Topic: Criticisms? - page 4. (Read 11855 times)
Myrkull: You have stated that the defense agencies wont attack each other since it will not be profitable. Why is it that criminal gangs that want to maximize profit attack each other? Why is it that states now and historically attack each other?
I love it and hope you dedicate your life to it. We may well have a win/win here.
Thank you for finally coming to see my side of things.
I can't see people being happy enough with your idea ever to vote for it. Can you?
Who said anything about voting? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Agorism
That offers no way to remove democratic institutions. I love it and hope you dedicate your life to it. We may well have a win/win here.
I can't see people being happy enough with your idea ever to vote for it. Can you?
Who said anything about voting? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Agorism
You said it yourself.Without protection, you will die. No arbitration, no protection.
They will have no problem getting protection as defence agencies will always accept their money. Its the siblings who are dispossessed that will struggle to afford protection.
You made mention that you have been cheated. Do you then extend credit to the same person again? The same would apply here. He has already broken one contract, his agreement to use arbitration. Do you not think he will break contract with the defense agency? No arbitration, no defense. Without defense, you will die.
You said that before. I've pointed out before that rich crooks already have no problem getting security firms and goons to work for them. They will have the money and may well own the arbitration agencies and the defence agencies themselves. So a person who only has a family dispute? They will have no problem at all.
I can't see people being happy enough with your idea ever to vote for it. Can you?
You said it yourself.Without protection, you will die. No arbitration, no protection.
They will have no problem getting protection as defence agencies will always accept their money. Its the siblings who are dispossessed that will struggle to afford protection.
You made mention that you have been cheated. Do you then extend credit to the same person again? The same would apply here. He has already broken one contract, his agreement to use arbitration. Do you not think he will break contract with the defense agency? No arbitration, no defense. Without defense, you will die.
You said it yourself.Without protection, you will die. No arbitration, no protection.
They will have no problem getting protection as defence agencies will always accept their money. Its the siblings who are dispossessed that will struggle to afford protection.
You said it yourself.Without protection, you will die. No arbitration, no protection.
55% of people die intestate. Your rule is that whoever has the dead person's possessions can keep it and refuse arbitration. That is a not a decent way to do things. Its not an edge case either.
That's not my rule. That's your misinterpretation of my rule.
Correct me then. When someone dies intestate and there is a dispute as to who inherits what, if the person who has possession refuses arbitration, what remedy do the siblings have?
https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/m.979353
You said it yourself. without protection, you die. No arbitration, no protection.
Read what you quote. I said "Lets get back to our landowner who died intestate. The oldest son believes in primogeniture and he is in possession. He won't go to arbitration as he already has what he believes is his right.
If the other siblings can get an order to get him off that property, that is a court system. If not, they have lost any chance of an inheritance."
So if you are agreeing with that, your system is more than a little unfair. It creates an incentive to take possession and refuse arbitration.
55% of people die intestate. Your rule is that whoever has the dead person's possessions can keep it and refuse arbitration. That is a not a decent way to do things. Its not an edge case either.
That's not my rule. That's your misinterpretation of my rule.
Correct me then. When someone dies intestate and there is a dispute as to who inherits what, if the person who has possession refuses arbitration, what remedy do the siblings have?
https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/m.979353
You said it yourself. without protection, you die. No arbitration, no protection.
55% of people die intestate. Your rule is that whoever has the dead person's possessions can keep it and refuse arbitration. That is a not a decent way to do things. Its not an edge case either.
That's not my rule. That's your misinterpretation of my rule.
Correct me then. When someone dies intestate and there is a dispute as to who inherits what, if the person who has possession refuses arbitration, what remedy do the siblings have?
55% of people die intestate. Your rule is that whoever has the dead person's possessions can keep it and refuse arbitration. That is a not a decent way to do things. Its not an edge case either.
That's not my rule. That's your misinterpretation of my rule.
55% of families is not an edge case.
But you weren't discussing 55% of people. You were discussing a very specific situation, where the father died intestate, and the first son advocated primogeniture and refused arbitration. that many ands adds up to an edge case.
55% of people die intestate. Your rule is that whoever has the dead person's possessions can keep it and refuse arbitration. That is a not a decent way to do things. Its not an edge case either.
55% of families is not an edge case.
But you weren't discussing 55% of people. You were discussing a very specific situation, where the father died intestate, and the first son advocated primogeniture and refused arbitration. that many ands adds up to an edge case.
Peace out.
I do hope this means that you will be quiet now and let people with real, legitimate concerns ask. "market incentive to monopoly" is just ridiculous on its face.
No - it means that if you keep advocating it I am still here. You still have not provided a sensible way that allows competition between defence agencies that does not end in monopoly. If you come up with something better, of course I am interested.
But at least you accept that the children of people who die intestate are screwed by your system. That's 55% of families in the US so that alone means your system will never be adopted.
No, I already discussed how edge your case was, and, how it handles even that case. No arbitration, no protection. Troll harder.
55% of families is not an edge case.
Peace out.
I do hope this means that you will be quiet now and let people with real, legitimate concerns ask. "market incentive to monopoly" is just ridiculous on its face.
No - it means that if you keep advocating it I am still here. You still have not provided a sensible way that allows competition between defence agencies that does not end in monopoly. If you come up with something better, of course I am interested.
But at least you accept that the children of people who die intestate are screwed by your system. That's 55% of families in the US so that alone means your system will never be adopted.
No, I already discussed how edge your case was, and, how it handles even that case. No arbitration, no protection. Troll harder.
Peace out.
I do hope this means that you will be quiet now and let people with real, legitimate concerns ask. "market incentive to monopoly" is just ridiculous on its face.
No - it means that if you keep advocating it I am still here. You still have not provided a sensible way that allows competition between defence agencies that does not end in monopoly. If you come up with something better, of course I am interested.
But at least you accept that the children of people who die intestate are screwed by your system. That's 55% of families in the US so that alone means your system will never be adopted.
Peace out.
I do hope this means that you will be quiet now and let people with real, legitimate concerns ask. "market incentive to monopoly" is just ridiculous on its face.
Could that be because you are a dreamer and you have no idea how the real world works?
No, I know exactly how the world works. The idea is to change that.
Any change has to be in the context of human nature and old fashioned economics. The system you describe creates market incentives to totalitarian dominance by 1 defence agency. You assume that Blackwater and Aegis and the like will become nicer organisations staffed by more sweet natured mercenaries in your NAP world. There is no reason for the rest of us to share you assumption.
I make no such assumptions, and any further claims that there will be a market incentive to monopoly will be ignored as per the original post.
You behaved exactly the same way when I showed that the US economy did best after WW2 when there was a 90% income tax, a huge national deficit and unionised workforce. When facts or logic prove you wrong, you want to ignore it.
You asked for criticisms, you got 2 that undermine the model you advocate, namely that it can't handle market incentives to monopoly and that it can't handle the fact that 55% of people die intestate.
Whether or not you decide to think of a way to improve your model is entirely up to you.
Peace out.
Could that be because you are a dreamer and you have no idea how the real world works?
No, I know exactly how the world works. The idea is to change that.
Any change has to be in the context of human nature and old fashioned economics. The system you describe creates market incentives to totalitarian dominance by 1 defence agency. You assume that Blackwater and Aegis and the like will become nicer organisations staffed by more sweet natured mercenaries in your NAP world. There is no reason for the rest of us to share you assumption.
I make no such assumptions, and any further claims that there will be a market incentive to monopoly will be ignored as per the original post.
Jump to: