Criticisms?

[myrkul]

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.

[1713569372]

1713569372

[1713569372]

1713569372

[1713569372]

1713569372

[1713569372]

1713569372

[FirstAscent]

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]

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]

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.

[FirstAscent]

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]

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

[Hawker]

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

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]

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.

[FirstAscent]

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]

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 !

 

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]

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.

[FirstAscent]

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]

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]

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.

[Hawker]

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]

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.

[Hawker]

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]

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.

[Hawker]

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]

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.