Criticisms?

[Explodicle]

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.

[1714031883]

1714031883

[1714031883]

1714031883

[myrkul]

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.

[Hawker]

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]

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.

[Hawker]

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]

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.

[Hawker]

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]

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.

[Hawker]

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]

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.

[Hawker]

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]

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.

[Hawker]

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]

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.

[FirstAscent]

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]

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]

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]

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.

[Hawker]

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]

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.