Criticisms? - page 11. | Bitcointalksearch.org

Hawker

legendary

Activity: 1218

Merit: 1001

Quote from: myrkul on June 20, 2012, 01:19:22 PM

Quote from: Hawker on June 20, 2012, 06:18:08 AM

So in each case, the market incentive is not to have arbitration. Its your classic win or die situation. There can only be 1 winner. That winner is your new government.

Part of something is better than all of nothing, and remember, once they've selected "their" firms, those arbitrators take over for them, and are capable of selecting new arbitrators to decide between them. The market incentive is to get the decision made quickly, and with as few layers of that as possible, because each new layer cuts into the pie.

There is a free market in law. Arbitration is free market law. Until you understand that, you're just going to make yourself look more foolish with every statement that you make.

So you think that property rights can be taken off a person on the basis that "Part of something is better than all of nothing." Nice.

I'm not sure where you want to go with this. So far, all you have said is that without a state, there are no property rights. I agree - that's one of the reasons a state is a good thing.

FirstAscent

hero member

Activity: 812

Merit: 1000

Quote from: myrkul on June 20, 2012, 01:47:31 PM

Police and Firefighters can be handled privately, either as part of an insurance contract, or separately.

Oh, and for those wondering why I'm not responding to FirstAscent, I direct you to these postings:

Quote from: myrkul on June 18, 2012, 03:28:46 AM

Things that will be ignored: "You're stupid." (especially if you use "your"), "It's a pathetic ideology." etc.

I doubt anyone was wondering.

myrkul

hero member

Activity: 532

Merit: 500

FIAT LIBERTAS RVAT CAELVM

Police and Firefighters can be handled privately, either as part of an insurance contract, or separately.

Oh, and for those wondering why I'm not responding to FirstAscent, I direct you to these postings:

Quote from: myrkul on June 18, 2012, 03:28:46 AM

Things that will be ignored: "You're stupid." (especially if you use "your"), "It's a pathetic ideology." etc.

Quote from: myrkul on June 18, 2012, 12:43:54 AM

Quote from: FirstAscent on June 18, 2012, 12:40:09 AM

I've addressed enough of your points. At this point, I will largely ignore you...

Very well, at this point, I will completely ignore you. Have a nice life.

bulanula

hero member

Activity: 518

Merit: 500

Quote from: myrkul

So. Why do you think we need a government?

Who will be there to run ponzis ( Social Security ) and steal public money ( politicians ).

Your proposal is insane !

Wink

IMHO a police force and firefighters we do need but that is about it.

Private sector does EVERYTHING better than shitty public sector money stealers.

FirstAscent

hero member

Activity: 812

Merit: 1000

Quote from: myrkul on June 20, 2012, 01:19:22 PM

Quote from: Hawker on June 20, 2012, 06:18:08 AM

So in each case, the market incentive is not to have arbitration. Its your classic win or die situation. There can only be 1 winner. That winner is your new government.

Part of something is better than all of nothing, and remember, once they've selected "their" firms, those arbitrators take over for them, and are capable of selecting new arbitrators to decide between them. The market incentive is to get the decision made quickly, and with as few layers of that as possible, because each new layer cuts into the pie.

There is a free market in law. Arbitration is free market law. Until you understand that, you're just going to make yourself look more foolish with every statement that you make.

More sophisticated cultures realize that there are issues that are not central or prioritized to the needs of an individual or two individuals in disagreement. Arbitration has zero applicability to issues which need to be addressed collectively. We're finding that such issues are even difficult to resolve at the level of nations, with the collective will they can bring to address such issues.

At the granular level of the individual (or greedy self serving companies), such issues cannot be effectively addressed. The world's population is just too big.

Your best bet is to apply your toy like ideology to a group of like minded crackpot loons on a small island, and live in ignorant bliss. Your overall reach into the larger world will be limited, and thus of no consequence.

myrkul

hero member

Activity: 532

Merit: 500

FIAT LIBERTAS RVAT CAELVM

Quote from: Hawker on June 20, 2012, 06:18:08 AM

So in each case, the market incentive is not to have arbitration. Its your classic win or die situation. There can only be 1 winner. That winner is your new government.

Part of something is better than all of nothing, and remember, once they've selected "their" firms, those arbitrators take over for them, and are capable of selecting new arbitrators to decide between them. The market incentive is to get the decision made quickly, and with as few layers of that as possible, because each new layer cuts into the pie.

There is a free market in law. Arbitration is free market law. Until you understand that, you're just going to make yourself look more foolish with every statement that you make.

Hawker

legendary

Activity: 1218

Merit: 1001

Quote from: myrkul on June 19, 2012, 05:42:51 PM

Can't you see your arguments are helping my case?

Quote

The oldest son goes to a court that believes in primogeniture and he is entitled to entire estate. The second son goes to an Islamic court and is awarded more than his sister in accordance with Islamic law. The daughter goes to a Episcopalian Christian Court and is awarded a third.

Would not be the way it would go down. You know nothing of Arbitration. All parties agree to the "court" they will use. Here's how it would actually work:

The oldest son selects an arbitration firm that supports primogeniture, the second son selects one that supports Islamic tradition, and the daughter selects a firm that supports equal rights for women. They can't agree as to which one they should use (and why should they? each choice is a bad choice for the other two), so the arbitration firms, among them, select a fourth arbitration firm that they can all agree on. If they cannot agree on a single firm, the process repeats. They pick ones that they can trust, and those firms come to an agreement as to who will decide. If they can't agree... well, I think you get the point.

Defense companies are just that... defense. They don't go on the attack.

Sorry you have to accept your own premise which that there is a free market in laws. The oldest son is not going to pay good money to a court that supports primogeniture just so that court can fob him off with "arbitration." Either the court enforces primogeniture or it does not get his business. Same applies to the Islamic and Episcopalian courts. Either they can enforce their law or they are a waste of money and will cease trading.

So in each case, the market incentive is not to have arbitration. Its your classic win or die situation. There can only be 1 winner. That winner is your new government.

drakahn

hero member

Activity: 504

Merit: 500

Quote from: FirstAscent on June 19, 2012, 10:59:58 PM

Quote from: drakahn on June 19, 2012, 10:55:22 PM

People never seem to realise we already live in an anarchy, but the "government"(s) control the most force, without a large majority wanting to hold onto their freedom they will just become slaves again. and again.

So you have the solution then?

1. Tell me where you will implement it.
2. Tell me how many people will it be seeded with.
3. Tell me who your geographical neighbors will be.
4. Tell me how it will be defended.
5. Tell me how it all works out.

No I don't have a solution (To government or having a majority ignore the government), If I did I would do it, but my point is that we already live in a world where whoever controls the most force controls everything else, and the ones with the most force like having a lot of control

I think there will be a tipping point where more people feel like pissed off slaves than the happy well trained slaves they are and things will be changed, no idea how (violent, non violent, massive boycotts of everything slightly wrong), or when (dec 21st is a date drummed in to our heads as change, I hope a few different plans start that day, and I hope one of them works), but my bets are all on massive changes in my lifetime, and it will get worse before it gets better.

side bets on the internet/bitcoins being able to survive/thrive after any such changes

FirstAscent

hero member

Activity: 812

Merit: 1000

Quote from: drakahn on June 19, 2012, 10:55:22 PM

People never seem to realise we already live in an anarchy, but the "government"(s) control the most force, without a large majority wanting to hold onto their freedom they will just become slaves again. and again.

So you have the solution then?

1. Tell me where you will implement it.
2. Tell me how many people will it be seeded with.
3. Tell me who your geographical neighbors will be.
4. Tell me how it will be defended.
5. Tell me how it all works out.

drakahn

hero member

Activity: 504

Merit: 500

People never seem to realise we already live in an anarchy, but the "government"(s) control the most force, without a large majority wanting to hold onto their freedom they will just become slaves again. and again.

FirstAscent

hero member

Activity: 812

Merit: 1000

You see, AnCap is all about 'me' - not 'we'.

Me, as in "Mine, do not take it away." Me, as in "I will sue you.". Me, as in "I will do with my land as I will, even if it is bad environmentally." Me, as in "I will not help society collectively." Me, as in "So, sue me."

FirstAscent

hero member

Activity: 812

Merit: 1000

Quote from: myrkul on June 19, 2012, 10:31:10 PM

Quote from: finkleshnorts on June 19, 2012, 09:51:11 PM

Quote from: myrkul on June 19, 2012, 09:35:49 PM

Quote from: finkleshnorts on June 19, 2012, 09:25:04 PM

This barbaric anarchic system of yours...

I'd like to understand your point of view. Why do you call it "barbaric"?

It may have been a poor and hasty choice of a word, frankly. Rereading your posts, you say that "defense companies" are for defense only, not attacking. Here is the problem:

says who??

Think about it.

We may agree on more than we both realize. I agree with you that violence is a poor way of reaching a solution. But violence is also the ultimate trump card, and as long as that trump card exists (as long as violence is possible), it will happen. People want power.

Some good points. Who says? Well, ultimately, the people do. "The market," if you will. I'm not going to argue that violence is never going to happen, and I absolutely agree that certainly at a global level, and in many ways, at all other levels, we're already living in an anarchy.

Violence will happen. Not going to deny that. There will still be murders, there will still be theft, humans are humans, nothing is going to change that. What needs to change is how we deal with it. Do we accept it, as long as we call theft "taxes", and kidnapping "imprisonment", and murder "war"? Do we accept it, as long as it's done by people in special costumes?

Or do we stop accepting violence as OK, no matter who does it, or what they're wearing? That's the Non-Aggression Principle. No person has the right to initiate force or fraud upon another person.

You keep using the word 'we', as though the 'we' in your AnCap society is collectively in agreement. They are not, else they would collectively form a government, in which case, yes, you can start using the word 'we', and then admit that you no longer have an AnCap society.

myrkul

hero member

Activity: 532

Merit: 500

FIAT LIBERTAS RVAT CAELVM

Quote from: finkleshnorts on June 19, 2012, 09:51:11 PM

Quote from: myrkul on June 19, 2012, 09:35:49 PM

Quote from: finkleshnorts on June 19, 2012, 09:25:04 PM

This barbaric anarchic system of yours...

I'd like to understand your point of view. Why do you call it "barbaric"?

It may have been a poor and hasty choice of a word, frankly. Rereading your posts, you say that "defense companies" are for defense only, not attacking. Here is the problem:

says who??

Think about it.

We may agree on more than we both realize. I agree with you that violence is a poor way of reaching a solution. But violence is also the ultimate trump card, and as long as that trump card exists (as long as violence is possible), it will happen. People want power.

Some good points. Who says? Well, ultimately, the people do. "The market," if you will. I'm not going to argue that violence is never going to happen, and I absolutely agree that certainly at a global level, and in many ways, at all other levels, we're already living in an anarchy.

Violence will happen. Not going to deny that. There will still be murders, there will still be theft, humans are humans, nothing is going to change that. What needs to change is how we deal with it. Do we accept it, as long as we call theft "taxes", and kidnapping "imprisonment", and murder "war"? Do we accept it, as long as it's done by people in special costumes?

Or do we stop accepting violence as OK, no matter who does it, or what they're wearing? That's the Non-Aggression Principle. No person has the right to initiate force or fraud upon another person.

FirstAscent

hero member

Activity: 812

Merit: 1000

Quote from: myrkul on June 19, 2012, 09:35:49 PM

Quote from: finkleshnorts on June 19, 2012, 09:25:04 PM

This barbaric anarchic system of yours...

I'd like to understand your point of view. Why do you call it "barbaric"?

Barbaric, as in selfish, willfully ignorant of issues which AnCap cannot solve, and unknowingly ignorant of issues which AnCap cannot solve.

finkleshnorts

sr. member

Activity: 336

Merit: 250

And I'd like to emphasize again that I believe we live in anarchy on both a global and national scale (assuming you are American).

finkleshnorts

sr. member

Activity: 336

Merit: 250

Quote from: myrkul on June 19, 2012, 09:35:49 PM

Quote from: finkleshnorts on June 19, 2012, 09:25:04 PM

This barbaric anarchic system of yours...

I'd like to understand your point of view. Why do you call it "barbaric"?

It may have been a poor and hasty choice of a word, frankly. Rereading your posts, you say that "defense companies" are for defense only, not attacking. Here is the problem:

says who??

Think about it.

We may agree on more than we both realize. I agree with you that violence is a poor way of reaching a solution. But violence is also the ultimate trump card, and as long as that trump card exists (as long as violence is possible), it will happen. People want power.

myrkul

hero member

Activity: 532

Merit: 500

FIAT LIBERTAS RVAT CAELVM

Quote from: finkleshnorts on June 19, 2012, 09:25:04 PM

This barbaric anarchic system of yours...

I'd like to understand your point of view. Why do you call it "barbaric"?

finkleshnorts

sr. member

Activity: 336

Merit: 250

Quote from: myrkul on June 19, 2012, 07:08:01 PM

Quote from: nedbert9 on June 19, 2012, 06:52:40 PM

Anarchy just isn't going to happen. People naturally consolidate power and impose their will.

People said that powered flight was impossible, too. In fact, people tend to think everything is impossible, right up until someone goes and does it. We call those people "wrong".

People also said that perpetual motion is impossible, because it is. Much closer to the same kind of impossible that is this misinformed anarchy you propose.

No, we call those people normal. If "it" happens, then generally people will happily change their minds.

This barbaric anarchic system of yours is about as plausible as governments being run by newborn babies. That is also impossible. Feel free to prove me wrong on either count. Until then, I consider myself justified in my position.

FirstAscent

hero member

Activity: 812

Merit: 1000

Quote from: myrkul on June 19, 2012, 07:08:01 PM

Quote from: nedbert9 on June 19, 2012, 06:52:40 PM

Anarchy just isn't going to happen. People naturally consolidate power and impose their will.

People said that powered flight was impossible, too. In fact, people tend to think everything is impossible, right up until someone goes and does it. We call those people "wrong".

I suspect you'll die of old age believing it will happen. And even if it did (which it won't), it wouldn't be a good thing for all the reasons you're barely aware of.

myrkul

hero member

Activity: 532

Merit: 500

FIAT LIBERTAS RVAT CAELVM

Quote from: nedbert9 on June 19, 2012, 06:52:40 PM

Anarchy just isn't going to happen. People naturally consolidate power and impose their will.

People said that powered flight was impossible, too. In fact, people tend to think everything is impossible, right up until someone goes and does it. We call those people "wrong".

Topic: Criticisms? - page 11. (Read 11909 times)