Criticisms?

[Hawker]

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.

Sorry - if you think the likes of Blackwater or Sandline care about that, you are mistaken.  They don't - they really do work for bastards.  In Iraq, they really did kill innocent people on behalf of bastards.  An inheritance dispute won't trouble them for a nanosecond.

Why don't we take a step back here?  I admire the way you put your head above the parapet and made this thread.  You have to accept a system that leaves 55% of families depending on the morals of contract gunmen is not good enough.  There is no point in spitting out an instant answer which is morally weak.

Why not take the time to think of an actual fix ?

[Explodicle]

I think what myrkul is proposing is an Ancap society actually populated with Ancaps. Democracy hinges upon the morality of our gunmen as well.

The funny part is that if we didn't already agree on the next actual fix, we wouldn't be here.

[FirstAscent]

I think what myrkul is proposing is an Ancap society actually populated with Ancaps.

No such thing.

1. People change.
2. People don't always adhere to their principles when the tables turn against them.
3. Outside forces and internal forces create scenarios which require a change of principles.
4. People have children who don't agree.
5. Immigrants come in and see a weak system that can be taken advantage of.

[myrkul]

Sorry - if you think the likes of Blackwater or Sandline care about that, you are mistaken.  They don't - they really do work for bastards.  In Iraq, they really did kill innocent people on behalf of bastards.  An inheritance dispute won't trouble them for a nanosecond.

Why don't we take a step back here?  I admire the way you put your head above the parapet and made this thread.  You have to accept a system that leaves 55% of families depending on the morals of contract gunmen is not good enough.  There is no point in spitting out an instant answer which is morally weak.

Why not take the time to think of an actual fix ?

Blackwater and the like are run by military men... by definition psychopaths - created, if not born. I don't expect them to care about humans.

You're being dishonest with yourself if you truly believe that 55% of people (all those who die intestate) would wholly be at the mercy of "the morals of contract gunmen"... you forget that arbitration is for disputes, not defense agencies. You presented a rare case, where one son of three (how many of those 55% had three children?) refused arbitration (how many of those that did have 3 children had enough shit to fight over?) because he believed in primogeniture (how common is this belief?). In that rare case, then his case might be said to be at the mercy of the protection company's morals.

But even then... Out of pure greed, the protection company should refuse his contract. How much is one contract worth, if they lose all their others? Worse, he knows that he can refuse payment, and then just refuse arbitration again. They know that too. It's in their rational best interest not to deal with him.

I think what myrkul is proposing is an Ancap society actually populated with Ancaps. Democracy hinges upon the morality of our gunmen as well.

Yes, I rather thought that was assumed. I guess that proves the old witticism...

[Hawker]

Sorry - if you think the likes of Blackwater or Sandline care about that, you are mistaken.  They don't - they really do work for bastards.  In Iraq, they really did kill innocent people on behalf of bastards.  An inheritance dispute won't trouble them for a nanosecond.

Why don't we take a step back here?  I admire the way you put your head above the parapet and made this thread.  You have to accept a system that leaves 55% of families depending on the morals of contract gunmen is not good enough.  There is no point in spitting out an instant answer which is morally weak.

Why not take the time to think of an actual fix ?

Blackwater and the like are run by military men... by definition psychopaths - created, if not born. I don't expect them to care about humans.

You're being dishonest with yourself if you truly believe that 55% of people (all those who die intestate) would wholly be at the mercy of "the morals of contract gunmen"... you forget that arbitration is for disputes, not defense agencies. You presented a rare case, where one son of three (how many of those 55% had three children?) refused arbitration (how many of those that did have 3 children had enough shit to fight over?) because he believed in primogeniture (how common is this belief?). In that rare case, then his case might be said to be at the mercy of the protection company's morals.

...snip...

The point is that in your system, humans would be wholly in the hands of the Blackwaters and the Aegis Security firms.  They have the ordinance, the men and the experience to be "defence agencies" and absent a state, what will stop them?

I suspect you are young and have never been through a probate dispute.  Trust me, every family has members who go a little mad when a relative dies and they fight tooth and nail over assets. 

Your idea works if you set up a community where everyone agrees to it.  But in cities like London and New York? Not a chance...

[myrkul]

They have the ordinance, the men and the experience to be "defence agencies" and absent a state, what will stop them?

Well, that is a problem, isn't it? They're part of the current monopoly of power. But that's not really a problem with the system as such, but rather with getting from here to there.

We're not discussing how to get there from here, really, (though if you'd like to, we can) but the way that makes the most sense to me is Agorism.

[punningclan]

I think what myrkul is proposing is an Ancap society actually populated with Ancaps.

No such thing.

1. People change.
2. People don't always adhere to their principles when the tables turn against them.
3. Outside forces and internal forces create scenarios which require a change of principles.
4. People have children who don't agree.
5. Immigrants come in and see a weak system that can be taken advantage of.

From point 5:
Like the original forefathers to this great nation, immigrants who discovered a weak point and then killed everyone here with germ warfare, then turned the story in to one of cute cowboy and indian movies depicting the Indians as the aggressors you mean?

[FirstAscent]

I think what myrkul is proposing is an Ancap society actually populated with Ancaps.

No such thing.

1. People change.
2. People don't always adhere to their principles when the tables turn against them.
3. Outside forces and internal forces create scenarios which require a change of principles.
4. People have children who don't agree.
5. Immigrants come in and see a weak system that can be taken advantage of.

From point 5:
Like the original forefathers to this great nation, immigrants who discovered a weak point and then killed everyone here with germ warfare, then turned the story in to one of cute cowboy and indian movies depicting the Indians as the aggressors you mean?

An excellent example. Thank you for demonstrating the validity of point #5.

[Hawker]

They have the ordinance, the men and the experience to be "defence agencies" and absent a state, what will stop them?

Well, that is a problem, isn't it? They're part of the current monopoly of power. But that's not really a problem with the system as such, but rather with getting from here to there.

We're not discussing how to get there from here, really, (though if you'd like to, we can) but the way that makes the most sense to me is Agorism.

Um no.  They are not allowed operate in our countries the way they do in Iraq and Afghanistan.  In your system, they will be free to do as they please. 

[myrkul]

They have the ordinance, the men and the experience to be "defence agencies" and absent a state, what will stop them?

Well, that is a problem, isn't it? They're part of the current monopoly of power. But that's not really a problem with the system as such, but rather with getting from here to there.

We're not discussing how to get there from here, really, (though if you'd like to, we can) but the way that makes the most sense to me is Agorism.

Um no.  They are not allowed operate in our countries the way they do in Iraq and Afghanistan.  In your system, they will be free to do as they please. 

Sigh. The problem with discussing this sort of thing with people like you is that people see, and expect, in others what they see in themselves.

Also, your response has nothing to do with my statement.

[Hawker]

They have the ordinance, the men and the experience to be "defence agencies" and absent a state, what will stop them?

Well, that is a problem, isn't it? They're part of the current monopoly of power. But that's not really a problem with the system as such, but rather with getting from here to there.

We're not discussing how to get there from here, really, (though if you'd like to, we can) but the way that makes the most sense to me is Agorism.

Um no.  They are not allowed operate in our countries the way they do in Iraq and Afghanistan.  In your system, they will be free to do as they please.  

Sigh. The problem with discussing this sort of thing with people like you is that people see, and expect, in others what they see in themselves.

...snip...

Could that be because you are a dreamer and you have no idea how the real world works?

[myrkul]

Could that be because you are a dreamer and you have no idea how the real world works?

No, I know exactly how the world works. The idea is to change that.

[Hawker]

Could that be because you are a dreamer and you have no idea how the real world works?

No, I know exactly how the world works. The idea is to change that.

Any change has to be in the context of human nature and old fashioned economics.  The system you describe creates market incentives to totalitarian dominance by 1 defence agency.  You assume that Blackwater and Aegis and the like will become nicer organisations staffed by more sweet natured mercenaries in your NAP world.  There is no reason for the rest of us to share you assumption. 

[myrkul]

Could that be because you are a dreamer and you have no idea how the real world works?

No, I know exactly how the world works. The idea is to change that.

Any change has to be in the context of human nature and old fashioned economics.  The system you describe creates market incentives to totalitarian dominance by 1 defence agency.  You assume that Blackwater and Aegis and the like will become nicer organisations staffed by more sweet natured mercenaries in your NAP world.  There is no reason for the rest of us to share you assumption. 

I make no such assumptions, and any further claims that there will be a market incentive to monopoly will be ignored as per the original post.

[Hawker]

Could that be because you are a dreamer and you have no idea how the real world works?

No, I know exactly how the world works. The idea is to change that.

Any change has to be in the context of human nature and old fashioned economics.  The system you describe creates market incentives to totalitarian dominance by 1 defence agency.  You assume that Blackwater and Aegis and the like will become nicer organisations staffed by more sweet natured mercenaries in your NAP world.  There is no reason for the rest of us to share you assumption. 

I make no such assumptions, and any further claims that there will be a market incentive to monopoly will be ignored as per the original post.

You behaved exactly the same way when I showed that the US economy did best after WW2 when there was a 90% income tax, a huge national deficit and unionised workforce.  When facts or logic prove you wrong, you want to ignore it.

You asked for criticisms, you got 2 that undermine the model you advocate, namely that it can't handle market incentives to monopoly and that it can't handle the fact that 55% of people die intestate.   

Whether or not you decide to think of a way to improve your model is entirely up to you. 

Peace out.

[myrkul]

Peace out.

I do hope this means that you will be quiet now and let people with real, legitimate concerns ask. "market incentive to monopoly" is just ridiculous on its face.

[Hawker]

Peace out.

I do hope this means that you will be quiet now and let people with real, legitimate concerns ask. "market incentive to monopoly" is just ridiculous on its face.

No - it means that if you keep advocating it I am still here.  You still have not provided a sensible way that allows competition between defence agencies that does not end in monopoly. If you come up with something better, of course I am interested.

But at least you accept that the children of people who die intestate are screwed by your system.  That's 55% of families in the US so that alone means your system will never be adopted.

[myrkul]

Peace out.

I do hope this means that you will be quiet now and let people with real, legitimate concerns ask. "market incentive to monopoly" is just ridiculous on its face.

No - it means that if you keep advocating it I am still here.  You still have not provided a sensible way that allows competition between defence agencies that does not end in monopoly. If you come up with something better, of course I am interested.

But at least you accept that the children of people who die intestate are screwed by your system.  That's 55% of families in the US so that alone means your system will never be adopted.

No, I already discussed how edge your case was, and, how it handles even that case. No arbitration, no protection. Troll harder.

[Hawker]

Peace out.

I do hope this means that you will be quiet now and let people with real, legitimate concerns ask. "market incentive to monopoly" is just ridiculous on its face.

No - it means that if you keep advocating it I am still here.  You still have not provided a sensible way that allows competition between defence agencies that does not end in monopoly. If you come up with something better, of course I am interested.

But at least you accept that the children of people who die intestate are screwed by your system.  That's 55% of families in the US so that alone means your system will never be adopted.

No, I already discussed how edge your case was, and, how it handles even that case. No arbitration, no protection. Troll harder.

55% of families is not an edge case.

[myrkul]

55% of families is not an edge case.

But you weren't discussing 55% of people. You were discussing a very specific situation, where the father died intestate, and the first son advocated primogeniture and refused arbitration. that many ands adds up to an edge case.