Topic: Bitcoin Town: Let's Make the Future Come to us - page 6. (Read 54513 times)
Libertarianism: everyone is a rational actor, always. We shot all the people with mental illnesses.
You seem to think I'm a rational actor, but actually, I'm a cat lady with mental issues and a severe dislike of shoes. I refuse your third party communistic thingamabob.
Just as well; since you're known to be a crazy cat lady, nobody wants to be around you in the first place, not to visit or for service, since you're both violent and likely to not pay, if not likely to rob the guy. I hope your castle never needs repair, because guess who'll be doing that
But on the upside, the Mormons and Jehovah's Witnesses will probably leave you alone.Also, the system presented is not communism; in communism, your property is already home to several hobos, since it's "public" property (rather, it's state-owned property, which is different than capitalism, where you have state-owned property that's individually rented out to people which they mistakenly think is theirs.)
If you people don't take off your shoes in my house I get to shoot you in the face if I decide to enact such provisions, right?
Sure, let's say you adopt that law for your property.I come to visit you for the first time. You present me with your rule-set to agree to. I object to your 'lethal shoe rule' and you then have a choice. Amend the agreement for me in particular so I will stay, or else stand your ground and I will leave.
If you change the rule for me, we have no problem. If you don't, I will refuse to set foot on your property because you're being unreasonable.
How is anyone hurt by that?
One day in a parallel universe in a comical yet tragic cartoon a half-hector agreed to waive the no-shoe rule for a visitor to his land and he then shot that visitor in the face....and when the community found out, the sneaky bastard never told anyone that he had agreed to relax that rule. LOL
Considering that it's being served digitally, changing the rule would be as simple as pulling it up on a smartphone and crossing out that line, sending it to your visitor who then signs it. A 30 second transaction, thus there's no need to rely on verbal commitments and risk death.
In any case, I doubt any independent court would consider it reasonable to shoot someone for having their shoes on. And neither would any guest. If some dude had that rule, whose house you wanted to enter, you'd probably think him insane and refuse to enter in any case.
What? We have to give an independent court jurisdiction over our castle?!!
You seem to think I'm a rational actor, but actually, I'm a cat lady with mental issues and a severe dislike of shoes. I refuse your third party communistic thingamabob.
If you people don't take off your shoes in my house I get to shoot you in the face if I decide to enact such provisions, right?
Sure, let's say you adopt that law for your property.I come to visit you for the first time. You present me with your rule-set to agree to. I object to your 'lethal shoe rule' and you then have a choice. Amend the agreement for me in particular so I will stay, or else stand your ground and I will leave.
If you change the rule for me, we have no problem. If you don't, I will refuse to set foot on your property because you're being unreasonable.
How is anyone hurt by that?
One day in a parallel universe in a comical yet tragic cartoon a half-hector agreed to waive the no-shoe rule for a visitor to his land and he then shot that visitor in the face....and when the community found out, the sneaky bastard never told anyone that he had agreed to relax that rule. LOL
Considering that it's being served digitally, changing the rule would be as simple as pulling it up on a smartphone and crossing out that line, sending it to your visitor who then signs it. A 30 second transaction, thus there's no need to rely on verbal commitments and risk death.
In any case, I doubt any independent court would consider it reasonable to shoot someone for having their shoes on. And neither would any guest. If some dude had that rule, whose house you wanted to enter, you'd probably think him insane and refuse to enter in any case.
What? We have to give an independent court jurisdiction over our castle?!!
If you people don't take off your shoes in my house I get to shoot you in the face if I decide to enact such provisions, right?
Sure, let's say you adopt that law for your property.I come to visit you for the first time. You present me with your rule-set to agree to. I object to your 'lethal shoe rule' and you then have a choice. Amend the agreement for me in particular so I will stay, or else stand your ground and I will leave.
If you change the rule for me, we have no problem. If you don't, I will refuse to set foot on your property because you're being unreasonable.
How is anyone hurt by that?
One day in a parallel universe in a comical yet tragic cartoon a half-hector agreed to waive the no-shoe rule for a visitor to his land and he then shot that visitor in the face....and when the community found out, the sneaky bastard never told anyone that he had agreed to relax that rule. LOL
Considering that it's being served digitally, changing the rule would be as simple as pulling it up on a smartphone and crossing out that line, sending it to your visitor who then signs it. A 30 second transaction, thus there's no need to rely on verbal commitments and risk death.
In any case, I doubt any independent court would consider it reasonable to shoot someone for having their shoes on. And neither would any guest. If some dude had that rule, whose house you wanted to enter, you'd probably think him insane and refuse to enter in any case.
What? We have to give an independent court jurisdiction over our castle?!!
COMMUNISM!
If you people don't take off your shoes in my house I get to shoot you in the face if I decide to enact such provisions, right?
Sure, let's say you adopt that law for your property.I come to visit you for the first time. You present me with your rule-set to agree to. I object to your 'lethal shoe rule' and you then have a choice. Amend the agreement for me in particular so I will stay, or else stand your ground and I will leave.
If you change the rule for me, we have no problem. If you don't, I will refuse to set foot on your property because you're being unreasonable.
How is anyone hurt by that?
One day in a parallel universe in a comical yet tragic cartoon a half-hector agreed to waive the no-shoe rule for a visitor to his land and he then shot that visitor in the face....and when the community found out, the sneaky bastard never told anyone that he had agreed to relax that rule. LOL
Considering that it's being served digitally, changing the rule would be as simple as pulling it up on a smartphone and crossing out that line, sending it to your visitor who then signs it. A 30 second transaction, thus there's no need to rely on verbal commitments and risk death.
In any case, I doubt any independent court would consider it reasonable to shoot someone for having their shoes on. And neither would any guest. If some dude had that rule, whose house you wanted to enter, you'd probably think him insane and refuse to enter in any case.
What? We have to give an independent court jurisdiction over our castle?!!
If you people don't take off your shoes in my house I get to shoot you in the face if I decide to enact such provisions, right?
Sure, let's say you adopt that law for your property.I come to visit you for the first time. You present me with your rule-set to agree to. I object to your 'lethal shoe rule' and you then have a choice. Amend the agreement for me in particular so I will stay, or else stand your ground and I will leave.
If you change the rule for me, we have no problem. If you don't, I will refuse to set foot on your property because you're being unreasonable.
How is anyone hurt by that?
One day in a parallel universe in a comical yet tragic cartoon a half-hector agreed to waive the no-shoe rule for a visitor to his land and he then shot that visitor in the face....and when the community found out, the sneaky bastard never told anyone that he had agreed to relax that rule. LOL
Considering that it's being served digitally, changing the rule would be as simple as pulling it up on a smartphone and crossing out that line, sending it to your visitor who then signs it. A 30 second transaction, thus there's no need to rely on verbal commitments and risk death.
In any case, I doubt any independent court would consider it reasonable to shoot someone for having their shoes on. And neither would any guest. If some dude had that rule, whose house you wanted to enter, you'd probably think him insane and refuse to enter in any case.
Because ignorance of the law doesn't make you immune to it, and that in a parallel universe where every half-hectar is a sovereign state with it's own rules you will not be able to follow up.
Also I published my rules in the town news paper that one time, so fuck this disclosure thing, shotgun to the face time.
Technology will take care of this. You create an online database tied to GPS records. You can then lookup the legal set of any property simply by visiting it, and the agreement can be served to you digitally without needing to even interact with anyone else.Also I published my rules in the town news paper that one time, so fuck this disclosure thing, shotgun to the face time.
So I'd have to report my sovereign country's rules and regulations to a centralized entity for scrutiny by others?
That sounds like communism to me.
Communism? Please.
If you people don't take off your shoes in my house I get to shoot you in the face if I decide to enact such provisions, right?
Sure, let's say you adopt that law for your property.I come to visit you for the first time. You present me with your rule-set to agree to. I object to your 'lethal shoe rule' and you then have a choice. Amend the agreement for me in particular so I will stay, or else stand your ground and I will leave.
If you change the rule for me, we have no problem. If you don't, I will refuse to set foot on your property because you're being unreasonable.
How is anyone hurt by that?
One day in a parallel universe in a comical yet tragic cartoon a half-hector agreed to waive the no-shoe rule for a visitor to his land and he then shot that visitor in the face....and when the community found out, the sneaky bastard never told anyone that he had agreed to relax that rule. LOL
Because ignorance of the law doesn't make you immune to it, and that in a parallel universe where every half-hectar is a sovereign state with it's own rules you will not be able to follow up.
Also I published my rules in the town news paper that one time, so fuck this disclosure thing, shotgun to the face time.
Technology will take care of this. You create an online database tied to GPS records. You can then lookup the legal set of any property simply by visiting it, and the agreement can be served to you digitally without needing to even interact with anyone else.Also I published my rules in the town news paper that one time, so fuck this disclosure thing, shotgun to the face time.
So I'd have to report my sovereign country's rules and regulations to a centralized entity for scrutiny by others?
That sounds like communism to me.
Because ignorance of the law doesn't make you immune to it, and that in a parallel universe where every half-hectar is a sovereign state with it's own rules you will not be able to follow up.
Also I published my rules in the town news paper that one time, so fuck this disclosure thing, shotgun to the face time.
Also I published my rules in the town news paper that one time, so fuck this disclosure thing, shotgun to the face time.
LOL!
Because ignorance of the law doesn't make you immune to it, and that in a parallel universe where every half-hectar is a sovereign state with it's own rules you will not be able to follow up.
Also I published my rules in the town news paper that one time, so fuck this disclosure thing, shotgun to the face time.
Technology will take care of this. You create an online database tied to GPS records. You can then lookup the legal set of any property simply by visiting it, and the agreement can be served to you digitally without needing to even interact with anyone else. Also I published my rules in the town news paper that one time, so fuck this disclosure thing, shotgun to the face time.
As for me, I'm going to use the internet to copy & paste as many laws protecting me as possible into my "house constitution" and I will use as much legalese and as many wherefore's and hereto's and amendments and disclaimers as possible - such as that in the event of anything adverse or "unhappy" in regards to someone's visit to my country (oops I mean house) that their recourse is limited to a maximum of an award of $5.00. Make sure you don't miss that clause, it will be on page 5,914, in section c, sub-paragraph b, article 8094-1a.
Just imagine having to read a giant set of "laws" for every household or business that you set foot onto: Whew, it's a good thing that I'm a speed-reader. LOL
Because ignorance of the law doesn't make you immune to it, and that in a parallel universe where every half-hectar is a sovereign state with it's own rules you will not be able to follow up.
Also I published my rules in the town news paper that one time, so fuck this disclosure thing, shotgun to the face time.
Also I published my rules in the town news paper that one time, so fuck this disclosure thing, shotgun to the face time.
If you people don't take off your shoes in my house I get to shoot you in the face if I decide to enact such provisions, right?
Sure, let's say you adopt that law for your property.I come to visit you for the first time. You present me with your rule-set to agree to. I object to your 'lethal shoe rule' and you then have a choice. Amend the agreement for me in particular so I will stay, or else stand your ground and I will leave.
If you change the rule for me, we have no problem. If you don't, I will refuse to set foot on your property because you're being unreasonable.
How is anyone hurt by that?
Okay sounds good. I'll just have them send me their laws and constitution of their house, then I'll have my attorney review it and discuss any foreseen potential problems or discrepancies, etc.. And then I'll send them back a disclaimer that I am not subject to any laws that they failed to mention, etc. yada..yada.. LOL
Sure, do all that, lol. Sounds tedious, right?Which is why in a situation such as this, the likely result is that a few people would want to craft their own laws, or tinker with them at least, but most people would subscribe to the legal theories and adopt laws crafted by professionals, judges or lawyers let's say, that offer legal positions already constructed for them.
Which is to say that law production enters the free market, at last, and can be bought and sold like you might buy a book or a bike.
The result is communities of agreement, where those who adopt similar law-sets would group together and enjoy living their own chosen way in their region, and next door people do things there slightly differently, and those communities which succeed would attract new converts, and those which are annoying can be escaped easily.
If you people don't take off your shoes in my house I get to shoot you in the face if I decide to enact such provisions, right?
Come on, Anenome5. Could you imagine the laws/rules that all our crazy friends might have over us while visiting their home/country?
It's very simple, if you don't like one of their laws, don't enter their property, or else negotiate for them to change it for you.In practice it wouldn't be any different than what we have now, except some people would actually have you agree to the 'no-shoes in my house' rule.
What are you afraid of?
And then what happens when we're out in the world as we tend to do? What happens while shopping? At work? At community meetings.
Businesses will compete with each other for which laws are most conducive and accomodative to customers. It will work out especially well in this case.There absolutely must be some agreed to rules
You agree when you set foot on their property, or else don't. There's still agreement, just it's now individual agreement instead of communal agreement.and some reasonable and fair way of enforcing them.
There is in both scenario, both police and courts. What more do you want?Anyhow, what we have now in the USA is no real rule of law - just corp & gov criminals and angry & often bitter & heartless profit motivated LE lording over our society.
And it will always be that way as long as we accept the principle that other people should be able to force laws on us.I propose the first society to reject the idea that we must force laws on anyone. It is a radical change, it requires new technology to pull it off, and it requires ubiquitous internet to make it slick and frictionless, but we can certainly do it.
Okay sounds good. I'll just have them send me their laws and constitution of their house, then I'll have my attorney review it and discuss any foreseen potential problems or discrepancies, etc.. And then I'll send them back a disclaimer that I am not subject to any laws that they failed to mention, etc. yada..yada.. LOL
Come on, Anenome5. Could you imagine the laws/rules that all our crazy friends might have over us while visiting their home/country?
It's very simple, if you don't like one of their laws, don't enter their property, or else negotiate for them to change it for you.In practice it wouldn't be any different than what we have now, except some people would actually have you agree to the 'no-shoes in my house' rule.
What are you afraid of?
And then what happens when we're out in the world as we tend to do? What happens while shopping? At work? At community meetings.
Businesses will compete with each other for which laws are most conducive and accomodative to customers. It will work out especially well in this case.There absolutely must be some agreed to rules
You agree when you set foot on their property, or else don't. There's still agreement, just it's now individual agreement instead of communal agreement.and some reasonable and fair way of enforcing them.
There is in both scenario, both police and courts. What more do you want?Anyhow, what we have now in the USA is no real rule of law - just corp & gov criminals and angry & often bitter & heartless profit motivated LE lording over our society.
And it will always be that way as long as we accept the principle that other people should be able to force laws on us.I propose the first society to reject the idea that we must force laws on anyone. It is a radical change, it requires new technology to pull it off, and it requires ubiquitous internet to make it slick and frictionless, but we can certainly do it.
Jump to: