Criticisms?

[Equilux]

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.

[1713938106]

1713938106

[1713938106]

1713938106

[1713938106]

1713938106

[1713938106]

1713938106

[1713938106]

1713938106

[1713938106]

1713938106

[punningclan]

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!

[myrkul]

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.

[FirstAscent]

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]

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]

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.

[FirstAscent]

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]

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]

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"

[FirstAscent]

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]

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]

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]

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?

[Hawker]

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]

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?

[Hawker]

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]

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?

[Hawker]

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]

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.

[Hawker]

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?