Criticisms?

[Hawker]

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.

55% of people die intestate.  Your rule is that whoever has the dead person's possessions can keep it and refuse arbitration. That is a not a decent way to do things.  Its not an edge case either.

[myrkul]

55% of people die intestate.  Your rule is that whoever has the dead person's possessions can keep it and refuse arbitration. That is a not a decent way to do things.  Its not an edge case either.

That's not my rule. That's your misinterpretation of my rule.

[Hawker]

55% of people die intestate.  Your rule is that whoever has the dead person's possessions can keep it and refuse arbitration. That is a not a decent way to do things.  Its not an edge case either.

That's not my rule. That's your misinterpretation of my rule.

Correct me then.  When someone dies intestate and there is a dispute as to who inherits what, if the person who has possession refuses arbitration, what remedy do the siblings have?

[myrkul]

55% of people die intestate.  Your rule is that whoever has the dead person's possessions can keep it and refuse arbitration. That is a not a decent way to do things.  Its not an edge case either.

That's not my rule. That's your misinterpretation of my rule.

Correct me then.  When someone dies intestate and there is a dispute as to who inherits what, if the person who has possession refuses arbitration, what remedy do the siblings have?

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=88296.msg979353#msg979353

You said it yourself. without protection, you die. No arbitration, no protection.

[Hawker]

55% of people die intestate.  Your rule is that whoever has the dead person's possessions can keep it and refuse arbitration. That is a not a decent way to do things.  Its not an edge case either.

That's not my rule. That's your misinterpretation of my rule.

Correct me then.  When someone dies intestate and there is a dispute as to who inherits what, if the person who has possession refuses arbitration, what remedy do the siblings have?

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=88296.msg979353#msg979353

You said it yourself. without protection, you die. No arbitration, no protection.

Read what you quote.  I said "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."

So if you are agreeing with that, your system is more than a little unfair.  It creates an incentive to take possession and refuse arbitration. 

[myrkul]

You said it yourself.Without protection, you will die. No arbitration, no protection.

[Hawker]

You said it yourself.Without protection, you will die. No arbitration, no protection.

They will have no problem getting protection as defence agencies will always accept their money.  Its the siblings who are dispossessed that will struggle to afford protection.

[myrkul]

You said it yourself.Without protection, you will die. No arbitration, no protection.

They will have no problem getting protection as defence agencies will always accept their money.  Its the siblings who are dispossessed that will struggle to afford protection.

You made mention that you have been cheated. Do you then extend credit to the same person again? The same would apply here. He has already broken one contract, his agreement to use arbitration. Do you not think he will break contract with the defense agency? No arbitration, no defense. Without defense, you will die.

[Hawker]

You said it yourself.Without protection, you will die. No arbitration, no protection.

They will have no problem getting protection as defence agencies will always accept their money.  Its the siblings who are dispossessed that will struggle to afford protection.

You made mention that you have been cheated. Do you then extend credit to the same person again? The same would apply here. He has already broken one contract, his agreement to use arbitration. Do you not think he will break contract with the defense agency? No arbitration, no defense. Without defense, you will die.

You said that before.  I've pointed out before that rich crooks already have no problem getting security firms and goons to work for them.  They will have the money and may well own the arbitration agencies and the defence agencies themselves.  So a person who only has a family dispute?  They will have no problem at all.

I can't see people being happy enough with your idea ever to vote for it.  Can you?

[myrkul]

I can't see people being happy enough with your idea ever to vote for it.  Can you?

Who said anything about voting? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Agorism

[Hawker]

I can't see people being happy enough with your idea ever to vote for it.  Can you?

Who said anything about voting? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Agorism

That offers no way to remove democratic institutions.  I love it and hope you dedicate your life to it.  We may well have a win/win here.

[myrkul]

I love it and hope you dedicate your life to it.  We may well have a win/win here.

Thank you for finally coming to see my side of things.

[im3w1l]

Myrkull: You have stated that the defense agencies wont attack each other since it will not be profitable. Why is it that criminal gangs that want to maximize profit attack each other? Why is it that states now and historically attack each other?

[myrkul]

Myrkull: You have stated that the defense agencies wont attack each other since it will not be profitable. Why is it that criminal gangs that want to maximize profit attack each other? Why is it that states now and historically attack each other?

Ahh... You have no idea how good it is to hear a sensible criticism.

The answer is pretty simple, actually. Both states and criminal gangs attack each other out of ideology, either political or religious, or to gain "turf". Since protection agencies would be in market competition, rather than regional monopolies (a feature both criminal gangs and their larger cousins States share), they won't be fighting over turf, and to prove their ideology better than the others, they need only show that they can attract more customers than the others. Market competition calms things down rather a lot, much like you won't see churches sponsoring crusades against one another any more, now that we let people choose whatever religion they want.

[FirstAscent]

Myrkull: You have stated that the defense agencies wont attack each other since it will not be profitable. Why is it that criminal gangs that want to maximize profit attack each other? Why is it that states now and historically attack each other?

In NAP-Land, there is no distinction between defense agencies, gangs, companies who defend themselves, cartels, assholes with a following, etc. No regulations means any of the above can and will exist, and nothing precludes anyone from hiring any of the above. Sure, Myrkul's idealistic "defense agencies" can exist, but the line is blurred, and the others can and will exist.

[FirstAscent]

In NAP-Land, nothing is illegal. For example, none of these are illegal:

1. Murder, mass murder
2. Stealing, theft, trespass, B & E
3. Blackmail, extortion
4. Slander, bullying, threatening
5. Environmental destruction, toxic waste dumping, poaching
6. Polluting, noise
7. Spying
8. Kidnapping
9. Child abuse

The following are common (very very common)

1. Lawsuits, counter-suits, and more
2. Revenge, feuds, escalation of feuds
3. Weapons, and more weapons, and bigger weapons
4. Looking over your shoulder wherever you go
5. Tolls, fees, penalties
6. Inconsistency with regard to, well, everything

[myrkul]

For someone who said he'd "largely ignore" me, he sure talks a lot, doesn't he?

[Realpra]

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?

Compared to old times everyone today is "rich" due to cheap coal, oil, gas and technological progress.

Just watch when the oil lets up and the financial crisis worsens, things will get nasty again.

[Explodicle]

In NAP-Land, nothing is illegal. For example, none of these are illegal:

1. Breaking DRM on your own phone
2. Possessing cannabis
3. Transferring wealth anonymously
4. Public nudity
5. Not buying health insurance
6. Sodomy, gay marriage
7. Fireworks
8. Refusing to pay for atom bombs
9. Moving across the world without anyone's permission

The following are common (very very common, based entirely on my own imagination)

1. Doing whatever the hell I want so long as it doesn't harm you.

FTFY

Edit: for those who are unaware, "FTFY" stands for "fixed that for you". The meme is to take something someone else wrote and change key elements so it is "fixed". In this case I took FirstAscent's "good" laws and replaced them with laws that are much worse.

[FirstAscent]

For someone who said he'd "largely ignore" me, he sure talks a lot, doesn't he?

I believe the context of the statement was with regard to a statement you made about me. My observations within this thread are about NAP, and as long as you continue to promulgate the concept of it, I can't help but point out the absurdities of it. Regardless, I don't think others care about personal statements between you and me.