Consensus-based society with provable trust-free voting - page 4.

myrkul

hero member

Activity: 532

Merit: 500

FIAT LIBERTAS RVAT CAELVM

Quote from: interlagos on December 05, 2012, 07:30:22 PM

I see, it seems like with the free market it's always somebody else who will solve the problem and not the people themselves. I think this kind of attitude is what led us to where we are.

Um... Wat? The market is the people. Arbitration companies are run by people. People hire arbitration companies. "It's always someone else" is the opposite of the free market.

Quote from: interlagos on December 05, 2012, 07:30:22 PM

What if all those companies and providers not constrained by anything else start realizing that there are ways to collude and form cartels which would eliminate possibilities for competition thus allowing them to do less work for more profit.

Cartels always fall apart. Here's why: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prisoner%27s_dilemma

Quote

Without enforceable agreements, members of a cartel are also involved in a (multi-player) prisoners' dilemma. 'Cooperating' typically means keeping prices at a pre-agreed minimum level. 'Defecting' means selling under this minimum level, instantly taking business (and profits) from other cartel members.

interlagos

hero member

Activity: 496

Merit: 500

Quote from: myrkul on December 05, 2012, 06:56:33 PM

Quote from: interlagos on December 05, 2012, 06:52:00 PM

Quote from: myrkul on December 05, 2012, 06:41:28 PM

Quote from: interlagos on December 05, 2012, 06:30:53 PM

Quote from: myrkul on December 05, 2012, 06:19:29 PM

Quote from: interlagos on December 05, 2012, 06:09:53 PM

But imagine I'm acting in a good faith and I reduced the percentage of chemicals in my waste to an acceptable level so that my research shows that it is no longer a danger to the health in a long term.
However a few people in your neighborhood are having an allergic reaction to those chemicals and are not overall happy about the situation. How to resolve that conflict without peaceful means to achieve consensus on what is acceptable level and who is going to monitor it?

What makes you think there is no peaceful means to resolve the conflict?

There might be, but having a well understood and structured way to do it might save some time and therefore money to understand what course of action would be generally supported by the community.

Luckily, such a way exists already. It's called arbitration. If someone is harmed, they seek damages from the company. If enough people seek damages from the company, putting any chemicals out into the water may become unprofitable. Smart companies know this, and factor it into the cost/benefit analysis before doing any dumping. ...and now we're back at the corporate protections granted by governments. Limited liability in these sorts of things distorts the possible costs to the company, and encourages them to take more damaging actions than they might otherwise have.

Does free market provide arbitration? I thought it's more like you are on your own...

The free market provides anything there is a need for. That's the point.

Quote from: interlagos on December 05, 2012, 06:52:00 PM

And what if that polluting company pays to the arbiter to not take any action against it?

Then another arbitration company would take the case, instead. No monopoly on justice means you can't buy off the justice provider.

I see, it seems like with the free market it's always somebody else who will solve the problem and not the people themselves. I think this kind of attitude is what led us to where we are.

What if all those companies and providers not constrained by anything else start realizing that there are ways to collude and form cartels which would eliminate possibilities for competition thus allowing them to do less work for more profit.

And that is not a hypothetical scenario, that's precisely what we have now.
The consensus-based system would open the decision making process in society in the same way the blockchain opens the information about financial transactions.

myrkul

hero member

Activity: 532

Merit: 500

FIAT LIBERTAS RVAT CAELVM

Quote from: interlagos on December 05, 2012, 06:52:00 PM

Quote from: myrkul on December 05, 2012, 06:41:28 PM

Quote from: interlagos on December 05, 2012, 06:30:53 PM

Quote from: myrkul on December 05, 2012, 06:19:29 PM

Quote from: interlagos on December 05, 2012, 06:09:53 PM

But imagine I'm acting in a good faith and I reduced the percentage of chemicals in my waste to an acceptable level so that my research shows that it is no longer a danger to the health in a long term.
However a few people in your neighborhood are having an allergic reaction to those chemicals and are not overall happy about the situation. How to resolve that conflict without peaceful means to achieve consensus on what is acceptable level and who is going to monitor it?

What makes you think there is no peaceful means to resolve the conflict?

There might be, but having a well understood and structured way to do it might save some time and therefore money to understand what course of action would be generally supported by the community.

Luckily, such a way exists already. It's called arbitration. If someone is harmed, they seek damages from the company. If enough people seek damages from the company, putting any chemicals out into the water may become unprofitable. Smart companies know this, and factor it into the cost/benefit analysis before doing any dumping. ...and now we're back at the corporate protections granted by governments. Limited liability in these sorts of things distorts the possible costs to the company, and encourages them to take more damaging actions than they might otherwise have.

Does free market provide arbitration? I thought it's more like you are on your own...

The free market provides anything there is a need for. That's the point.

Quote from: interlagos on December 05, 2012, 06:52:00 PM

And what if that polluting company pays to the arbiter to not take any action against it?

Then another arbitration company would take the case, instead. No monopoly on justice means you can't buy off the justice provider.

interlagos

hero member

Activity: 496

Merit: 500

Quote from: myrkul on December 05, 2012, 06:41:28 PM

Quote from: interlagos on December 05, 2012, 06:30:53 PM

Quote from: myrkul on December 05, 2012, 06:19:29 PM

Quote from: interlagos on December 05, 2012, 06:09:53 PM

But imagine I'm acting in a good faith and I reduced the percentage of chemicals in my waste to an acceptable level so that my research shows that it is no longer a danger to the health in a long term.
However a few people in your neighborhood are having an allergic reaction to those chemicals and are not overall happy about the situation. How to resolve that conflict without peaceful means to achieve consensus on what is acceptable level and who is going to monitor it?

What makes you think there is no peaceful means to resolve the conflict?

There might be, but having a well understood and structured way to do it might save some time and therefore money to understand what course of action would be generally supported by the community.

Luckily, such a way exists already. It's called arbitration. If someone is harmed, they seek damages from the company. If enough people seek damages from the company, putting any chemicals out into the water may become unprofitable. Smart companies know this, and factor it into the cost/benefit analysis before doing any dumping. ...and now we're back at the corporate protections granted by governments. Limited liability in these sorts of things distorts the possible costs to the company, and encourages them to take more damaging actions than they might otherwise have.

Does free market provide arbitration? I thought it's more like you are on your own...
And what if that polluting company pays to the arbiter to not take any action against it?

myrkul

hero member

Activity: 532

Merit: 500

FIAT LIBERTAS RVAT CAELVM

Quote from: interlagos on December 05, 2012, 06:30:53 PM

Quote from: myrkul on December 05, 2012, 06:19:29 PM

Quote from: interlagos on December 05, 2012, 06:09:53 PM

But imagine I'm acting in a good faith and I reduced the percentage of chemicals in my waste to an acceptable level so that my research shows that it is no longer a danger to the health in a long term.
However a few people in your neighborhood are having an allergic reaction to those chemicals and are not overall happy about the situation. How to resolve that conflict without peaceful means to achieve consensus on what is acceptable level and who is going to monitor it?

What makes you think there is no peaceful means to resolve the conflict?

There might be, but having a well understood and structured way to do it might save some time and therefore money to understand what course of action would be generally supported by the community.

Luckily, such a way exists already. It's called arbitration. If someone is harmed, they seek damages from the company. If enough people seek damages from the company, putting any chemicals out into the water may become unprofitable. Smart companies know this, and factor it into the cost/benefit analysis before doing any dumping. ...and now we're back at the corporate protections granted by governments. Limited liability in these sorts of things distorts the possible costs to the company, and encourages them to take more damaging actions than they might otherwise have.

interlagos

hero member

Activity: 496

Merit: 500

Quote from: myrkul on December 05, 2012, 06:19:29 PM

Quote from: interlagos on December 05, 2012, 06:09:53 PM

But imagine I'm acting in a good faith and I reduced the percentage of chemicals in my waste to an acceptable level so that my research shows that it is no longer a danger to the health in a long term.
However a few people in your neighborhood are having an allergic reaction to those chemicals and are not overall happy about the situation. How to resolve that conflict without peaceful means to achieve consensus on what is acceptable level and who is going to monitor it?

What makes you think there is no peaceful means to resolve the conflict?

There might be, but having a well understood and structured way to do it might save some time and therefore money to understand what course of action would be generally supported by the community.

myrkul

hero member

Activity: 532

Merit: 500

FIAT LIBERTAS RVAT CAELVM

Quote from: interlagos on December 05, 2012, 06:09:53 PM

But imagine I'm acting in a good faith and I reduced the percentage of chemicals in my waste to an acceptable level so that my research shows that it is no longer a danger to the health in a long term.
However a few people in your neighborhood are having an allergic reaction to those chemicals and are not overall happy about the situation. How to resolve that conflict without peaceful means to achieve consensus on what is acceptable level and who is going to monitor it?

What makes you think there is no peaceful means to resolve the conflict?

interlagos

hero member

Activity: 496

Merit: 500

Quote from: myrkul on December 05, 2012, 05:58:52 PM

Quote from: interlagos on December 05, 2012, 05:55:32 PM

Quote from: myrkul on December 05, 2012, 05:44:03 PM

Quote from: interlagos on December 05, 2012, 05:35:54 PM

Quote from: myrkul on December 05, 2012, 05:18:43 PM

Quote from: interlagos on December 05, 2012, 05:01:57 PM

Quote from: myrkul on December 05, 2012, 04:53:02 PM

Quote from: interlagos on December 05, 2012, 04:48:12 PM

So all the regulations and limitations and restrictions are not coming from the sky, they are created by those who think they are strong enough to pull it off and the free market let's them do it.

So by that logic, the rape victim is to blame, since she lets the rapist do it? When violence enters the equation, the market is no longer free, it is being coerced, distorted.

I'd say it's more like trickery and bribery on the mass scale is what resulted in our today's society.

Fraud is just as bad (and market distorting) as using force or threatening to use force, which is why the nonaggression principle includes it as one of the things which no person has the right to use against another.

I like NAP and I'm all for it, but the paradox is that trying to enforce it would be in violation of NAP.

On the contrary, "enforcing" the NAP is called "defense" (sometimes "self-defense").

Unfortunately it's a bit wider than self-defense.
If I build a factory that produces chemical waste and start dumping that waste into the river you drink from you would have to "attack" me to prevent me from doing it.

Is an attempt to poison someone not an attack? If you attempt to stop that person from poisoning you, is it not defense?

In a black-and-white case like that yes that would be an attack.

But imagine I'm acting in a good faith and I reduced the percentage of chemicals in my waste to an acceptable level so that my research shows that it is no longer a danger to the health in a long term.
However a few people in your neighborhood are having an allergic reaction to those chemicals and are not overall happy about the situation. How to resolve that conflict without peaceful means to achieve consensus on what is acceptable level and who is going to monitor it?