of the territory, maybe even that defense agency defense agency I mentioned in the last paragraph. Even assuming that they would want to ruin their sweet deal, and can find people willing to shoot the people whom they are being paid to protect, they won't have it easy. They'll have to defeat all those other defense agencies, each one with an unpredictable arsenal. Then, assuming they succeed there without being whittled down to the CEO, they'll still have to subjugate a potentially very heavily armed populace. Some nutjob could really ruin their day.

If you don't have a monopoly on violence, using violence to achieve your ends gets kind of expensive.


I was only half-joking when I said companies will rule the world.
Oh, not to worry, I know. I was mostly addressing the fact that that off-hand comment started one heck of a spiral.

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
asdf
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 527
Merit: 500


View Profile
June 19, 2012, 11:09:54 AM
 #24

I see it like this: we live in a state of anarcho-capitalism. The entity that calls itself "government" in the U.S. is simply the long-standing business of democracy, majority rule, and public interest. It is also a heavily armed and vengeful business. And of course, it is also a corrupt business, like many other businesses. Calling for an end to government (misinformed anarchism) is naive. There will always be people with power over other people. This is an unavoidable fact for any ideology. Pacifism, communo-anarchism, etc. miss this point. "Government" is a meaningless and arbitrary word. A goverment is a business with lots of guns, support, and power. There will always be governments, there will always be businesses, no matter what you may choose to call them. Personally, I am glad that there are businesses that favor majority rule. I think anti-trust laws are a good and necessary thing. Otherwise, businesses with a necessary product and a very high entry threshold (think: power companies... lines, plants, etc) can become fascist monopolies if unregulated. Government is the entity that formally speaks on behalf of the people and prevents these things from happening.

I disagree that there will always be governments. The government NEEDS the consent of the people to function. That's why we are so heavily propogandised in government run education centers and government backed media about the importance and virtue of the state. Once people understand that the government is an immoral institution and isn't actually necessary, it will inevitably end. It's a battle of ideas and the internet is turning the tide.
finkleshnorts
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 336
Merit: 250



View Profile
June 19, 2012, 01:02:51 PM
 #25

I see it like this: we live in a state of anarcho-capitalism. The entity that calls itself "government" in the U.S. is simply the long-standing business of democracy, majority rule, and public interest. It is also a heavily armed and vengeful business. And of course, it is also a corrupt business, like many other businesses. Calling for an end to government (misinformed anarchism) is naive. There will always be people with power over other people. This is an unavoidable fact for any ideology. Pacifism, communo-anarchism, etc. miss this point. "Government" is a meaningless and arbitrary word. A goverment is a business with lots of guns, support, and power. There will always be governments, there will always be businesses, no matter what you may choose to call them. Personally, I am glad that there are businesses that favor majority rule. I think anti-trust laws are a good and necessary thing. Otherwise, businesses with a necessary product and a very high entry threshold (think: power companies... lines, plants, etc) can become fascist monopolies if unregulated. Government is the entity that formally speaks on behalf of the people and prevents these things from happening.

I disagree that there will always be governments. The government NEEDS the consent of the people to function. That's why we are so heavily propogandised in government run education centers and government backed media about the importance and virtue of the state. Once people understand that the government is an immoral institution and isn't actually necessary, it will inevitably end. It's a battle of ideas and the internet is turning the tide.

I think this is a false assumption. What do you mean by "government isn't actually necessary?" Somebody is always, always, always, going to be in charge. To ask whether somebody "needs" to be in charge or not is a meaningless question. Regardless whether it was actually his idea, Nietzsche got a lot right about the "will to power." That power is the number one driving force behind every human action. People will always find a way to rule over other people.
Hawker
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1148
Merit: 1001



View Profile
June 19, 2012, 01:23:47 PM
 #26

OK, so to sum up, the reasons so far why AnCap won't work are:
  • armed gangs
  • invading armies
  • terrorists
  • Lynch mobs because of smoking a joint
  • companies becoming de facto governments

The first three are handled by defense agencies, as would the fourth one, if it weren't so damn laughable.

Let me explain what a defense agency is. It's a private military force/police department. Most likely, companies will specialize in one part of that, with mutual aid agreements covering any "holes." It's even possible a defense agency would have only other defense agencies as clients, and specialize in repelling large-scale invasion. Defense agencies would compete for your business. Not in the way armies currently compete for tracts of land, but rather, in the way cable and satellite TV providers compete to be the ones showing you reality shows.

Which brings us to the 5th scenario... Honestly, this is the most credible of the bunch. A company decides to use it's admittedly impressive resources to take power and declare itself the new government of the territory, maybe even that defense agency defense agency I mentioned in the last paragraph. Even assuming that they would want to ruin their sweet deal, and can find people willing to shoot the people whom they are being paid to protect, they won't have it easy. They'll have to defeat all those other defense agencies, each one with an unpredictable arsenal. Then, assuming they succeed there without being whittled down to the CEO, they'll still have to subjugate a potentially very heavily armed populace. Some nutjob could really ruin their day.

If you don't have a monopoly on violence, using violence to achieve your ends gets kind of expensive.


I was only half-joking when I said companies will rule the world.
Oh, not to worry, I know. I was mostly addressing the fact that that off-hand comment started one heck of a spiral.

You defence agencies will all have to either eliminate one another or settle for perpetual war.  So you end up with a dictatorship or disaster or both.

Topazan
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 354
Merit: 250


View Profile
June 19, 2012, 02:38:32 PM
 #27

Civilization as we know it is depends on the control of land.  If a farmer wants to grow crops on a certain piece of land, he has to make sure the cowman won't graze his cattle there, that the undertaker won't build a tomb there, and that the chemist won't dump toxic waste there.

This is why we have private property in the systems we call capitalist.  Private property does not exist in nature.  What owning property means is that the government recognizes you as the sole proprietor of that land.  If someone trespasses, you can call the police and have them thrown out.  You own that land only because the government says so.

How would this work in an anarchic system?  Who would determine who has the right to use which land?  How can I buy a house from someone if it's not clear that it's theirs to sell?

Save the last bitcoin for me!
myrkul
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 532
Merit: 500


FIAT LIBERTAS RVAT CAELVM


View Profile WWW
June 19, 2012, 07:39:48 PM
 #28

You defence agencies will all have to either eliminate one another or settle for perpetual war.  So you end up with a dictatorship or disaster or both.

You can say this, but unless you can back it up with reasoning, it's just an assertion.


How would this work in an anarchic system?  Who would determine who has the right to use which land?  How can I buy a house from someone if it's not clear that it's theirs to sell?

This is a good question. The part of government that determines who has what land is called a property registry. There's no reason that that agency needs a monopoly, especially in today's world of electronic communications. A federated network of registries would work just as well, if not better. The claiming of land is called "homesteading", and requires "mixing your labor with the land," in other words, putting some work into making it clear that it is claimed. You can then register the land with one of those land registries to make the claim public.

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
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1148
Merit: 1001



View Profile
June 19, 2012, 07:49:37 PM
 #29

You defence agencies will all have to either eliminate one another or settle for perpetual war.  So you end up with a dictatorship or disaster or both.

You can say this, but unless you can back it up with reasoning, it's just an assertion.

If you have a boundry dispute, and the neighbours have alternate defence companies, only 1 of them can win.  The losing company will go bust as who will pay for a defence company that loses.  So 2 defence companies becomes 1.  Even if you start with 100, every dispute that requires the defence company to actually do some defending will result in a win/loss and the loser will go out of business.  Result is 1 company that "defends" everyone and everyone has to pay it taxes or get hurt.

myrkul
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 532
Merit: 500


FIAT LIBERTAS RVAT CAELVM


View Profile WWW
June 19, 2012, 08:12:18 PM
 #30

You defence agencies will all have to either eliminate one another or settle for perpetual war.  So you end up with a dictatorship or disaster or both.

You can say this, but unless you can back it up with reasoning, it's just an assertion.

If you have a boundry dispute, and the neighbours have alternate defence companies, only 1 of them can win.  The losing company will go bust as who will pay for a defence company that loses.  So 2 defence companies becomes 1.  Even if you start with 100, every dispute that requires the defence company to actually do some defending will result in a win/loss and the loser will go out of business.  Result is 1 company that "defends" everyone and everyone has to pay it taxes or get hurt.

Well, at least we have some reasoning, now... flawed reasoning, but it is better than a flat statement. In a boundary dispute, the defense agencies would not likely come to blows. You seem to believe that the only way to resolve any dispute is violence. I've already discussed Arbitration as a viable method of peacefully resolving disputes, and unless both defense agencies are run, staffed, and employed by total morons, Arbitration would be used to settle the dispute before resorting to "war". In any case where employees of one defense agency are shooting at employees of another, something has gone completely wrong.

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
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1148
Merit: 1001



View Profile
June 19, 2012, 08:48:21 PM
 #31

You defence agencies will all have to either eliminate one another or settle for perpetual war.  So you end up with a dictatorship or disaster or both.

You can say this, but unless you can back it up with reasoning, it's just an assertion.

If you have a boundry dispute, and the neighbours have alternate defence companies, only 1 of them can win.  The losing company will go bust as who will pay for a defence company that loses.  So 2 defence companies becomes 1.  Even if you start with 100, every dispute that requires the defence company to actually do some defending will result in a win/loss and the loser will go out of business.  Result is 1 company that "defends" everyone and everyone has to pay it taxes or get hurt.

Well, at least we have some reasoning, now... flawed reasoning, but it is better than a flat statement. In a boundary dispute, the defense agencies would not likely come to blows. You seem to believe that the only way to resolve any dispute is violence. I've already discussed Arbitration as a viable method of peacefully resolving disputes, and unless both defense agencies are run, staffed, and employed by total morons, Arbitration would be used to settle the dispute before resorting to "war". In any case where employees of one defense agency are shooting at employees of another, something has gone completely wrong.



So lets take a simple example of a land dispute.

A farmer dies intestate.  There is no state so people choose their own courts.  The oldest son goes to a court that believes in primogeniture and he is entitled to entire estate.  The second son goes to an Islamic court and is awarded more than his sister in accordance with Islamic law.  The daughter goes to a Episcopalian Christian Court and is awarded a third.

Each believes they are morally right in what they have done.  Each pays a defence company to enforce their legal rights.  

Can you see that only 1 of them can win?  And the defence companies for the other 2 will go out of business as they is zero value in a defence company that cannot defend your moral and legal rights ?

Faced with this 2 things are certain:
1.  There will be blood.  The defence companies have to win or die.
2.  Three will become 1 defence company.  And no matter how many your start with, you always end up with 1.

That 1 is your new government.

myrkul
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 532
Merit: 500


FIAT LIBERTAS RVAT CAELVM


View Profile WWW
June 19, 2012, 09:42:51 PM
 #32

Can't you see your arguments are helping my case?

Quote
The oldest son goes to a court that believes in primogeniture and he is entitled to entire estate.  The second son goes to an Islamic court and is awarded more than his sister in accordance with Islamic law.  The daughter goes to a Episcopalian Christian Court and is awarded a third.

Would not be the way it would go down. You know nothing of Arbitration. All parties agree to the "court" they will use. Here's how it would actually work:

The oldest son selects an arbitration firm that supports primogeniture, the second son selects one that supports Islamic tradition, and the daughter selects a firm that supports equal rights for women. They can't agree as to which one they should use (and why should they? each choice is a bad choice for the other two), so the arbitration firms, among them, select a fourth arbitration firm that they can all agree on. If they cannot agree on a single firm, the process repeats. They pick ones that they can trust, and those firms come to an agreement as to who will decide. If they can't agree... well, I think you get the point.

Defense companies are just that... defense. They don't go on the attack.

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
nedbert9
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 252
Merit: 250

Inactive


View Profile
June 19, 2012, 10:52:40 PM
 #33



People, human people - corporations aside, naturally form social structures where social standards are imposed.

Anarchy just isn't going to happen.  People naturally consolidate power and impose their will.

myrkul
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 532
Merit: 500


FIAT LIBERTAS RVAT CAELVM


View Profile WWW
June 19, 2012, 11:08:01 PM
 #34

Anarchy just isn't going to happen.  People naturally consolidate power and impose their will.

People said that powered flight was impossible, too. In fact, people tend to think everything is impossible, right up until someone goes and does it. We call those people "wrong".

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
FirstAscent
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 812
Merit: 1000


View Profile
June 19, 2012, 11:12:16 PM
 #35

Anarchy just isn't going to happen.  People naturally consolidate power and impose their will.

People said that powered flight was impossible, too. In fact, people tend to think everything is impossible, right up until someone goes and does it. We call those people "wrong".

I suspect you'll die of old age believing it will happen. And even if it did (which it won't), it wouldn't be a good thing for all the reasons you're barely aware of.
finkleshnorts
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 336
Merit: 250



View Profile
June 20, 2012, 01:25:04 AM
 #36

Anarchy just isn't going to happen.  People naturally consolidate power and impose their will.

People said that powered flight was impossible, too. In fact, people tend to think everything is impossible, right up until someone goes and does it. We call those people "wrong".

People also said that perpetual motion is impossible, because it is. Much closer to the same kind of impossible that is this misinformed anarchy you propose.

No, we call those people normal. If "it" happens, then generally people will happily change their minds.

This barbaric anarchic system of yours is about as plausible as governments being run by newborn babies. That is also impossible. Feel free to prove me wrong on either count. Until then, I consider myself justified in my position.


myrkul
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 532
Merit: 500


FIAT LIBERTAS RVAT CAELVM


View Profile WWW
June 20, 2012, 01:35:49 AM
 #37

This barbaric anarchic system of yours...

I'd like to understand your point of view. Why do you call it "barbaric"?

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
finkleshnorts
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 336
Merit: 250



View Profile
June 20, 2012, 01:51:11 AM
 #38

This barbaric anarchic system of yours...

I'd like to understand your point of view. Why do you call it "barbaric"?

It may have been a poor and hasty choice of a word, frankly. Rereading your posts, you say that "defense companies" are for defense only, not attacking. Here is the problem:

says who??

Think about it.

We may agree on more than we both realize. I agree with you that violence is a poor way of reaching a solution. But violence is also the ultimate trump card, and as long as that trump card exists (as long as violence is possible), it will happen. People want power.
finkleshnorts
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 336
Merit: 250



View Profile
June 20, 2012, 01:53:17 AM
 #39

And I'd like to emphasize again that I believe we live in anarchy on both a global and national scale (assuming you are American).
FirstAscent
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 812
Merit: 1000


View Profile
June 20, 2012, 02:29:49 AM
 #40

This barbaric anarchic system of yours...

I'd like to understand your point of view. Why do you call it "barbaric"?

Barbaric, as in selfish, willfully ignorant of issues which AnCap cannot solve, and unknowingly ignorant of issues which AnCap cannot solve.
myrkul
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 532
Merit: 500


FIAT LIBERTAS RVAT CAELVM


View Profile WWW
June 20, 2012, 02:31:10 AM
 #41

This barbaric anarchic system of yours...

I'd like to understand your point of view. Why do you call it "barbaric"?

It may have been a poor and hasty choice of a word, frankly. Rereading your posts, you say that "defense companies" are for defense only, not attacking. Here is the problem:

says who??

Think about it.

We may agree on more than we both realize. I agree with you that violence is a poor way of reaching a solution. But violence is also the ultimate trump card, and as long as that trump card exists (as long as violence is possible), it will happen. People want power.

Some good points. Who says? Well, ultimately, the people do. "The market," if you will. I'm not going to argue that violence is never going to happen, and I absolutely agree that certainly at a global level, and in many ways, at all other levels, we're already living in an anarchy.

Violence will happen. Not going to deny that. There will still be murders, there will still be theft, humans are humans, nothing is going to change that. What needs to change is how we deal with it. Do we accept it, as long as we call theft "taxes", and kidnapping "imprisonment", and murder "war"? Do we accept it, as long as it's done by people in special costumes?

Or do we stop accepting violence as OK, no matter who does it, or what they're wearing? That's the Non-Aggression Principle. No person has the right to initiate force or fraud upon another person.

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
FirstAscent
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 812
Merit: 1000


View Profile
June 20, 2012, 02:40:46 AM
 #42

This barbaric anarchic system of yours...

I'd like to understand your point of view. Why do you call it "barbaric"?

It may have been a poor and hasty choice of a word, frankly. Rereading your posts, you say that "defense companies" are for defense only, not attacking. Here is the problem:

says who??

Think about it.

We may agree on more than we both realize. I agree with you that violence is a poor way of reaching a solution. But violence is also the ultimate trump card, and as long as that trump card exists (as long as violence is possible), it will happen. People want power.

Some good points. Who says? Well, ultimately, the people do. "The market," if you will. I'm not going to argue that violence is never going to happen, and I absolutely agree that certainly at a global level, and in many ways, at all other levels, we're already living in an anarchy.

Violence will happen. Not going to deny that. There will still be murders, there will still be theft, humans are humans, nothing is going to change that. What needs to change is how we deal with it. Do we accept it, as long as we call theft "taxes", and kidnapping "imprisonment", and murder "war"? Do we accept it, as long as it's done by people in special costumes?

Or do we stop accepting violence as OK, no matter who does it, or what they're wearing? That's the Non-Aggression Principle. No person has the right to initiate force or fraud upon another person.

You keep using the word 'we', as though the 'we' in your AnCap society is collectively in agreement. They are not, else they would collectively form a government, in which case, yes, you can start using the word 'we', and then admit that you no longer have an AnCap society.
FirstAscent
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 812
Merit: 1000


View Profile
June 20, 2012, 02:44:10 AM
 #43

You see, AnCap is all about 'me' - not 'we'.

Me, as in "Mine, do not take it away." Me, as in "I will sue you.". Me, as in "I will do with my land as I will, even if it is bad environmentally." Me, as in "I will not help society collectively." Me, as in "So, sue me."
drakahn
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 504
Merit: 500



View Profile
June 20, 2012, 02:55:22 AM
 #44

People never seem to realise we already live in an anarchy, but the "government"(s)  control the most force, without a large majority wanting to hold onto their freedom they will just become slaves again. and again.

14ga8dJ6NGpiwQkNTXg7KzwozasfaXNfEU
FirstAscent
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 812
Merit: 1000


View Profile
June 20, 2012, 02:59:58 AM
 #45

People never seem to realise we already live in an anarchy, but the "government"(s)  control the most force, without a large majority wanting to hold onto their freedom they will just become slaves again. and again.

So you have the solution then?

1. Tell me where you will implement it.
2. Tell me how many people will it be seeded with.
3. Tell me who your geographical neighbors will be.
4. Tell me how it will be defended.
5. Tell me how it all works out.
drakahn
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 504
Merit: 500



View Profile
June 20, 2012, 06:52:47 AM
 #46

People never seem to realise we already live in an anarchy, but the "government"(s)  control the most force, without a large majority wanting to hold onto their freedom they will just become slaves again. and again.

So you have the solution then?

1. Tell me where you will implement it.
2. Tell me how many people will it be seeded with.
3. Tell me who your geographical neighbors will be.
4. Tell me how it will be defended.
5. Tell me how it all works out.

No I don't have a solution (To government or having a majority ignore the government), If I did I would do it, but my point is that we already live in a world where whoever controls the most force controls everything else, and the ones with the most force like having a lot of control

I think there will be a tipping point where more people feel like pissed off slaves than the happy well trained slaves they are and things will be changed, no idea how (violent, non violent, massive boycotts of everything slightly wrong), or when (dec 21st is a date drummed in to our heads as change, I hope a few different plans start that day, and I hope one of them works), but my bets are all on massive changes in my lifetime, and it will get worse before it gets better.

side bets on the internet/bitcoins being able to survive/thrive after any such changes

14ga8dJ6NGpiwQkNTXg7KzwozasfaXNfEU
Hawker
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1148
Merit: 1001



View Profile
June 20, 2012, 10:18:08 AM
 #47

Can't you see your arguments are helping my case?

Quote
The oldest son goes to a court that believes in primogeniture and he is entitled to entire estate.  The second son goes to an Islamic court and is awarded more than his sister in accordance with Islamic law.  The daughter goes to a Episcopalian Christian Court and is awarded a third.

Would not be the way it would go down. You know nothing of Arbitration. All parties agree to the "court" they will use. Here's how it would actually work:

The oldest son selects an arbitration firm that supports primogeniture, the second son selects one that supports Islamic tradition, and the daughter selects a firm that supports equal rights for women. They can't agree as to which one they should use (and why should they? each choice is a bad choice for the other two), so the arbitration firms, among them, select a fourth arbitration firm that they can all agree on. If they cannot agree on a single firm, the process repeats. They pick ones that they can trust, and those firms come to an agreement as to who will decide. If they can't agree... well, I think you get the point.

Defense companies are just that... defense. They don't go on the attack.

Sorry you have to accept your own premise which that there is a free market in laws.  The oldest son is not going to pay good money to a court that supports primogeniture just so that court can fob him off with "arbitration."  Either the court enforces primogeniture or it does not get his business.  Same applies to the Islamic and Episcopalian courts.  Either they can enforce their law or they are a waste of money and will cease trading.

So in each case, the market incentive is not to have arbitration.  Its your classic win or die situation.  There can only be 1 winner.  That winner is your new government.


myrkul
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 532
Merit: 500


FIAT LIBERTAS RVAT CAELVM


View Profile WWW
June 20, 2012, 05:19:22 PM
 #48

So in each case, the market incentive is not to have arbitration.  Its your classic win or die situation.  There can only be 1 winner.  That winner is your new government.

Part of something is better than all of nothing, and remember, once they've selected "their" firms, those arbitrators take over for them, and are capable of selecting new arbitrators to decide between them. The market incentive is to get the decision made quickly, and with as few layers of that as possible, because each new layer cuts into the pie.

There is a free market in law. Arbitration is free market law. Until you understand that, you're just going to make yourself look more foolish with every statement that you make.

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
FirstAscent
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 812
Merit: 1000


View Profile
June 20, 2012, 05:33:04 PM
 #49

So in each case, the market incentive is not to have arbitration.  Its your classic win or die situation.  There can only be 1 winner.  That winner is your new government.

Part of something is better than all of nothing, and remember, once they've selected "their" firms, those arbitrators take over for them, and are capable of selecting new arbitrators to decide between them. The market incentive is to get the decision made quickly, and with as few layers of that as possible, because each new layer cuts into the pie.

There is a free market in law. Arbitration is free market law. Until you understand that, you're just going to make yourself look more foolish with every statement that you make.

More sophisticated cultures realize that there are issues that are not central or prioritized to the needs of an individual or two individuals in disagreement. Arbitration has zero applicability to issues which need to be addressed collectively. We're finding that such issues are even difficult to resolve at the level of nations, with the collective will they can bring to address such issues.

At the granular level of the individual (or greedy self serving companies), such issues cannot be effectively addressed. The world's population is just too big.

Your best bet is to apply your toy like ideology to a group of like minded crackpot loons on a small island, and live in ignorant bliss. Your overall reach into the larger world will be limited, and thus of no consequence.
bulanula
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 518
Merit: 500



View Profile
June 20, 2012, 05:36:37 PM
 #50

Quote from: myrkul

So. Why do you think we need a government?

Who will be there to run ponzis ( Social Security ) and steal public money ( politicians ).

Your proposal is insane !

 Wink

IMHO a police force and firefighters we do need but that is about it.

Private sector does EVERYTHING better than shitty public sector money stealers.
myrkul
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 532
Merit: 500


FIAT LIBERTAS RVAT CAELVM


View Profile WWW
June 20, 2012, 05:47:31 PM
 #51

Police and Firefighters can be handled privately, either as part of an insurance contract, or separately.


Oh, and for those wondering why I'm not responding to FirstAscent, I direct you to these postings:
Things that will be ignored: "You're stupid." (especially if you use "your"), "It's a pathetic ideology." etc.

I've addressed enough of your points. At this point, I will largely ignore you...
Very well, at this point, I will completely ignore you. Have a nice life.

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
FirstAscent
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 812
Merit: 1000


View Profile
June 20, 2012, 06:14:59 PM
 #52

Police and Firefighters can be handled privately, either as part of an insurance contract, or separately.


Oh, and for those wondering why I'm not responding to FirstAscent, I direct you to these postings:
Things that will be ignored: "You're stupid." (especially if you use "your"), "It's a pathetic ideology." etc.

I doubt anyone was wondering.
Hawker
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1148
Merit: 1001



View Profile
June 20, 2012, 07:15:58 PM
 #53

So in each case, the market incentive is not to have arbitration.  Its your classic win or die situation.  There can only be 1 winner.  That winner is your new government.

Part of something is better than all of nothing, and remember, once they've selected "their" firms, those arbitrators take over for them, and are capable of selecting new arbitrators to decide between them. The market incentive is to get the decision made quickly, and with as few layers of that as possible, because each new layer cuts into the pie.

There is a free market in law. Arbitration is free market law. Until you understand that, you're just going to make yourself look more foolish with every statement that you make.

So you think that property rights can be taken off a person on the basis that "Part of something is better than all of nothing."  Nice.

I'm not sure where you want to go with this.  So far, all you have said is that without a state, there are no property rights.  I agree - that's one of the reasons a state is a good thing.


myrkul
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 532
Merit: 500


FIAT LIBERTAS RVAT CAELVM


View Profile WWW
June 20, 2012, 07:39:30 PM
 #54

So you think that property rights can be taken off a person on the basis that "Part of something is better than all of nothing."  Nice.

I'm not sure how you got here... The reason I said "Part of something is better than all of nothing." is that each person has a chance to lose everything, if they fight over it... and, in your scenario, that is assured for two of the kids. In my scenario, all participants have a right to the property... they're just working out the split.

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
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1148
Merit: 1001



View Profile
June 20, 2012, 07:50:10 PM
 #55

So you think that property rights can be taken off a person on the basis that "Part of something is better than all of nothing."  Nice.

I'm not sure how you got here... The reason I said "Part of something is better than all of nothing." is that each person has a chance to lose everything, if they fight over it... and, in your scenario, that is assured for two of the kids. In my scenario, all participants have a right to the property... they're just working out the split.

What you are doing is pretending your market would not work.  If the oldest son goes to a court that supports primogeniture, then he is paying for that court to enforce his legal right to the entire estate.  If it can't do that, that court cannot exist; it has no place in the market.  It either enforces its own judgements or it ceases to exist.

Your notion that having taken his money for primogeniture, it can then deliver anything else is at best fraudulent.  The oldest son loses his inheritance and the legal fees.

myrkul
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 532
Merit: 500


FIAT LIBERTAS RVAT CAELVM


View Profile WWW
June 20, 2012, 07:59:42 PM
 #56

If the oldest son goes to a court that supports primogeniture, then he is paying for that court to enforce his legal right to the entire estate.  If it can't do that, that court cannot exist; it has no place in the market.  It either enforces its own judgements or it ceases to exist.

No arguments here... Which is why I don't think that a primogeniture-supporting court would last long. But it's your scenario, I was just working within the bounds of that. If he wants a sure shot at getting ANY of his deceased father's property, though, he's going to have to compromise.

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
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1148
Merit: 1001



View Profile
June 20, 2012, 08:19:24 PM
 #57

If the oldest son goes to a court that supports primogeniture, then he is paying for that court to enforce his legal right to the entire estate.  If it can't do that, that court cannot exist; it has no place in the market.  It either enforces its own judgements or it ceases to exist.

No arguments here... Which is why I don't think that a primogeniture-supporting court would last long. But it's your scenario, I was just working within the bounds of that. If he wants a sure shot at getting ANY of his deceased father's property, though, he's going to have to compromise.

So, we are agreed.  We started with 3 courts systems, and 1 has gone.  The one did not go for any ethical reason.  It ceased to exist because it could not enforce its judgements.  There is no market for a court that charges for judgements that it can't enforce.

Now I'm sure you agree the same logic applies to the Islamic vs the Episcopalian court.  Either they enforce their judgements or they cease to exist.  So having started with 3 we end up with just 1 court system.

In truth, you can start with 1000.  The nature of the market is that only 1 court will be left because each time there is a conflict, one of the courts will fail to enforce its judgement and it will cease to have a place in the market.

Agreed?






myrkul
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 532
Merit: 500


FIAT LIBERTAS RVAT CAELVM


View Profile WWW
June 20, 2012, 08:31:04 PM
 #58

In truth, you can start with 1000.  The nature of the market is that only 1 court will be left because each time there is a conflict, one of the courts will fail to enforce its judgement and it will cease to have a place in the market.

Agreed?

You're sooooo close. Now, you just have to realize that what you describe is not how courts become monopolies, but how laws would be normalized in a market court system.

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
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1148
Merit: 1001



View Profile
June 20, 2012, 08:36:40 PM
 #59

In truth, you can start with 1000.  The nature of the market is that only 1 court will be left because each time there is a conflict, one of the courts will fail to enforce its judgement and it will cease to have a place in the market.

Agreed?

You're sooooo close. Now, you just have to realize that what you describe is not how courts become monopolies, but how laws would be normalized in a market court system.

So you are agreed that we end up with 1 set of laws and 1 court system in a market court system.  And that that 1 set of laws doesn't have any particular advantage or fairness.  Its the one that has the firepower to enforce its judgements.

Thats your ideal? 

myrkul
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 532
Merit: 500


FIAT LIBERTAS RVAT CAELVM


View Profile WWW
June 20, 2012, 08:50:07 PM
 #60

So you are agreed that we end up with 1 set of laws and 1 court system in a market court system.  And that that 1 set of laws doesn't have any particular advantage or fairness.  Its the one that has the firepower to enforce its judgements.

Thats your ideal? 

One set of laws, but not one court. The one set of laws does have an advantage in fairness, because it is the one that the market has chosen, the one that benefits both sides of each dispute the most.

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
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1148
Merit: 1001



View Profile
June 20, 2012, 09:02:07 PM
 #61

So you are agreed that we end up with 1 set of laws and 1 court system in a market court system.  And that that 1 set of laws doesn't have any particular advantage or fairness.  Its the one that has the firepower to enforce its judgements.

Thats your ideal? 

One set of laws, but not one court. The one set of laws does have an advantage in fairness, because it is the one that the market has chosen, the one that benefits both sides of each dispute the most.

Lets stay to one point at a time.

No matter how many sets of laws you start with, you end up with just one set.  And its not selected by fairness; its selected by its ability to be enforced.  So if an ambitious country or a rich individual supplies one of the court systems with attack helicopters and tanks, the other court systems all fail and the law of the land is whatever that 1 court system with the backing of a foreign state happens to say it is.

How is that a good thing?

myrkul
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 532
Merit: 500


FIAT LIBERTAS RVAT CAELVM


View Profile WWW
June 20, 2012, 09:25:51 PM
 #62

So you are agreed that we end up with 1 set of laws and 1 court system in a market court system.  And that that 1 set of laws doesn't have any particular advantage or fairness.  Its the one that has the firepower to enforce its judgements.

Thats your ideal? 

One set of laws, but not one court. The one set of laws does have an advantage in fairness, because it is the one that the market has chosen, the one that benefits both sides of each dispute the most.

Lets stay to one point at a time.

No matter how many sets of laws you start with, you end up with just one set.  And its not selected by fairness; its selected by its ability to be enforced.  So if an ambitious country or a rich individual supplies one of the court systems with attack helicopters and tanks, the other court systems all fail and the law of the land is whatever that 1 court system with the backing of a foreign state happens to say it is.

How is that a good thing?

You make a good point, but your assumptions are flawed. To be honest, I'm having trouble coming up with a way to explain just how flawed, simply because we're coming from such completely different directions.

OK. I imagine that such an action would be viewed (rightly) as an invasion by the supporting country, or a takeover attempt by the rich individual. That "court system" would be wiped off the map, just as any other invading force would be.

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
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1148
Merit: 1001



View Profile
June 20, 2012, 09:32:40 PM
 #63

So you are agreed that we end up with 1 set of laws and 1 court system in a market court system.  And that that 1 set of laws doesn't have any particular advantage or fairness.  Its the one that has the firepower to enforce its judgements.

Thats your ideal? 

One set of laws, but not one court. The one set of laws does have an advantage in fairness, because it is the one that the market has chosen, the one that benefits both sides of each dispute the most.

Lets stay to one point at a time.

No matter how many sets of laws you start with, you end up with just one set.  And its not selected by fairness; its selected by its ability to be enforced.  So if an ambitious country or a rich individual supplies one of the court systems with attack helicopters and tanks, the other court systems all fail and the law of the land is whatever that 1 court system with the backing of a foreign state happens to say it is.

How is that a good thing?

You make a good point, but your assumptions are flawed. To be honest, I'm having trouble coming up with a way to explain just how flawed, simply because we're coming from such completely different directions.

OK. I imagine that such an action would be viewed (rightly) as an invasion by the supporting country, or a takeover attempt by the rich individual. That "court system" would be wiped off the map, just as any other invading force would be.

Ignore the source of the fire-power.  Any court system has to be able to enforce its judgements to survive in a market.  You have agreed that you eventually you will end up with one.  That one is not the "fairest" its the one with the most fire-power.

How is "most fire-power" a good way to decide what the law should be?

myrkul
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 532
Merit: 500


FIAT LIBERTAS RVAT CAELVM


View Profile WWW
June 20, 2012, 09:33:49 PM
 #64

So you are agreed that we end up with 1 set of laws and 1 court system in a market court system.  And that that 1 set of laws doesn't have any particular advantage or fairness.  Its the one that has the firepower to enforce its judgements.

Thats your ideal? 

One set of laws, but not one court. The one set of laws does have an advantage in fairness, because it is the one that the market has chosen, the one that benefits both sides of each dispute the most.

Lets stay to one point at a time.

No matter how many sets of laws you start with, you end up with just one set.  And its not selected by fairness; its selected by its ability to be enforced.  So if an ambitious country or a rich individual supplies one of the court systems with attack helicopters and tanks, the other court systems all fail and the law of the land is whatever that 1 court system with the backing of a foreign state happens to say it is.

How is that a good thing?

You make a good point, but your assumptions are flawed. To be honest, I'm having trouble coming up with a way to explain just how flawed, simply because we're coming from such completely different directions.

OK. I imagine that such an action would be viewed (rightly) as an invasion by the supporting country, or a takeover attempt by the rich individual. That "court system" would be wiped off the map, just as any other invading force would be.

Ignore the source of the fire-power.  Any court system has to be able to enforce its judgements to survive in a market.  You have agreed that you eventually you will end up with one.  That one is not the "fairest" its the one with the most fire-power.

How is "most fire-power" a good way to decide what the law should be?

You are the one saying that enforcement = firepower, not me.

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
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1148
Merit: 1001



View Profile
June 20, 2012, 09:42:54 PM
 #65

...snip...

How is "most fire-power" a good way to decide what the law should be?

You are the one saying that enforcement = firepower, not me.

Well we are making progress aren't we.  We are agreed that the market means there will only be 1 system of law and the one system will be the one that can enforce its judgements.  The others fail as there is no place in the market for a court system that can't enforce its judgements.

One lawmaker wins on a last man standing basis. 

Enforcement requires violence so the winner is the one that has the most fire-power.  And that is your new government.

Its not an attractive prospect is it?

myrkul
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 532
Merit: 500


FIAT LIBERTAS RVAT CAELVM


View Profile WWW
June 20, 2012, 09:53:08 PM
 #66

Enforcement requires violence

And this is where you are wrong.

Disagreements are not settled by force in arbitration. They are settled by both parties coming to an agreement.

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
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1148
Merit: 1001



View Profile
June 20, 2012, 10:01:30 PM
 #67

Enforcement requires violence

And this is where you are wrong.

Disagreements are not settled by force in arbitration. They are settled by both parties coming to an agreement.

If they don't agree, the court will enforce a judgement.  That's what a court is for.

myrkul
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 532
Merit: 500


FIAT LIBERTAS RVAT CAELVM


View Profile WWW
June 20, 2012, 10:04:02 PM
 #68

Enforcement requires violence

And this is where you are wrong.

Disagreements are not settled by force in arbitration. They are settled by both parties coming to an agreement.

If they don't agree, the court will enforce a judgement.  That's what a court is for.

Again you insist on that word, "court"... why are you stuck on that?

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
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1148
Merit: 1001



View Profile
June 20, 2012, 10:06:02 PM
 #69

Enforcement requires violence

And this is where you are wrong.

Disagreements are not settled by force in arbitration. They are settled by both parties coming to an agreement.

If they don't agree, the court will enforce a judgement.  That's what a court is for.

Again you insist on that word, "court"... why are you stuck on that?

Because when people go to a person to adjudicate, its called going to court.  That's the language.  Unless you mean that there is no enforcement in which case, there are no property rights at all.

myrkul
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 532
Merit: 500


FIAT LIBERTAS RVAT CAELVM


View Profile WWW
June 20, 2012, 10:18:24 PM
 #70

Again you insist on that word, "court"... why are you stuck on that?
Because when people go to a person to adjudicate, its called going to court.  That's the language.  Unless you mean that there is no enforcement in which case, there are no property rights at all.

No, when people go to a government to adjudicate, that's called court. It comes from back when people used to go to kings to judge their cases. They held "court".

When you go to a private agency to adjudicate, it's called either arbitration, or mediation, depending on whether it is contractually binding.

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
Equilux
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 346
Merit: 250


View Profile
June 20, 2012, 11:20:55 PM
 #71

So. Why do you think we need a government?

One of the many reasons we need a government is to fill in the gaps where "the free market" or market-forces are either not working, or produce unwanted results. The reason for the unwanted results is that there are many areas of life where we don't act rationally, or have something (or emotion) at stake to outweigh what you might call a rational market decision.

A free market works great when there are many options available (of a service or a good) and all options are competing. What is also nessecary is that you are free to take your bussiness eslewhere when the product you want is not to you liking. It's also required that you are well informed to actually make a sound decision. this works well with buying goods online; the competing products are just as many clicks away as the one you are dissatisfied with, and abundant information about competitive options are at your fingertips in a convienient format.

Imagine you are old and unable to properly take care of yourself. You do have a great and loving family in the town you're living at but they are unable to provide all the care you need since they are hardworking people and have lives of their own. You arrange that you'll be admitted to a retirement home. This is a commercially run bussiness, and it turns out it's a shitty one, they charge and extortionate rate and the board of directors are awarding themselves massive bonusses. According to "the free market" this retirement-home would go out of bussiness since you could get a much better service for your money someplace else. Turns out, it doesn't. Why? Well even if you as an elderly gentleman (maybe even in the first stages of dementia ..) would find out which place would get you the best value for money i'm sure you wouldn't even concider moving to the other side of the country since everyone you know lives nearby, and those are the last people you have left.

The point is that there are many instances where letting the free market take over is not the right solution. Infact in some cases that would lead to an awefull state of affairs, but in most cases it will lead to having the worst parts of a free market without any of the benefits of that free market since people for whatever reason need a certain product of service anyway.

Further examples are hospitals, dentists, children's daycare centers, pleces that care for the (mentally) handicapped, and primary schools. (You would not move little Timmy for the third time this year, making him lose al his friends again, and driving 150 miles every day to get him to a school)

Many times is better to let those evil govenments raise their evil taxes and make life better for everyone by removing the market incentive and simply demanding every school/daycarecentre/retirement-home/hospital to maintain a certain standard at a certain price.

myrkul
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 532
Merit: 500


FIAT LIBERTAS RVAT CAELVM


View Profile WWW
June 20, 2012, 11:49:20 PM
 #72

Further examples are hospitals, dentists, children's daycare centers, pleces that care for the (mentally) handicapped, and primary schools. (You would not move little Timmy for the third time this year, making him lose al his friends again, and driving 150 miles every day to get him to a school)

This is a good point. Some people might get screwed, and not have a better market option locally. Of course, there are other options. If the only retirement home (school/daycare/etc) local to you is horrible, you could always start your own. Or advertise for someone to do so. If you've gotten screwed by someone, take them to arbitration.

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
Equilux
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 346
Merit: 250


View Profile
June 21, 2012, 12:19:33 AM
 #73

Further examples are hospitals, dentists, children's daycare centers, pleces that care for the (mentally) handicapped, and primary schools. (You would not move little Timmy for the third time this year, making him lose al his friends again, and driving 150 miles every day to get him to a school)

This is a good point. Some people might get screwed, and not have a better market option locally. Of course, there are other options. If the only retirement home (school/daycare/etc) local to you is horrible, you could always start your own. Or advertise for someone to do so. If you've gotten screwed by someone, take them to arbitration.

You could start your own, but many times that's not a option (lacking the time/skills/capital to do so.) But that doesn't really help the situation. You won't put the bad bussinesses out of business because of the reasons I outlined before.

But this does bring up another point; the free market presumes that there are enough people to do a job or run a certain venture, and when there aren't enough people to provide a certain service, it becomes scarce and the price will go up, drawing more people to the oppertunity and solving that problem. But what is that's not the case? What if there are not enough people willing to provide a service that is needed, and there are simply not enough people to do the kinds of jobs needed? The price will certainly go up, but it won't ever come down and that means a service becomes unavailable to many people. Depending on what the service is, that's anywhere from not really a problem (luxury goods) to clearly unacceptable when it's a service like running a daycare, medical care, running a retirement home, when this is only available to the (super)rich.

myrkul
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 532
Merit: 500


FIAT LIBERTAS RVAT CAELVM


View Profile WWW
June 21, 2012, 12:29:51 AM
 #74

Daycare and caring for the elderly aren't vital services... these were done by the family for a large majority of human history. But I don't really worry about there being people around willing to take those jobs.

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
finkleshnorts
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 336
Merit: 250



View Profile
June 21, 2012, 12:36:59 AM
 #75

If arbiters can't/don't back up their decisions with violence, then they are just a bunch of dickheads with neat opinions.
myrkul
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 532
Merit: 500


FIAT LIBERTAS RVAT CAELVM


View Profile WWW
June 21, 2012, 12:46:51 AM
 #76

If arbiters can't/don't back up their decisions with violence, then they are just a bunch of dickheads with neat opinions.

I lol'ed.

Arbitration is binding because you agreed beforehand to accept their decision. You're contractually bound to do what they decide.

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
Equilux
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 346
Merit: 250


View Profile
June 21, 2012, 12:48:25 AM
 #77

Daycare and caring for the elderly aren't vital services... these were done by the family for a large majority of human history. But I don't really worry about there being people around willing to take those jobs.

Indeed, but because of that both the elderly and the infants died much quicker and much more often. you think any extended family can provide the proper care for Alzheimers, Diabetes, Osteoporosis or Arthritis? I think we are now rightly holding ourselves to higher standards than we have for a large majority of human history.

And even if it aren't essential services like you say, just this step back in quality of life that would accompany the AnCap would as far as I'm concerned be enough to reject it outright. (Someone in this thread used the word "barbaric" to describe AnCap I believe that this, among other things, is why he chose to uses that particular word.) Add to that the other critisms I've outlined it becomes clear that the removal of govenment would create much more hardship and problems than it would solve.

punningclan
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 284
Merit: 250


Making a better tomorrow, tomorrow.


View Profile
June 21, 2012, 01:00:50 AM
 #78

I propose an online government that allows everyone to participate based on an infalible voting system (presumably a fork of Bitcoin, perhaps with built in incentives for good participation.). It would become the de-facto standard and every denizen would be born with the right to operate it once they can prove their age and citizenship.

There are hundreds of millions of folk in the country and each of their so called votes for representatives and presidents is so watered down as to appear almost meaningless. Politicians are practically unaccountable and the common folk are separated by so many degrees from the policies and bills that determine their life's as to be laughable.

The political systems of the world only end up serving to perpetuate the slavery whether by greed, negligence or business influence. In the end democracy has been shown to work however in it's current guise it appears to require too much trust in individuals who are too easily corrupted.

I say de facto standrad since, much like Bitcoin's rejection of central control and monetary policy, this project would simply side step all governments and allow the voice of the actual people to be heard.

All issues would be represented digitally and initially would simply compare the decisions of the people versus the those of their politicians.

It's likely governments would reject this system outright however with enough participation the people would see just how disjoint the decisions they make versus what their so called leaders are backing.

There are good reasons to delegate since there are always so many issues at hand however I believe it would be possible to design a system that could balance this deluge and allow normal citizens to make informed choices about real issues rather than voting for someone else who may or may not end up making the choice they wanted.

Open Source, why not Open Government? It only seems to follow given the importance of the decisions those people are making on our behalf.

The forefathers came here to escape the nonsense of royal rule and yet time has managed to bring it all back.

It was a cunning plan to have the funny man be the money fan of the punning clan.
1J13NBTKiV8xrAo2dwaD4LhWs3zPobhh5S
myrkul
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 532
Merit: 500


FIAT LIBERTAS RVAT CAELVM


View Profile WWW
June 21, 2012, 01:04:03 AM
 #79

Daycare and caring for the elderly aren't vital services... these were done by the family for a large majority of human history. But I don't really worry about there being people around willing to take those jobs.

Indeed, but because of that both the elderly and the infants died much quicker and much more often. you think any extended family can provide the proper care for Alzheimers, Diabetes, Osteoporosis or Arthritis? I think we are now rightly holding ourselves to higher standards than we have for a large majority of human history.


On the contrary, as I said, I don't worry about there being people willing to do those jobs. Even now, daycare is taken care of privately all the time, as is aged care.

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
Merit: 500


FIAT LIBERTAS RVAT CAELVM


View Profile WWW
June 21, 2012, 01:06:02 AM
 #80

I propose an online government...

I appreciate your input, but kindly make your own thread for this, it sounds like a great discussion, but it's not this discussion.

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
Equilux
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 346
Merit: 250


View Profile
June 21, 2012, 01:27:24 AM
 #81

Daycare and caring for the elderly aren't vital services... these were done by the family for a large majority of human history. But I don't really worry about there being people around willing to take those jobs.

Indeed, but because of that both the elderly and the infants died much quicker and much more often. you think any extended family can provide the proper care for Alzheimers, Diabetes, Osteoporosis or Arthritis? I think we are now rightly holding ourselves to higher standards than we have for a large majority of human history.


On the contrary, as I said, I don't worry about there being people willing to do those jobs. Even now, daycare is taken care of privately all the time, as is aged care.

As far as I know there has been a growing shortage in people willing to do those jobs in almost all western countries. Daycare and aged care are only taken care of privately in highly urban area's where there are lot's of relatively well to do people who have the means to take their bussiness elsewhere. In AnCap this problem would be maginified by leaving the people who have it the hardest with potentially the worst services. This would be a much worse outcome than having governments imposing standards and (pricing)regulations to those kind of services, and making them partially govenment-funded if needed.

punningclan
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 284
Merit: 250


Making a better tomorrow, tomorrow.


View Profile
June 21, 2012, 01:47:50 AM
 #82

I propose an online government...

I appreciate your input, but kindly make your own thread for this, it sounds like a great discussion, but it's not this discussion.
Will do!

It was a cunning plan to have the funny man be the money fan of the punning clan.
1J13NBTKiV8xrAo2dwaD4LhWs3zPobhh5S
myrkul
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 532
Merit: 500


FIAT LIBERTAS RVAT CAELVM


View Profile WWW
June 21, 2012, 01:48:17 AM
 #83

As far as I know there has been a growing shortage in people willing to do those jobs in almost all western countries. Daycare and aged care are only taken care of privately in highly urban area's where there are lot's of relatively well to do people who have the means to take their bussiness elsewhere. In AnCap this problem would be maginified by leaving the people who have it the hardest with potentially the worst services. This would be a much worse outcome than having governments imposing standards and (pricing)regulations to those kind of services, and making them partially govenment-funded if needed.

The shortage is not in people willing to do them, but in people able to do them because of regulations. Regulations raise barriers to entry, and reduce the number of people able to get into a field. Placing price caps on the service make it even worse. I'm not even going to get into the problems caused by government subsidies.

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
FirstAscent
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 812
Merit: 1000


View Profile
June 21, 2012, 05:31:18 AM
 #84

As far as I know there has been a growing shortage in people willing to do those jobs in almost all western countries. Daycare and aged care are only taken care of privately in highly urban area's where there are lot's of relatively well to do people who have the means to take their bussiness elsewhere. In AnCap this problem would be maginified by leaving the people who have it the hardest with potentially the worst services. This would be a much worse outcome than having governments imposing standards and (pricing)regulations to those kind of services, and making them partially govenment-funded if needed.

The shortage is not in people willing to do them, but in people able to do them because of regulations. Regulations raise barriers to entry, and reduce the number of people able to get into a field. Placing price caps on the service make it even worse. I'm not even going to get into the problems caused by government subsidies.

Regulations are becoming increasingly necessary due to humanity's effect on the planet. An alternative to regulations, however, is taxation. As Herman Daly says, tax that which we want less of.
FirstAscent
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 812
Merit: 1000


View Profile
June 21, 2012, 05:36:11 AM
 #85

If arbiters can't/don't back up their decisions with violence, then they are just a bunch of dickheads with neat opinions.

Exactly. So some arbiter says I owe someone else x. I don't agree. Ha! Better yet, I'll just hire the arbitration firm that I own - after all, they are private firms, no? Think of the benefits of doing so. The fee I pay them goes back into my pocket, and they'll render the decision I desire.

Wait though. Myrkul will say that I can't do that. Oh yeah? Just who the fuck says I can't do that? The NAP doesn't.

Firepower. It all boils down to that. Violence. Who's guns are bigger and more numerous. Who has less scruples. Who is the bigger and richer asshole.

Does that sound like the world we want to make for ourselves?
myrkul
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 532
Merit: 500


FIAT LIBERTAS RVAT CAELVM


View Profile WWW
June 21, 2012, 06:03:30 AM
 #86

If anyone actually agrees with FirstAscent and would like his points addressed, feel free to quote him and ask. Otherwise, I'll just assume he's ranting into the aether.

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
FirstAscent
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 812
Merit: 1000


View Profile
June 21, 2012, 06:32:03 AM
 #87

If anyone actually agrees with FirstAscent and would like his points addressed, feel free to quote him and ask. Otherwise, I'll just assume he's ranting into the aether.

You just don't get it, do you?

Let me spell it out for you. Nobody has to abide by any damn thing in your society.

Except they do. They have to unfortunately abide by the whims and fancies of whoever has the biggest guns and the most money.
Hawker
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1148
Merit: 1001



View Profile
June 21, 2012, 06:53:27 AM
 #88

Again you insist on that word, "court"... why are you stuck on that?
Because when people go to a person to adjudicate, its called going to court.  That's the language.  Unless you mean that there is no enforcement in which case, there are no property rights at all.

No, when people go to a government to adjudicate, that's called court. It comes from back when people used to go to kings to judge their cases. They held "court".

When you go to a private agency to adjudicate, it's called either arbitration, or mediation, depending on whether it is contractually binding.

People have a property dispute.  They have only 1 place to go to resolve it.  It won't be a mediation or arbitration.  One of them will win and the court will enforce that win. That is going to court.  If you want you can call it something else but the effect is the same; the loser faces violence if she does not comply with the adjudication.

In the scenario you describe, the laws that court enforces are arrived at by means of that court being the most efficient at enforcing its judgements.  That enforcement power comes from fire-power.  So you whole system is based on might making laws and legal rights.

How is that an improvement on democratically elected representatives making laws?

myrkul
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 532
Merit: 500


FIAT LIBERTAS RVAT CAELVM


View Profile WWW
June 21, 2012, 07:06:24 AM
 #89

Again you insist on that word, "court"... why are you stuck on that?
Because when people go to a person to adjudicate, its called going to court.  That's the language.  Unless you mean that there is no enforcement in which case, there are no property rights at all.

No, when people go to a government to adjudicate, that's called court. It comes from back when people used to go to kings to judge their cases. They held "court".

When you go to a private agency to adjudicate, it's called either arbitration, or mediation, depending on whether it is contractually binding.

People have a property dispute.  They have only 1 place to go to resolve it.  It won't be a mediation or arbitration.  One of them will win and the court will enforce that win. That is going to court.  If you want you can call it something else but the effect is the same; the loser faces violence if she does not comply with the adjudication.

In the scenario you describe, the laws that court enforces are arrived at by means of that court being the most efficient at enforcing its judgements.  That enforcement power comes from fire-power.  So you whole system is based on might making laws and legal rights.

How is that an improvement on democratically elected representatives making laws?

Court court court court.... You're not listening to me.

Court is government law. Court is enforced by violence.

Arbitration is market law. Arbitration is enforced by the fact that you sign a contract agreeing to the decision before the proceedings start.

You seem to be fond of wikipedia quotes, so here's one that should enlighten you: "Arbitration, a form of alternative dispute resolution (ADR), is a legal technique for the resolution of disputes outside the courts"

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
FirstAscent
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 812
Merit: 1000


View Profile
June 21, 2012, 07:07:56 AM
 #90

You seem to be fond of wikipedia quotes, so here's one that should enlighten you: "Arbitration, a form of alternative dispute resolution (ADR), is a legal technique for the resolution of disputes outside the courts"

Your quoted definition is illogical if you insist there are no courts. If there are no courts, as you're saying right now, then the above definition does not apply.

Take a hike, and take your ideology with you.
FirstAscent
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 812
Merit: 1000


View Profile
June 21, 2012, 07:12:57 AM
 #91

Arbitration is market law. Arbitration is enforced by the fact that you sign a contract agreeing to the decision before the proceedings start.

Missing the point again. Who enforces it? Why would one abide by such an enforcement? Is it because the decision rendered is backed by big money and thugs in suits with guns who show up at your door and threaten to kidnap you and incarcerate you?

Is that it?
Hawker
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1148
Merit: 1001



View Profile
June 21, 2012, 08:39:41 AM
 #92

Again you insist on that word, "court"... why are you stuck on that?
Because when people go to a person to adjudicate, its called going to court.  That's the language.  Unless you mean that there is no enforcement in which case, there are no property rights at all.

No, when people go to a government to adjudicate, that's called court. It comes from back when people used to go to kings to judge their cases. They held "court".

When you go to a private agency to adjudicate, it's called either arbitration, or mediation, depending on whether it is contractually binding.

People have a property dispute.  They have only 1 place to go to resolve it.  It won't be a mediation or arbitration.  One of them will win and the court will enforce that win. That is going to court.  If you want you can call it something else but the effect is the same; the loser faces violence if she does not comply with the adjudication.

In the scenario you describe, the laws that court enforces are arrived at by means of that court being the most efficient at enforcing its judgements.  That enforcement power comes from fire-power.  So you whole system is based on might making laws and legal rights.

How is that an improvement on democratically elected representatives making laws?

Court court court court.... You're not listening to me.

Court is government law. Court is enforced by violence.

Arbitration is market law. Arbitration is enforced by the fact that you sign a contract agreeing to the decision before the proceedings start.

You seem to be fond of wikipedia quotes, so here's one that should enlighten you: "Arbitration, a form of alternative dispute resolution (ADR), is a legal technique for the resolution of disputes outside the courts"

Lets not play with words and focus on consequences.

Lets get back to our landowner who died intestate.  The oldest son believes in primogeniture and he is in possession.  He won't go to arbitration as he already has what he believes is his right.

If the other siblings can get an order to get him off that property, that is a court system.  If not, they have lost any chance of an inheritance.

You are already agreed that the laws enforced by that court are based on that court being better able to enforce its judgements than the other defunct courts.  

So we are left with a set of laws based on enforcement power.

Calling the body that applies those laws "arbitration" makes no difference.  It comes down to applying violence.  In the example, either there is a remedy for the siblings based on their going to law or there are no real property rights at all.

So in your system, we end up with a set of laws based on fire-power or no private property rights.  It's not attractive is it?




myrkul
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 532
Merit: 500


FIAT LIBERTAS RVAT CAELVM


View Profile WWW
June 21, 2012, 09:15:51 AM
 #93

Lets get back to our landowner who died intestate.  The oldest son believes in primogeniture and he is in possession.  He won't go to arbitration as he already has what he believes is his right.

If the other siblings can get an order to get him off that property, that is a court system.  If not, they have lost any chance of an inheritance.

OK, so now we come to how law is enforced without force. I've said this before, elsewhere, but I'll say it again here.

So, the two siblings who just want a share of the property agree to go to arbitration to settle the dispute, but the a-hole son doesn't agree, he believes that as the first son, he is entitled to the whole thing. He hasn't harmed anyone, unless the other siblings had residence on the property and he won't allow them to stay, but we'll assume he moved in after the father's death and the other siblings likewise had other dwellings. But he still refuses arbitration to resolve the dispute. No harm means no justification in kicking him off by force, so that is off the table.

However, there is still an option available to the siblings. They can make it known to all and sundry that the offending son is refusing arbitration. Since arbitration is the means by which disputes are resolved, anyone who sees that knows that should they get into a dispute with him, it's is not likely that he will accept arbitration on that, either. That means that they are not likely to deal with him. He can't force others to do business with him, so if they decide not to, he's out of luck.

You might think (and maybe he does, too), "Oh, no big deal," but imagine: He can't get clothing, because the clothier knows that if there's a dispute, he won't go to arbitration. He can't get food, because the grocer knows that if there's a dispute, he won't go to arbitration. He can't get any of the services we take for granted in modern life, because the proprietors know that if there's a dispute, he won't go to arbitration. Most importantly, he can't get protection, because the protection companies know that if there's a dispute, he won't go to arbitration. He has, by his own actions, made himself literally an outlaw. He's on his own.

That's a pretty mighty incentive to go to arbitration, yeah?

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
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1148
Merit: 1001



View Profile
June 21, 2012, 09:41:10 AM
 #94

Lets get back to our landowner who died intestate.  The oldest son believes in primogeniture and he is in possession.  He won't go to arbitration as he already has what he believes is his right.

If the other siblings can get an order to get him off that property, that is a court system.  If not, they have lost any chance of an inheritance.

OK, so now we come to how law is enforced without force. I've said this before, elsewhere, but I'll say it again here.

So, the two siblings who just want a share of the property agree to go to arbitration to settle the dispute, but the a-hole son doesn't agree, he believes that as the first son, he is entitled to the whole thing. He hasn't harmed anyone, unless the other siblings had residence on the property and he won't allow them to stay, but we'll assume he moved in after the father's death and the other siblings likewise had other dwellings. But he still refuses arbitration to resolve the dispute. No harm means no justification in kicking him off by force, so that is off the table.

However, there is still an option available to the siblings. They can make it known to all and sundry that the offending son is refusing arbitration. Since arbitration is the means by which disputes are resolved, anyone who sees that knows that should they get into a dispute with him, it's is not likely that he will accept arbitration on that, either. That means that they are not likely to deal with him. He can't force others to do business with him, so if they decide not to, he's out of luck.

You might think (and maybe he does, too), "Oh, no big deal," but imagine: He can't get clothing, because the clothier knows that if there's a dispute, he won't go to arbitration. He can't get food, because the grocer knows that if there's a dispute, he won't go to arbitration. He can't get any of the services we take for granted in modern life, because the proprietors know that if there's a dispute, he won't go to arbitration. Most importantly, he can't get protection, because the protection companies know that if there's a dispute, he won't go to arbitration. He has, by his own actions, made himself literally an outlaw. He's on his own.

That's a pretty mighty incentive to go to arbitration, yeah?


Um no.  He is merely exercising his rights.  Even people who disagree with him will accept that.  He will have food from Tesco, petrol from BP, clothes from Armani, cars from Mercedez.  The market does not judge people and say "Your cash is not good here."  Of course security companies will want to protect him; he has the assets that are worth protecting.

It seems your position is that the guy who has taken possession is the winner.  He has the land, money and the protection.  The siblings have nothing. 

How can that be an improvement on what we have now?

myrkul
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 532
Merit: 500


FIAT LIBERTAS RVAT CAELVM


View Profile WWW
June 21, 2012, 10:00:10 AM
 #95

Um no.  He is merely exercising his rights.  Even people who disagree with him will accept that.  He will have food from Tesco, petrol from BP, clothes from Armani, cars from Mercedes.  The market does not judge people and say "Your cash is not good here."  Of course security companies will want to protect him; he has the assets that are worth protecting.

It seems your position is that the guy who has taken possession is the winner.  He has the land, money and the protection.  The siblings have nothing. 

How can that be an improvement on what we have now?

The market does indeed judge people and say "your money is no good here" Or rather, your credit. Why would Mercedes sell him a car, when no contract he signs would be worth the paper it was written on? Likewise the protection agency. Likewise the insurance agency. I'll admit, clothes, groceries and gas might be relatively easy to get, as long as he pays cash. Once his cash runs out, then what? Nobody's going to hire him. Nobody's going to work with him. He's screwed over family. What will he do to someone with no ties to him?

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
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1148
Merit: 1001



View Profile
June 21, 2012, 10:09:45 AM
 #96

Um no.  He is merely exercising his rights.  Even people who disagree with him will accept that.  He will have food from Tesco, petrol from BP, clothes from Armani, cars from Mercedes.  The market does not judge people and say "Your cash is not good here."  Of course security companies will want to protect him; he has the assets that are worth protecting.

It seems your position is that the guy who has taken possession is the winner.  He has the land, money and the protection.  The siblings have nothing.  

How can that be an improvement on what we have now?

The market does indeed judge people and say "your money is no good here" Or rather, your credit. Why would Mercedes sell him a car, when no contract he signs would be worth the paper it was written on? Likewise the protection agency. Likewise the insurance agency. I'll admit, clothes, groceries and gas might be relatively easy to get, as long as he pays cash. Once his cash runs out, then what? Nobody's going to hire him. Nobody's going to work with him. He's screwed over family. What will he do to someone with no ties to him?

He has exercised his right to inheritance by primogeniture.  Socially that has no downside - it was normal until a few decades ago in most of the common law world.

Credit decisions are taken by computers based on assets and credit score.  He will have no problem getting credit.

People need jobs and he has assets.  He will have no problem getting people to work for him in protection.

There is no downside for the eldest son.  He has the land and his siblings just have to accept that in your system, they have no rights.

What you are describing is a market incentive.  It rewards people who take possession and refuse arbitration.  I can't see how that is better than the existing system.

myrkul
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 532
Merit: 500


FIAT LIBERTAS RVAT CAELVM


View Profile WWW
June 21, 2012, 10:13:16 AM
 #97

What you are describing is a market incentive.  It rewards people who take possession and refuse arbitration.  I can't see how that is better than the existing system.

Let me put it into terms that might be more familiar.

Would you do business on here with someone who had earned the "Scammer" tag?

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
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1148
Merit: 1001



View Profile
June 21, 2012, 10:37:41 AM
 #98

What you are describing is a market incentive.  It rewards people who take possession and refuse arbitration.  I can't see how that is better than the existing system.

Let me put it into terms that might be more familiar.

Would you do business on here with someone who had earned the "Scammer" tag?

Look at my sig - I only do business with rule breakers, cheats and scammers.  Their money is as good as money from the Pope.

I see where you are coming from.  You seem a nice person and to assume that bad people don't prosper in a lawless environment like the Internet.  But they do - they really do.  




myrkul
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 532
Merit: 500


FIAT LIBERTAS RVAT CAELVM


View Profile WWW
June 21, 2012, 10:57:45 AM
 #99

Look at my sig - I only do business with rule breakers, cheats and scammers.  Their money is as good as money from the Pope.

I have to admit, that was the last response I expected. But... You get your money up front, dont'cha?

I see where you are coming from.  You seem a nice person and to assume that bad people don't prosper in a lawless environment like the Internet.  But they do - they really do. 

Sure, in the internet, where a fresh rep is just a few clicks away. In meatspace, having a bad reputation has slightly more weight to it.

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
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1148
Merit: 1001



View Profile
June 21, 2012, 11:10:28 AM
 #100

Look at my sig - I only do business with rule breakers, cheats and scammers.  Their money is as good as money from the Pope.

I have to admit, that was the last response I expected. But... You get your money up front, dont'cha?

I see where you are coming from.  You seem a nice person and to assume that bad people don't prosper in a lawless environment like the Internet.  But they do - they really do.  

Sure, in the internet, where a fresh rep is just a few clicks away. In meatspace, having a bad reputation has slightly more weight to it.

Oddly no.  I've extended a lot of credit in my time.  Its always a risk, I do get ripped off, but the rewards are there too.  

Back to the topic, in the inheritance situation, primogeniture is not a social evil.  In your system, eldest son has a market incentive to take possession and refuse to arbitrate.  All the local eldest sons will agree with him and the rest of the people will just get used to him.

Can't you see that is a terrible thing to encourage?

Equilux
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 346
Merit: 250


View Profile
June 21, 2012, 12:05:41 PM
 #101

I'd like to introduce an example that has a bit more weight to it, which will show more clearly where there is a problem in milder examples.

Imagine someone who is just rich and powerfull, a warlord, wallstreet bigshot, ceo of a multinational, or gangleader. There are plenty of people like that now, and there will be in an AnCap, or under NAP. This guy has his own arbitraging companies, his own private army/policeforce and a chain of stores and hotels to bring in the money.

Now what would possebly stop him from claiming land, kicking people out of their houses and stores? Sure people would want to "sue" him, get him into arbitraging. Mister bigshot could just insist on only using his own firms, so what if the competing arbitrage firm would suggest a common ground? Mister bigshot could just refuse till the and of time while he just enforces his own "laws" and the people would be homeless and/or dieing in the street. Justice has become a commodity for sale, and the richer of more powerfull you become you can buy more "justice".

"The idea of "free contract" between the potentate and his starving subject is a sick joke"

FirstAscent
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 812
Merit: 1000


View Profile
June 21, 2012, 04:55:35 PM
 #102

I'd like to introduce an example that has a bit more weight to it, which will show more clearly where there is a problem in milder examples.

Imagine someone who is just rich and powerfull, a warlord, wallstreet bigshot, ceo of a multinational, or gangleader. There are plenty of people like that now, and there will be in an AnCap, or under NAP. This guy has his own arbitraging companies, his own private army/policeforce and a chain of stores and hotels to bring in the money.

Now what would possebly stop him from claiming land, kicking people out of their houses and stores? Sure people would want to "sue" him, get him into arbitraging. Mister bigshot could just insist on only using his own firms, so what if the competing arbitrage firm would suggest a common ground? Mister bigshot could just refuse till the and of time while he just enforces his own "laws" and the people would be homeless and/or dieing in the street. Justice has become a commodity for sale, and the richer of more powerfull you become you can buy more "justice".

"The idea of "free contract" between the potentate and his starving subject is a sick joke"

Isn't that what I said here:

If arbiters can't/don't back up their decisions with violence, then they are just a bunch of dickheads with neat opinions.

Exactly. So some arbiter says I owe someone else x. I don't agree. Ha! Better yet, I'll just hire the arbitration firm that I own - after all, they are private firms, no? Think of the benefits of doing so. The fee I pay them goes back into my pocket, and they'll render the decision I desire.

Wait though. Myrkul will say that I can't do that. Oh yeah? Just who the fuck says I can't do that? The NAP doesn't.

Firepower. It all boils down to that. Violence. Who's guns are bigger and more numerous. Who has less scruples. Who is the bigger and richer asshole.

Does that sound like the world we want to make for ourselves?

And here?

If anyone actually agrees with FirstAscent and would like his points addressed, feel free to quote him and ask. Otherwise, I'll just assume he's ranting into the aether.

You just don't get it, do you?

Let me spell it out for you. Nobody has to abide by any damn thing in your society.

Except they do. They have to unfortunately abide by the whims and fancies of whoever has the biggest guns and the most money.
Equilux
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 346
Merit: 250


View Profile
June 21, 2012, 05:16:50 PM
 #103

I'd like to introduce an example that has a bit more weight to it, which will show more clearly where there is a problem in milder examples.

Imagine someone who is just rich and powerfull, a warlord, wallstreet bigshot, ceo of a multinational, or gangleader. There are plenty of people like that now, and there will be in an AnCap, or under NAP. This guy has his own arbitraging companies, his own private army/policeforce and a chain of stores and hotels to bring in the money.

Now what would possebly stop him from claiming land, kicking people out of their houses and stores? Sure people would want to "sue" him, get him into arbitraging. Mister bigshot could just insist on only using his own firms, so what if the competing arbitrage firm would suggest a common ground? Mister bigshot could just refuse till the and of time while he just enforces his own "laws" and the people would be homeless and/or dieing in the street. Justice has become a commodity for sale, and the richer of more powerfull you become you can buy more "justice".

"The idea of "free contract" between the potentate and his starving subject is a sick joke"

Isn't that what I said here:

If arbiters can't/don't back up their decisions with violence, then they are just a bunch of dickheads with neat opinions.

Exactly. So some arbiter says I owe someone else x. I don't agree. Ha! Better yet, I'll just hire the arbitration firm that I own - after all, they are private firms, no? Think of the benefits of doing so. The fee I pay them goes back into my pocket, and they'll render the decision I desire.

Wait though. Myrkul will say that I can't do that. Oh yeah? Just who the fuck says I can't do that? The NAP doesn't.

Firepower. It all boils down to that. Violence. Who's guns are bigger and more numerous. Who has less scruples. Who is the bigger and richer asshole.

Does that sound like the world we want to make for ourselves?

And here?

If anyone actually agrees with FirstAscent and would like his points addressed, feel free to quote him and ask. Otherwise, I'll just assume he's ranting into the aether.

You just don't get it, do you?

Let me spell it out for you. Nobody has to abide by any damn thing in your society.

Except they do. They have to unfortunately abide by the whims and fancies of whoever has the biggest guns and the most money.

True, true, but it seemed to me that the understanding of the implications of this didn't fully carry over to the other examples that are still discussed. And I thought an example that took smaller and more detailed steps wouldn't hurt Smiley

FirstAscent
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 812
Merit: 1000


View Profile
June 21, 2012, 05:44:11 PM
 #104

True, true, but it seemed to me that the understanding of the implications of this didn't fully carry over to the other examples that are still discussed. And I thought an example that took smaller and more detailed steps wouldn't hurt Smiley

I appreciate you reinforcing the concepts.
myrkul
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 532
Merit: 500


FIAT LIBERTAS RVAT CAELVM


View Profile WWW
June 21, 2012, 06:49:11 PM
 #105

Back to the topic, in the inheritance situation, primogeniture is not a social evil.  In your system, eldest son has a market incentive to take possession and refuse to arbitrate.  All the local eldest sons will agree with him and the rest of the people will just get used to him.

Leaving aside the fact that I explicitly described a market incentive not to screw over your family, if primogeniture becomes the accepted method, then that is what the market selected. If you don't like it, I suggest you draw up a will.

Now what would possebly stop him from claiming land, kicking people out of their houses and stores? Sure people would want to "sue" him, get him into arbitraging. Mister bigshot could just insist on only using his own firms, so what if the competing arbitrage firm would suggest a common ground? Mister bigshot could just refuse till the and of time while he just enforces his own "laws" and the people would be homeless and/or dieing in the street. Justice has become a commodity for sale, and the richer of more powerfull you become you can buy more "justice".

First, some definitions. Words matter, and, in fact, the Wikipedia article on arbitration mentions, "Not to be confused with arbitrage"
Arbitration: non-court dispute resolution.
Arbitrage: the practice of taking advantage of a price difference between two or more markets.

Secondly, You mentioned NAP, yes? He is actively harming people, yes? Right now? Shoot his ass.


Isn't that what I said here:

<snip>

And here?

If anyone actually agrees with FirstAscent and would like his points addressed, feel free to quote him and ask. Otherwise, I'll just assume he's ranting into the aether.
<snip>

True, true, but it seemed to me that the understanding of the implications of this didn't fully carry over to the other examples that are still discussed. And I thought an example that took smaller and more detailed steps wouldn't hurt Smiley

Ranting into the aether... Apparently FirstAscent doesn't understand the concept of "ignored"

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
FirstAscent
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 812
Merit: 1000


View Profile
June 21, 2012, 07:01:13 PM
 #106

Ranting into the aether... Apparently FirstAscent doesn't understand the concept of "ignored"

So what if you're ignoring me. My posts are to show others how ridiculous and ill formed your ideas are.
FirstAscent
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 812
Merit: 1000


View Profile
June 21, 2012, 07:04:46 PM
 #107

Secondly, You mentioned NAP, yes? He is actively harming people, yes? Right now? Shoot his ass.

Either they do, and you have an escalation of violence and retaliation. Feuds.

Or they don't, due to intimidation.
Hawker
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1148
Merit: 1001



View Profile
June 21, 2012, 08:17:37 PM
 #108

Back to the topic, in the inheritance situation, primogeniture is not a social evil.  In your system, eldest son has a market incentive to take possession and refuse to arbitrate.  All the local eldest sons will agree with him and the rest of the people will just get used to him.

Leaving aside the fact that I explicitly described a market incentive not to screw over your family, if primogeniture becomes the accepted method, then that is what the market selected. If you don't like it, I suggest you draw up a will.

...snip...

No your market incentive is to take possession and refuse arbitration. 

By "accepted method" you mean the method with the most enforcement fire-power.

Siblings who have been excluded don't get to say whether or not a parent dies intestate.  But on your logic, a will won't matter as anyone can take possession and refuse arbitration.

You made the thread asking for criticisms.  My criticism is that you want a system where the person with the most fire-power wins every time.  That is not an improvement on what we have now.  In fact, its a crap system.

myrkul
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 532
Merit: 500


FIAT LIBERTAS RVAT CAELVM


View Profile WWW
June 21, 2012, 08:48:45 PM
 #109

Siblings who have been excluded don't get to say whether or not a parent dies intestate.  But on your logic, a will won't matter as anyone can take possession and refuse arbitration.

A will is a legally binding contract. If you have taken possession, in violation of the will, and are refusing arbitration, you're harming the other siblings. Now they're justified in kicking him off by force.

If the market accepts the fact that he is claiming primogeniture after his father died intestate, and continues to provide him services, then that is the market choice for dealing with a parent who dies intestate: primogeniture. If you do not like that, make sure you don't die intestate.

Critics love making edge cases, and saying "see, your system is based on who has the most guns", while ignoring the fact that even at the best of times, government is based on who has the most guns. I don't pretend it would be perfect, but the majority of cases will be settled peaceably, between the two parties involved. In a government system, the majority forces the minority in every 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
FirstAscent
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 812
Merit: 1000


View Profile
June 21, 2012, 08:57:47 PM
 #110

Critics love making edge cases, and saying "see, your system is based on who has the most guns", while ignoring the fact that even at the best of times, government is based on who has the most guns. I don't pretend it would be perfect, but the majority of cases will be settled peaceably, between the two parties involved. In a government system, the majority forces the minority in every decision.

We're not making edge cases. We're describing to you human nature in the absense of any respectable and consistent enforcement of a common unified set of laws.

What you advocate is no consistent set of laws (NAP is irrelevant because it is not adhered to nor enforced) and no consistent enforcement of laws (multiple enforcement firms). But it's doubly irrelevant regarding the enforcement of laws, because there is no consistent set of laws anyway.

The reality of your joke of a system is this:

1. Everyone follows their own made up rules.
2. Those who can afford it, arbitrarily, and at their own whims, enforce their own made up rules with money and guns.

Let me repeat that for you (in bold faced type):

1. Everyone follows their own made up rules.
2. Those who can afford it, arbitrarily, and at their own whims, enforce their own made up rules with money and guns.

Explodicle
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 947
Merit: 1000


View Profile
June 21, 2012, 09:22:56 PM
 #111

The reality of your joke of a system is this:

1. Everyone follows their own made up rules.
2. Those who can afford it, arbitrarily, and at their own whims, enforce their own made up rules with money and guns.

That sounds exactly like a republic, except item #1 would be "someone else's made up rules". The Ancaps seem to be proposing we lower that arbitrary barrier in #2 to include all people, and assuming that people who waste their money on irrational rules will become poorer and lose influence. Correct?
Hawker
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1148
Merit: 1001



View Profile
June 21, 2012, 09:25:39 PM
 #112

Siblings who have been excluded don't get to say whether or not a parent dies intestate.  But on your logic, a will won't matter as anyone can take possession and refuse arbitration.

A will is a legally binding contract. If you have taken possession, in violation of the will, and are refusing arbitration, you're harming the other siblings. Now they're justified in kicking him off by force.

If the market accepts the fact that he is claiming primogeniture after his father died intestate, and continues to provide him services, then that is the market choice for dealing with a parent who dies intestate: primogeniture. If you do not like that, make sure you don't die intestate.

Critics love making edge cases, and saying "see, your system is based on who has the most guns", while ignoring the fact that even at the best of times, government is based on who has the most guns. I don't pretend it would be perfect, but the majority of cases will be settled peaceably, between the two parties involved. In a government system, the majority forces the minority in every decision.

Democratic government is most certainly not based on who has most guns.

Inheritance is not an edge case and your approach that people who are refused arbitration have no recourse is shocking.  How can you even begin to advocate such an unjust system?  I'd be ashamed.

myrkul
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 532
Merit: 500


FIAT LIBERTAS RVAT CAELVM


View Profile WWW
June 21, 2012, 09:39:18 PM
 #113

Democratic government is most certainly not based on who has most guns.

Bullshit. 50%, plus one, of the people tell me it's illegal to drink caffeine, and suddenly I can't drink caffeine. If I try to do so anyway, they arrest me, and if I resist hard enough, they shoot me. How is that not about who has the most guns?

Inheritance is not an edge case and your approach that people who are refused arbitration have no recourse is shocking.  How can you even begin to advocate such an unjust system?  I'd be ashamed.

I never said they had no recourse, that you don't like their recourse is your problem.

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
FirstAscent
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 812
Merit: 1000


View Profile
June 21, 2012, 09:42:25 PM
 #114

The reality of your joke of a system is this:

1. Everyone follows their own made up rules.
2. Those who can afford it, arbitrarily, and at their own whims, enforce their own made up rules with money and guns.

That sounds exactly like a republic, except item #1 would be "someone else's made up rules". The Ancaps seem to be proposing we lower that arbitrary barrier in #2 to include all people, and assuming that people who waste their money on irrational rules will become poorer and lose influence. Correct?

Incorrect.

If you change #1, then we're no longer discussing what I said, are we?

As for #2, your sentence regarding it is manipulative and presumptuous.
FirstAscent
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 812
Merit: 1000


View Profile
June 21, 2012, 09:45:14 PM
 #115

Democratic government is most certainly not based on who has most guns.

Bullshit. 50%, plus one, of the people tell me it's illegal to drink caffeine, and suddenly I can't drink caffeine. If I try to do so anyway, they arrest me, and if I resist hard enough, they shoot me. How is that not about who has the most guns?

Then I suggest your time would be better spent discussing an ideology which favors leniency with regard to substance intake, instead of the silliness you do spend your time advocating.
Explodicle
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 947
Merit: 1000


View Profile
June 21, 2012, 09:59:05 PM
 #116

The reality of your joke of a system is this:

1. Everyone follows their own made up rules.
2. Those who can afford it, arbitrarily, and at their own whims, enforce their own made up rules with money and guns.

That sounds exactly like a republic, except item #1 would be "someone else's made up rules". The Ancaps seem to be proposing we lower that arbitrary barrier in #2 to include all people, and assuming that people who waste their money on irrational rules will become poorer and lose influence. Correct?

Incorrect.

If you change #1, then we're no longer discussing what I said, are we?

As for #2, your sentence regarding it is manipulative and presumptuous.

I guess not? It is no longer discussing Ancap, it is discussing the republic. I'm applying the same simplistic description to both systems, since analyzing them any way other than by comparison is pointless.

Indeed it is presumptive, that's why I asked for an Ancap to confirm that presumption. I'm sorry if that came across as a question directed at you, as I am very familiar with your thoughts on the topic.

I feel like I just walked into a room where people are fighting and got a chair broken over my head.
myrkul
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 532
Merit: 500


FIAT LIBERTAS RVAT CAELVM


View Profile WWW
June 21, 2012, 10:16:25 PM
 #117

I feel like I just walked into a room where people are fighting and got a chair broken over my head.

Heh... Which is why I waited.

"The Ancaps seem to be proposing we lower that arbitrary barrier in #2 to include all people, and assuming that people who waste their money on irrational rules will become poorer and lose influence."

This isn't 100%. Understand that the underlying principle of AnCap is the Non-Aggression Principle: No person has the right to initiate force or fraud on another person. Outside of that, anything goes. You can make your own rules, but if you try to force other people to follow them, that will be interpreted as an attack on the society, and an attempt to create a new government. It will not end well for you.

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
Explodicle
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 947
Merit: 1000


View Profile
June 21, 2012, 10:55:44 PM
 #118

I feel like I just walked into a room where people are fighting and got a chair broken over my head.

Heh... Which is why I waited.

"The Ancaps seem to be proposing we lower that arbitrary barrier in #2 to include all people, and assuming that people who waste their money on irrational rules will become poorer and lose influence."

This isn't 100%. Understand that the underlying principle of AnCap is the Non-Aggression Principle: No person has the right to initiate force or fraud on another person. Outside of that, anything goes. You can make your own rules, but if you try to force other people to follow them, that will be interpreted as an attack on the society, and an attempt to create a new government. It will not end well for you.

True, but even the NAP can be interpreted differently between libertarians, and I would assume Ancaps too. Apologies if this sparks a huge tangent, but carbon pollution might be a good example - depending on your scientific ability, carbon emissions are anywhere between unimportant and an existential risk. Assuming the Ancap society is just as divided as this forum is, how would/should interpretation conflicts be resolved?

I guess what I'm trying to say is I somewhat agree with FirstAscent in that the rules enforced seem subjective, even if it's all NAP. I've always just considered it a guideline.
finkleshnorts
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 336
Merit: 250



View Profile
June 21, 2012, 11:00:56 PM
 #119

Siblings who have been excluded don't get to say whether or not a parent dies intestate.  But on your logic, a will won't matter as anyone can take possession and refuse arbitration.

A will is a legally binding contract. If you have taken possession, in violation of the will, and are refusing arbitration, you're harming the other siblings. Now they're justified in kicking him off by force.

If the market accepts the fact that he is claiming primogeniture after his father died intestate, and continues to provide him services, then that is the market choice for dealing with a parent who dies intestate: primogeniture. If you do not like that, make sure you don't die intestate.

Critics love making edge cases, and saying "see, your system is based on who has the most guns", while ignoring the fact that even at the best of times, government is based on who has the most guns. I don't pretend it would be perfect, but the majority of cases will be settled peaceably, between the two parties involved. In a government system, the majority forces the minority in every decision.

Again, says who? How is anything legally binding in a world with no laws or rulers?
myrkul
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 532
Merit: 500


FIAT LIBERTAS RVAT CAELVM


View Profile WWW
June 21, 2012, 11:15:07 PM
 #120

Again, says who? How is anything legally binding in a world with no laws or rulers?

Please read the rest of the thread, where I explain how law is developed and enforced without government.

True, but even the NAP can be interpreted differently between libertarians, and I would assume Ancaps too. Apologies if this sparks a huge tangent, but carbon pollution might be a good example - depending on your scientific ability, carbon emissions are anywhere between unimportant and an existential risk. Assuming the Ancap society is just as divided as this forum is, how would/should interpretation conflicts be resolved?

Arbitration. Interpretation conflicts, damages, anything except an active assault can be resolved in Arbitration or mediation.

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
Explodicle
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 947
Merit: 1000


View Profile
June 22, 2012, 12:55:50 AM
 #121

Quote from: myrkul
True, but even the NAP can be interpreted differently between libertarians, and I would assume Ancaps too. Apologies if this sparks a huge tangent, but carbon pollution might be a good example - depending on your scientific ability, carbon emissions are anywhere between unimportant and an existential risk. Assuming the Ancap society is just as divided as this forum is, how would/should interpretation conflicts be resolved?

Arbitration. Interpretation conflicts, damages, anything except an active assault can be resolved in Arbitration or mediation.
So what if a self-sufficient group decides that <externality here> is harmless? They wouldn't have to care about hurting reputations outside the group by refusing to arbitrate. If another group has a huge problem with this, how is violence averted? Assume both groups believe in the NAP but disagree about the facts.
myrkul
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 532
Merit: 500


FIAT LIBERTAS RVAT CAELVM


View Profile WWW
June 22, 2012, 01:25:03 AM
 #122

So what if a self-sufficient group decides that <externality here> is harmless? They wouldn't have to care about hurting reputations outside the group by refusing to arbitrate. If another group has a huge problem with this, how is violence averted? Assume both groups believe in the NAP but disagree about the facts.

Well, if you can find a truly self-sufficient group, let me know. I don't know of anyone who can provide everything for themselves. But, let's assume they're completely self-sufficient. Both groups agree that to aggress on another is wrong. But one group is being aggressed on by the other. That <externality>, if it is actually harmful, and can be proven to be harmful, can be shown as such to the offending group. If they still refuse arbitration, then violence may not be avoidable, since that constitutes an active assault, albeit one group on another, through pollution.

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
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1148
Merit: 1001



View Profile
June 22, 2012, 06:25:58 AM
 #123

Democratic government is most certainly not based on who has most guns.

Bullshit. 50%, plus one, of the people tell me it's illegal to drink caffeine, and suddenly I can't drink caffeine. If I try to do so anyway, they arrest me, and if I resist hard enough, they shoot me. How is that not about who has the most guns?

Inheritance is not an edge case and your approach that people who are refused arbitration have no recourse is shocking.  How can you even begin to advocate such an unjust system?  I'd be ashamed.

I never said they had no recourse, that you don't like their recourse is your problem.

Democracy is not about a simple majority getting all it wants.  There are always things like property rights.  Your system has no such rights since the person who has most fire-power has an absolute law making power.

You say that its my problem if I don't think the siblings recourse is fair.   You are proposing to replace the existing fair with your system.  If your system is not fair, it will never get off the ground. 

One problem you have is that when the facts or consequences of an argument don't suit you, you try to ignore them.  As a suggestion, that's the point at which you take a step back and re-consider how you are going about things.  There is more than one way to skin a cat; your idea that people should rely on public opinion to get their property rights is not a good one.  Come back with a better enforcement method and the rest of your argument will at least have a foundation.

myrkul
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 532
Merit: 500


FIAT LIBERTAS RVAT CAELVM


View Profile WWW
June 22, 2012, 07:11:10 AM
 #124

Democracy is not about a simple majority getting all it wants.  There are always things like property rights.  Your system has no such rights since the person who has most fire-power has an absolute law making power.

You know what? You're right. Recognizing each person's self-ownership and rejecting government violence will only lead to chaos. It's much better to give all the guns to one monopoly organization and let all the decisions be made by popular vote. If a lot of people agree about something, it's probably right anyway.

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
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1148
Merit: 1001



View Profile
June 22, 2012, 12:58:54 PM
 #125

Democracy is not about a simple majority getting all it wants.  There are always things like property rights.  Your system has no such rights since the person who has most fire-power has an absolute law making power.

You know what? You're right. Recognizing each person's self-ownership and rejecting government violence will only lead to chaos. It's much better to give all the guns to one monopoly organization and let all the decisions be made by popular vote. If a lot of people agree about something, it's probably right anyway.

Leaving the control of violence in one "defence agency" is what you are advocating with your "normalisation" of law in "market courts".

What you might do is look up the concept of separation of powers; having executive, judicial and legislative powers all in 1 "defence agency" is guaranteed to be a disaster.  

myrkul
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 532
Merit: 500


FIAT LIBERTAS RVAT CAELVM


View Profile WWW
June 22, 2012, 03:56:06 PM
 #126

What you might do is look up the concept of separation of powers; having executive, judicial and legislative powers all in 1 "defence agency" is guaranteed to be a disaster. 

Uh... yeah, duh.

That's why a defense agency is a defense agency, and a arbitration firm is an arbitration firm. I'm still not sure where you picked up the idea that they were the same thing.

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
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1148
Merit: 1001



View Profile
June 22, 2012, 04:05:18 PM
 #127

What you might do is look up the concept of separation of powers; having executive, judicial and legislative powers all in 1 "defence agency" is guaranteed to be a disaster. 

Uh... yeah, duh.

That's why a defense agency is a defense agency, and a arbitration firm is an arbitration firm. I'm still not sure where you picked up the idea that they were the same thing.

Because the most efficient way to do it will be for same people to own the defence agency and to own the courts.  That way, they can charge for a guaranteed service.  Vertical integration is the technical term. 

myrkul
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 532
Merit: 500


FIAT LIBERTAS RVAT CAELVM


View Profile WWW
June 22, 2012, 04:07:29 PM
 #128

What you might do is look up the concept of separation of powers; having executive, judicial and legislative powers all in 1 "defence agency" is guaranteed to be a disaster. 

Uh... yeah, duh.

That's why a defense agency is a defense agency, and a arbitration firm is an arbitration firm. I'm still not sure where you picked up the idea that they were the same thing.

Because the most efficient way to do it will be for same people to own the defence agency and to own the courts.  That way, they can charge for a guaranteed service.  Vertical integration is the technical term. 

Conflict of interest is the term you're looking for.

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
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1148
Merit: 1001



View Profile
June 22, 2012, 04:10:51 PM
 #129

What you might do is look up the concept of separation of powers; having executive, judicial and legislative powers all in 1 "defence agency" is guaranteed to be a disaster. 

Uh... yeah, duh.

That's why a defense agency is a defense agency, and a arbitration firm is an arbitration firm. I'm still not sure where you picked up the idea that they were the same thing.

Because the most efficient way to do it will be for same people to own the defence agency and to own the courts.  That way, they can charge for a guaranteed service.  Vertical integration is the technical term. 

Conflict of interest is the term you're looking for.

But its a market in violence. So conflict of interest will be normal since anyone who objects receives the violence.  They are the biggest and the best - what you gonna do?  Tell your friends that they are not nice people?

myrkul
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 532
Merit: 500


FIAT LIBERTAS RVAT CAELVM


View Profile WWW
June 22, 2012, 04:15:35 PM
 #130

But its a market in violence. So conflict of interest will be normal since anyone who objects receives the violence.  They are the biggest and the best - what you gonna do?  Tell your friends that they are not nice people?

If a verbal objection receives violence, that's a NAP violation, and a fairly clear attempt at establishing a state. Even the biggest and the best can be taken down by enough of the little guys.

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
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1148
Merit: 1001



View Profile
June 22, 2012, 04:22:22 PM
 #131

But its a market in violence. So conflict of interest will be normal since anyone who objects receives the violence.  They are the biggest and the best - what you gonna do?  Tell your friends that they are not nice people?

If a verbal objection receives violence, that's a NAP violation, and a fairly clear attempt at establishing a state. Even the biggest and the best can be taken down by enough of the little guys.

So, we have a system where the "little guys" are safe with private property rights.  You are proposing replacing it with a system where the equivalent of the US army is the "defence agency" and the "little guys" have to fight it.  A lot of heroic deaths will ensue.

Bu what would the point be?  The market you describe means that even if they win, a new super agency will emerge.  There can never be a market in courts or defence agencies that can't enforce their owners and clients commands can there?  So you will always end up with 1.  The "little guys" will have died in vain.

What you need is a marker mechanism that does not create such a super "defence agency."

myrkul
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 532
Merit: 500


FIAT LIBERTAS RVAT CAELVM


View Profile WWW
June 22, 2012, 04:26:19 PM
 #132

What you need is a marker mechanism that does not create such a super "defence agency."

Do me a favor... explain, in detail, each step where we get from 100 defense agencies down to one superagency?

I'd like to see your logic.

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
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1148
Merit: 1001



View Profile
June 22, 2012, 05:21:02 PM
 #133

What you need is a marker mechanism that does not create such a super "defence agency."

Do me a favor... explain, in detail, each step where we get from 100 defense agencies down to one superagency?

I'd like to see your logic.

We've already done this.  Each dispute that requires 1 side to win or lose will result in 1 defence agency going out of business.  There can never be a market for a "defence agency" that allows someone else to win.

No matter how many you start with, you end up with 1.

myrkul
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 532
Merit: 500


FIAT LIBERTAS RVAT CAELVM


View Profile WWW
June 22, 2012, 05:32:39 PM
 #134

We've already done this.  Each dispute that requires 1 side to win or lose will result in 1 defence agency going out of business.  There can never be a market for a "defence agency" that allows someone else to win.

No matter how many you start with, you end up with 1.

That's why defense agencies don't fight defense agencies. Defense agencies are just that: defense. Against criminals or invading armies, not each other. If you have a dispute, you don't call your defense agency, you call your arbitration firm.

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
FirstAscent
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 812
Merit: 1000


View Profile
June 22, 2012, 05:53:18 PM
 #135

What you might do is look up the concept of separation of powers; having executive, judicial and legislative powers all in 1 "defence agency" is guaranteed to be a disaster. 

Uh... yeah, duh.

That's why a defense agency is a defense agency, and a arbitration firm is an arbitration firm. I'm still not sure where you picked up the idea that they were the same thing.

Because the most efficient way to do it will be for same people to own the defence agency and to own the courts.  That way, they can charge for a guaranteed service.  Vertical integration is the technical term. 

Conflict of interest is the term you're looking for.

So you're an advocate of regulation then?
FirstAscent
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 812
Merit: 1000


View Profile
June 22, 2012, 05:55:06 PM
 #136

If you have a dispute, you don't call your defense agency, you call your arbitration firm.

But they can be one and the same. Why can't someone create a company that does both? And why wouldn't I call that firm for their services?
Hawker
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1148
Merit: 1001



View Profile
June 22, 2012, 06:22:19 PM
 #137

We've already done this.  Each dispute that requires 1 side to win or lose will result in 1 defence agency going out of business.  There can never be a market for a "defence agency" that allows someone else to win.

No matter how many you start with, you end up with 1.

That's why defense agencies don't fight defense agencies. Defense agencies are just that: defense. Against criminals or invading armies, not each other. If you have a dispute, you don't call your defense agency, you call your arbitration firm.

We have already established that there can only be 1 arbitration firm; the one that has enforcement powers.  If you are saying that the enforcement agency is not a defence agency, that seems very inefficient.

myrkul
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 532
Merit: 500


FIAT LIBERTAS RVAT CAELVM


View Profile WWW
June 22, 2012, 06:27:11 PM
 #138

We have already established that there can only be 1 arbitration firm; the one that has enforcement powers.  If you are saying that the enforcement agency is not a defence agency, that seems very inefficient.

Again with the we. Who the hell is we?

Arbitration is not enforced by violence. Thus, market competition can allow more than 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
Hawker
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1148
Merit: 1001



View Profile
June 22, 2012, 06:33:17 PM
 #139

We have already established that there can only be 1 arbitration firm; the one that has enforcement powers.  If you are saying that the enforcement agency is not a defence agency, that seems very inefficient.

Again with the we. Who the hell is we?

Arbitration is not enforced by violence. Thus, market competition can allow more than one.

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=88296.msg978281#msg978281

We have been through this.  You can start with as many as you want but you can only end up with 1.

myrkul
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 532
Merit: 500


FIAT LIBERTAS RVAT CAELVM


View Profile WWW
June 22, 2012, 06:37:05 PM
 #140

We have already established that there can only be 1 arbitration firm; the one that has enforcement powers.  If you are saying that the enforcement agency is not a defence agency, that seems very inefficient.

Again with the we. Who the hell is we?

Arbitration is not enforced by violence. Thus, market competition can allow more than one.

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=88296.msg978281#msg978281

We have been through this.  You can start with as many as you want but you can only end up with 1.

You quoted me disagreeing with you and then said we agreed. Come on, you can't think anyone is that stupid.

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
FirstAscent
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 812
Merit: 1000


View Profile
June 22, 2012, 06:46:01 PM
 #141

Enforcement requires violence

And this is where you are wrong.

Disagreements are not settled by force in arbitration. They are settled by both parties coming to an agreement.

Incorrect. There is no guarantee that the parties will come to agreement. In fact, in your NAP-Land, due to a general "anything goes", we can be certain that it will be very common that both parties will not come to agreement. It's all about guns and money.

I suspect that a lot of those who do come to 'agreement' will be because one party is very intimidating.
Hawker
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1148
Merit: 1001



View Profile
June 22, 2012, 06:52:39 PM
 #142

We have already established that there can only be 1 arbitration firm; the one that has enforcement powers.  If you are saying that the enforcement agency is not a defence agency, that seems very inefficient.

Again with the we. Who the hell is we?

Arbitration is not enforced by violence. Thus, market competition can allow more than one.

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=88296.msg978281#msg978281

We have been through this.  You can start with as many as you want but you can only end up with 1.

You quoted me disagreeing with you and then said we agreed. Come on, you can't think anyone is that stupid.

I quoted me proving there can only be 1 court/arbitration agency.

You have to come up with some way for this to work soon.  Going in circles where you are wrong all the time is boring me.

myrkul
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 532
Merit: 500


FIAT LIBERTAS RVAT CAELVM


View Profile WWW
June 22, 2012, 06:56:19 PM
 #143

We have already established that there can only be 1 arbitration firm; the one that has enforcement powers.  If you are saying that the enforcement agency is not a defence agency, that seems very inefficient.

Again with the we. Who the hell is we?

Arbitration is not enforced by violence. Thus, market competition can allow more than one.

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=88296.msg978281#msg978281

We have been through this.  You can start with as many as you want but you can only end up with 1.

You quoted me disagreeing with you and then said we agreed. Come on, you can't think anyone is that stupid.

I quoted me proving there can only be 1 court/arbitration agency.

You have to come up with some way for this to work soon.  Going in circles where you are wrong all the time is boring me.

Arbitration is not enforced by violence. If you can't get that through your skull, there's nothing I can do to help you.

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
FirstAscent
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 812
Merit: 1000


View Profile
June 22, 2012, 07:01:16 PM
 #144

We have already established that there can only be 1 arbitration firm; the one that has enforcement powers.  If you are saying that the enforcement agency is not a defence agency, that seems very inefficient.

Again with the we. Who the hell is we?

Arbitration is not enforced by violence. Thus, market competition can allow more than one.

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=88296.msg978281#msg978281

We have been through this.  You can start with as many as you want but you can only end up with 1.

You quoted me disagreeing with you and then said we agreed. Come on, you can't think anyone is that stupid.

I quoted me proving there can only be 1 court/arbitration agency.

You have to come up with some way for this to work soon.  Going in circles where you are wrong all the time is boring me.

Arbitration is not enforced by violence. If you can't get that through your skull, there's nothing I can do to help you.

In NAP-Land, that's all it boils down to (violence and intimidation). Nothing else.
Hawker
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1148
Merit: 1001



View Profile
June 22, 2012, 07:24:21 PM
 #145

Lets get back to our landowner who died intestate.  The oldest son believes in primogeniture and he is in possession.  He won't go to arbitration as he already has what he believes is his right.

If the other siblings can get an order to get him off that property, that is a court system.  If not, they have lost any chance of an inheritance.

OK, so now we come to how law is enforced without force. I've said this before, elsewhere, but I'll say it again here.

So, the two siblings who just want a share of the property agree to go to arbitration to settle the dispute, but the a-hole son doesn't agree, he believes that as the first son, he is entitled to the whole thing. He hasn't harmed anyone, unless the other siblings had residence on the property and he won't allow them to stay, but we'll assume he moved in after the father's death and the other siblings likewise had other dwellings. But he still refuses arbitration to resolve the dispute. No harm means no justification in kicking him off by force, so that is off the table.

However, there is still an option available to the siblings. They can make it known to all and sundry that the offending son is refusing arbitration. Since arbitration is the means by which disputes are resolved, anyone who sees that knows that should they get into a dispute with him, it's is not likely that he will accept arbitration on that, either. That means that they are not likely to deal with him. He can't force others to do business with him, so if they decide not to, he's out of luck.

You might think (and maybe he does, too), "Oh, no big deal," but imagine: He can't get clothing, because the clothier knows that if there's a dispute, he won't go to arbitration. He can't get food, because the grocer knows that if there's a dispute, he won't go to arbitration. He can't get any of the services we take for granted in modern life, because the proprietors know that if there's a dispute, he won't go to arbitration. Most importantly, he can't get protection, because the protection companies know that if there's a dispute, he won't go to arbitration. He has, by his own actions, made himself literally an outlaw. He's on his own.

That's a pretty mighty incentive to go to arbitration, yeah?

...snip...

Arbitration is not enforced by violence. If you can't get that through your skull, there's nothing I can do to help you.

Your idea that in cities like London, people care about public opinion is quaint but wrong.  You whole idea fails if the people who "cheat" win.  Sorry you need to come up with an enforcement system that gives the siblings access to justice or you have nothing.

myrkul
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 532
Merit: 500


FIAT LIBERTAS RVAT CAELVM


View Profile WWW
June 22, 2012, 07:29:05 PM
 #146

Your idea that in cities like London, people care about public opinion is quaint but wrong.  You whole idea fails if the people who "cheat" win.  Sorry you need to come up with an enforcement system that gives the siblings access to justice or you have nothing.

Make a will.

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
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1148
Merit: 1001



View Profile
June 22, 2012, 07:37:16 PM
 #147

Your idea that in cities like London, people care about public opinion is quaint but wrong.  You whole idea fails if the people who "cheat" win.  Sorry you need to come up with an enforcement system that gives the siblings access to justice or you have nothing.

Make a will.

You can't make a will on behalf of a dead parent. 

Be honest; you don't have a just solution for them.

myrkul
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 532
Merit: 500


FIAT LIBERTAS RVAT CAELVM


View Profile WWW
June 22, 2012, 07:40:04 PM
 #148

Your idea that in cities like London, people care about public opinion is quaint but wrong.  You whole idea fails if the people who "cheat" win.  Sorry you need to come up with an enforcement system that gives the siblings access to justice or you have nothing.

Make a will.

You can't make a will on behalf of a dead parent. 

Be honest; you don't have a just solution for them.

I do, you just don't think it will work. If the dead parent had had a will in the first place (as anyone with enough shit to fight over should), this wouldn't be an issue.

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
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1148
Merit: 1001



View Profile
June 22, 2012, 07:46:13 PM
 #149

Your idea that in cities like London, people care about public opinion is quaint but wrong.  You whole idea fails if the people who "cheat" win.  Sorry you need to come up with an enforcement system that gives the siblings access to justice or you have nothing.

Make a will.

You can't make a will on behalf of a dead parent. 

Be honest; you don't have a just solution for them.

I do, you just don't think it will work. If the dead parent had had a will in the first place (as anyone with enough shit to fight over should), this wouldn't be an issue.

So if the problem didn't exist it would not be a problem? 

http://wiki.answers.com/Q/What_percentage_of_people_in_the_US_die_without_a_Will

In the US alone, 55% of families have this problem.  Surely you have something to offer by way of justice for the half of American families in this position?

myrkul
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 532
Merit: 500


FIAT LIBERTAS RVAT CAELVM


View Profile WWW
June 22, 2012, 07:49:37 PM
 #150

Your idea that in cities like London, people care about public opinion is quaint but wrong.  You whole idea fails if the people who "cheat" win.  Sorry you need to come up with an enforcement system that gives the siblings access to justice or you have nothing.

Make a will.

You can't make a will on behalf of a dead parent. 

Be honest; you don't have a just solution for them.

I do, you just don't think it will work. If the dead parent had had a will in the first place (as anyone with enough shit to fight over should), this wouldn't be an issue.

So if the problem didn't exist it would not be a problem? 

http://wiki.answers.com/Q/What_percentage_of_people_in_the_US_die_without_a_Will

In the US alone, 55% of families have this problem.  Surely you have something to offer by way of justice for the half of American families in this position?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arbitration

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
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1148
Merit: 1001



View Profile
June 22, 2012, 07:53:11 PM
 #151

Your idea that in cities like London, people care about public opinion is quaint but wrong.  You whole idea fails if the people who "cheat" win.  Sorry you need to come up with an enforcement system that gives the siblings access to justice or you have nothing.

Make a will.

You can't make a will on behalf of a dead parent. 

Be honest; you don't have a just solution for them.

I do, you just don't think it will work. If the dead parent had had a will in the first place (as anyone with enough shit to fight over should), this wouldn't be an issue.

So if the problem didn't exist it would not be a problem? 

http://wiki.answers.com/Q/What_percentage_of_people_in_the_US_die_without_a_Will

In the US alone, 55% of families have this problem.  Surely you have something to offer by way of justice for the half of American families in this position?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arbitration

Now you are trying to hide.  Grow up and think of an intelligent answer. 

I asked you for a just solution for the siblings when the eldest son in possession refuses arbitration.  What does your system offer for them to enforce their claims?

FirstAscent
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 812
Merit: 1000


View Profile
June 22, 2012, 07:53:43 PM
 #152

Your idea that in cities like London, people care about public opinion is quaint but wrong.  You whole idea fails if the people who "cheat" win.  Sorry you need to come up with an enforcement system that gives the siblings access to justice or you have nothing.

Make a will.

You can't make a will on behalf of a dead parent.  

Be honest; you don't have a just solution for them.

I do, you just don't think it will work. If the dead parent had had a will in the first place (as anyone with enough shit to fight over should), this wouldn't be an issue.

So if the problem didn't exist it would not be a problem?  

http://wiki.answers.com/Q/What_percentage_of_people_in_the_US_die_without_a_Will

In the US alone, 55% of families have this problem.  Surely you have something to offer by way of justice for the half of American families in this position?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arbitration

What part of this don't you get?

From Wikipedia:

Quote
It is a resolution technique in which a third party reviews the evidence in the case and imposes a decision that is legally binding for both sides and enforceable.

In your NAP-Land, there is no enforcement and nothing is legally binding.
Hawker
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1148
Merit: 1001



View Profile
June 22, 2012, 07:56:30 PM
 #153


What part of this don't you get?

From Wikipedia:

Quote
It is a resolution technique in which a third party reviews the evidence in the case and imposes a decision that is legally binding for both sides and enforceable.

In your NAP-Land, there is no enforcement and nothing is legally binding.

Wow - he didn't even read the link he posted Shocked

myrkul
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 532
Merit: 500


FIAT LIBERTAS RVAT CAELVM


View Profile WWW
June 22, 2012, 08:00:34 PM
 #154


Now you are trying to hide.  Grow up and think of an intelligent answer.  

I asked you for a just solution for the siblings when the eldest son in possession refuses arbitration.  What does your system offer for them to enforce their claims?

I did. Arbitration is the answer to disputes. If the eldest son refuses arbitration, then he makes himself outlaw. I should note that Outlaw has a specific meaning... Similar to Open Season. He has refused to be a part of civil society, and is on his own, including, and in fact especially, protection. Criminals can (and probably will) come and steal his shit, or kill him. It doesn't matter if the general populace doesn't care about him refusing arbitration, the arbitration firms sure do, as do the protection agencies.

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
Merit: 500


FIAT LIBERTAS RVAT CAELVM


View Profile WWW
June 22, 2012, 08:03:30 PM
 #155

In your NAP-Land, there is no enforcement and nothing is legally binding.

Wow - he didn't even read the link he posted Shocked

Enforcement does not equal intiatory violence. How can I get it through your skulls that law does not need a government?

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
FirstAscent
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 812
Merit: 1000


View Profile
June 22, 2012, 08:06:07 PM
 #156

Arbitration is not enforced by violence.

In your NAP-Land, that is what it's enforced by. That, or threat and intimidation by someone who can back it up with violence.
Hawker
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1148
Merit: 1001



View Profile
June 22, 2012, 08:07:21 PM
 #157


Now you are trying to hide.  Grow up and think of an intelligent answer.  

I asked you for a just solution for the siblings when the eldest son in possession refuses arbitration.  What does your system offer for them to enforce their claims?

I did. Arbitration is the answer to disputes. If the eldest son refuses arbitration, then he makes himself outlaw. I should note that Outlaw has a specific meaning... Similar to Open Season. He has refused to be a part of civil society, and is on his own, including, and in fact especially, protection. Criminals can (and probably will) come and steal his shit, or kill him. It doesn't matter if the general populace doesn't care about him refusing arbitration, the arbitration firms sure do, as do the protection agencies.

He hasn't broken any law.  He has the money to pay the defence agency.  In a city like London, where Russian oligarchs and Arab despots are welcome, you can't seriously think that someone will worry about being an "outlaw." Get real!

What you need is a way for them to force him to accept arbitration.  For example, some form of subpoena.  Without that, they have no justice.  And if your system means that half of all families won't get justice, it fails from day 1.

Hawker
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1148
Merit: 1001



View Profile
June 22, 2012, 08:08:30 PM
 #158

In your NAP-Land, there is no enforcement and nothing is legally binding.

Wow - he didn't even read the link he posted Shocked

Enforcement does not equal intiatory violence. How can I get it through your skulls that law does not need a government?

By providing a way to force a person to accept arbitration.  If you don't have that, you don't have anything.

FirstAscent
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 812
Merit: 1000


View Profile
June 22, 2012, 08:09:32 PM
 #159

Classic example of NAP actually working here and abroad: the Mafia.
myrkul
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 532
Merit: 500


FIAT LIBERTAS RVAT CAELVM


View Profile WWW
June 22, 2012, 08:13:24 PM
 #160

He hasn't broken any law.  He has the money to pay the defence agency. 

Doesn't matter. The defense agencies know that 1. he might refuse arbitration with them, too. and 2. defending him threatens the very fabric of the society. Since they can reason out just as well, if not better, how letting him get away with it will affect society, as you can, they see that allowing him to refuse arbitration like that makes the whole system worthless. So, he refuses arbitration, they refuse protection. Outlaw. Literally, outside the law.

BTC1MYRkuLv4XPBa6bGnYAronz55grPAGcxja
Need Dispute resolution?