Defending the NAP: Resource Scarcity and Environmental Issues

[Hawker]

Fergalish came up with an idea that we try to debate the NAP from the opposite point of view.  It going to be a quiet day in the office so I'll kick off.

Scenario: We live in a global anarchy.  Its a mature society.  There are no laws, no fixed rights and all disputes have to be resolved with arbitration on pain of being made an outlaw if you initiate violence.  Everywhere is owned by someone.  Even the depths of the ocean and the depths of space beyond the moon.

Is there anyone can see a problem with this from the point of view of Resource Scarcity and Environmental Issues.

Note: Arbitration is assumed to be rational.  Your freedom ends when it costs me money.  Likewise, no arbitrator will allow me to impose costs on you.

[1714843146]

1714843146

[1714843146]

1714843146

[1714843146]

1714843146

[myrkul]

I take exception to the "no fixed rights", but the other stipulations are fine. Perhaps change it to "property rights are respected"

[Hawker]

I take exception to the "no fixed rights", but the other stipulations are fine. Perhaps change it to "property rights are respected"

Its an anarchy.  By definition, rights are respected.

[myrkul]

I take exception to the "no fixed rights", but the other stipulations are fine. Perhaps change it to "property rights are respected"

Its an anarchy.  By definition, rights are respected.

Very well, then kindly change the OP to reflect that. "no fixed rights" makes it sound otherwise.

[kokjo]

Your freedom ends when it costs me money.

how about indirectly costing you money? am I not allowed to make a competative business, and force the prices down, becuase it costs you money? fuck you!

[Hawker]

...snip... fuck you!

That's verbal pollution.  Is that really the only Resource Scarcity and Environmental Issue you can think of?

[Hawker]

I take exception to the "no fixed rights", but the other stipulations are fine. Perhaps change it to "property rights are respected"

Its an anarchy.  By definition, rights are respected.

Very well, then kindly change the OP to reflect that. "no fixed rights" makes it sound otherwise.

No.  Its an anarchy.  There is no power imposing rights.  So by definition there can be no fixed rights.

[myrkul]

I take exception to the "no fixed rights", but the other stipulations are fine. Perhaps change it to "property rights are respected"

Its an anarchy.  By definition, rights are respected.

Very well, then kindly change the OP to reflect that. "no fixed rights" makes it sound otherwise.

No.  Its an anarchy.  There is no power imposing rights.  So by definition there can be no fixed rights.

Make up your bloody mind.

[Hawker]

I take exception to the "no fixed rights", but the other stipulations are fine. Perhaps change it to "property rights are respected"

Its an anarchy.  By definition, rights are respected.

Very well, then kindly change the OP to reflect that. "no fixed rights" makes it sound otherwise.

No.  Its an anarchy.  There is no power imposing rights.  So by definition there can be no fixed rights.

Make up your bloody mind.

I have.  All disputes are resolved by arbitration with a set of standards called "market law" that is well published but it is not binding.  There is no authority imposing any rules - its all down to what parties work out between themselves and what arbitrators impose after disputes.

[myrkul]

I have.  All disputes are resolved by arbitration with a set of standards called "market law" that is well published but it is not binding.  There is no authority imposing any rules - its all down to what parties work out between themselves and what arbitrators impose after disputes.

Hmm. While I disagree with the philosophical basis for this, I find no fault in the logic. However, since you did stipulate that "everything is owned", I assume that those published standards do include respect for the property rights of one another?

[Hawker]

I have.  All disputes are resolved by arbitration with a set of standards called "market law" that is well published but it is not binding.  There is no authority imposing any rules - its all down to what parties work out between themselves and what arbitrators impose after disputes.

Hmm. While I disagree with the philosophical basis for this, I find no fault in the logic. However, since you did stipulate that "everything is owned", I assume that those published standards do include respect for the property rights of one another?

Every arbitration decision that is public has been gathered together and made available on a website.  OF course people always to to the website before they go to arbitration as that saves them the cost of an arbitrator.

Sheesh, does no-one want to actually pursue the topic? 

[myrkul]

I have.  All disputes are resolved by arbitration with a set of standards called "market law" that is well published but it is not binding.  There is no authority imposing any rules - its all down to what parties work out between themselves and what arbitrators impose after disputes.

Hmm. While I disagree with the philosophical basis for this, I find no fault in the logic. However, since you did stipulate that "everything is owned", I assume that those published standards do include respect for the property rights of one another?

Every arbitration decision that is public has been gathered together and made available on a website.  OF course people always to to the website before they go to arbitration as that saves them the cost of an arbitrator.

Sheesh, does no-one want to actually pursue the topic? 

That was a yes or no question, and that was not a yes or no answer.

[alatus]

Question: In this form of arbitration can there be "class action" type decisions?

Can anykind of group be represented in a process?

If yes, then it is theorethically possible to form such group as: Beneficiaries of Amazon Forests, and go forth from this...

For me, this question boils down to the problem of commons in general, and how commons can be handled in arbitration in particular.
From a rational point of view it is the best strategy for even an individual in the tragedy of commons situation to think twice about starting a cascade which kills his own cettle also. (Thus making long trm profitability impossible for the sake of short term realized profit...)

Just thinkin (yet not too deeply)...

[kokjo]

I have.  All disputes are resolved by arbitration with a set of standards called "market law" that is well published but it is not binding.  There is no authority imposing any rules - its all down to what parties work out between themselves and what arbitrators impose after disputes.

Hmm. While I disagree with the philosophical basis for this, I find no fault in the logic. However, since you did stipulate that "everything is owned", I assume that those published standards do include respect for the property rights of one another?

Every arbitration decision that is public has been gathered together and made available on a website.  OF course people always to to the website before they go to arbitration as that saves them the cost of an arbitrator.

Sheesh, does no-one want to actually pursue the topic? 

some form of governement webside, yes? are you sure its a anarchy you are talking about?

(warning: trolling might be included in the post)

[Hawker]

Question: In this form of arbitration can there be "class action" type decisions?

Can anykind of group be represented in a process?

If yes, then it is theorethically possible to form such group as: Beneficiaries of Amazon Forests, and go forth from this...

For me, this question boils down to the problem of commons in general, and how commons can be handled in arbitration in particular.
From a rational point of view it is the best strategy for even an individual in the tragedy of commons situation to think twice about starting a cascade which kills his own cettle also. (Thus making long trm profitability impossible for the sake of short term realized profit...)

Just thinkin (yet not too deeply)...

Of course.  Any arbitrator will want to maximise his revenue so will encourage class action disputes.  If your landing helicopters on your property makes mine less desirable to live in, I can get together my my neighbours and petition you to stop.  If you ignore it, we have to go to arbitration.

[kokjo]

Question: In this form of arbitration can there be "class action" type decisions?

Can anykind of group be represented in a process?

If yes, then it is theorethically possible to form such group as: Beneficiaries of Amazon Forests, and go forth from this...

For me, this question boils down to the problem of commons in general, and how commons can be handled in arbitration in particular.
From a rational point of view it is the best strategy for even an individual in the tragedy of commons situation to think twice about starting a cascade which kills his own cettle also. (Thus making long trm profitability impossible for the sake of short term realized profit...)

Just thinkin (yet not too deeply)...

Of course.  Any arbitrator will want to maximise his revenue so will encourage class action disputes.  If your landing helicopters on your property makes mine less desirable to live in, I can get together my my neighbours and petition you to stop.  If you ignore it, we have to go to arbitration.

so you are going to force me to do something? again: fuck you!


(btw. welcome back Atlas.)

[myrkul]

so you are going to force me to do something? again: fuck you!


(btw. welcome back Atlas.)

 

[Hawker]

Question: In this form of arbitration can there be "class action" type decisions?

Can anykind of group be represented in a process?

If yes, then it is theorethically possible to form such group as: Beneficiaries of Amazon Forests, and go forth from this...

For me, this question boils down to the problem of commons in general, and how commons can be handled in arbitration in particular.
From a rational point of view it is the best strategy for even an individual in the tragedy of commons situation to think twice about starting a cascade which kills his own cettle also. (Thus making long trm profitability impossible for the sake of short term realized profit...)

Just thinkin (yet not too deeply)...

Of course.  Any arbitrator will want to maximise his revenue so will encourage class action disputes.  If your landing helicopters on your property makes mine less desirable to live in, I can get together my my neighbours and petition you to stop.  If you ignore it, we have to go to arbitration.

so you are going to force me to do something? again: fuck you!


(btw. welcome back Atlas.)

If you are costing me money, I will ask you nicely to stop.  If you refuse, I will ask you to go to arbitration.  If you refuse, I have to kill you. 

[myrkul]

If you are costing me money, I will ask you nicely to stop.  If you refuse, I will ask you to go to arbitration.  If you refuse, I have to kill you. 

That's no way to win friends!

[kokjo]

so you are going to force me to do something? again: fuck you!


(btw. welcome back Atlas.)

 

Atlas jokes are always funny, don't you think?

If you are costing me money, I will ask you nicely to stop.  If you refuse, I will ask you to go to arbitration.  If you refuse, I have to kill you.  

im so scared of you! i really pissed in my pants. LOL