Criticisms? - page 8. | Bitcointalksearch.org

myrkul

hero member

Activity: 532

Merit: 500

FIAT LIBERTAS RVAT CAELVM

Quote from: Hawker on June 21, 2012, 04:25:39 PM

Democratic government is most certainly not based on who has most guns.

Bullshit. 50%, plus one, of the people tell me it's illegal to drink caffeine, and suddenly I can't drink caffeine. If I try to do so anyway, they arrest me, and if I resist hard enough, they shoot me. How is that not about who has the most guns?

Quote from: Hawker on June 21, 2012, 04:25:39 PM

Inheritance is not an edge case and your approach that people who are refused arbitration have no recourse is shocking. How can you even begin to advocate such an unjust system? I'd be ashamed.

I never said they had no recourse, that you don't like their recourse is your problem.

Hawker

legendary

Activity: 1218

Merit: 1001

Quote from: myrkul on June 21, 2012, 03:48:45 PM

Quote from: Hawker on June 21, 2012, 03:17:37 PM

Siblings who have been excluded don't get to say whether or not a parent dies intestate. But on your logic, a will won't matter as anyone can take possession and refuse arbitration.

A will is a legally binding contract. If you have taken possession, in violation of the will, and are refusing arbitration, you're harming the other siblings. Now they're justified in kicking him off by force.

If the market accepts the fact that he is claiming primogeniture after his father died intestate, and continues to provide him services, then that is the market choice for dealing with a parent who dies intestate: primogeniture. If you do not like that, make sure you don't die intestate.

Critics love making edge cases, and saying "see, your system is based on who has the most guns", while ignoring the fact that even at the best of times, government is based on who has the most guns. I don't pretend it would be perfect, but the majority of cases will be settled peaceably, between the two parties involved. In a government system, the majority forces the minority in every decision.

Democratic government is most certainly not based on who has most guns.

Inheritance is not an edge case and your approach that people who are refused arbitration have no recourse is shocking. How can you even begin to advocate such an unjust system? I'd be ashamed.

Explodicle

hero member

Activity: 950

Merit: 1001

Quote from: FirstAscent on June 21, 2012, 03:57:47 PM

The reality of your joke of a system is this:

1. Everyone follows their own made up rules.
2. Those who can afford it, arbitrarily, and at their own whims, enforce their own made up rules with money and guns.

That sounds exactly like a republic, except item #1 would be "someone else's made up rules". The Ancaps seem to be proposing we lower that arbitrary barrier in #2 to include all people, and assuming that people who waste their money on irrational rules will become poorer and lose influence. Correct?

FirstAscent

hero member

Activity: 812

Merit: 1000

Quote from: myrkul on June 21, 2012, 03:48:45 PM

Critics love making edge cases, and saying "see, your system is based on who has the most guns", while ignoring the fact that even at the best of times, government is based on who has the most guns. I don't pretend it would be perfect, but the majority of cases will be settled peaceably, between the two parties involved. In a government system, the majority forces the minority in every decision.

We're not making edge cases. We're describing to you human nature in the absense of any respectable and consistent enforcement of a common unified set of laws.

What you advocate is no consistent set of laws (NAP is irrelevant because it is not adhered to nor enforced) and no consistent enforcement of laws (multiple enforcement firms). But it's doubly irrelevant regarding the enforcement of laws, because there is no consistent set of laws anyway.

The reality of your joke of a system is this:

1. Everyone follows their own made up rules.
2. Those who can afford it, arbitrarily, and at their own whims, enforce their own made up rules with money and guns.

Let me repeat that for you (in bold faced type):

1. Everyone follows their own made up rules.
2. Those who can afford it, arbitrarily, and at their own whims, enforce their own made up rules with money and guns.

myrkul

hero member

Activity: 532

Merit: 500

FIAT LIBERTAS RVAT CAELVM

Quote from: Hawker on June 21, 2012, 03:17:37 PM

Siblings who have been excluded don't get to say whether or not a parent dies intestate. But on your logic, a will won't matter as anyone can take possession and refuse arbitration.

A will is a legally binding contract. If you have taken possession, in violation of the will, and are refusing arbitration, you're harming the other siblings. Now they're justified in kicking him off by force.

If the market accepts the fact that he is claiming primogeniture after his father died intestate, and continues to provide him services, then that is the market choice for dealing with a parent who dies intestate: primogeniture. If you do not like that, make sure you don't die intestate.

Critics love making edge cases, and saying "see, your system is based on who has the most guns", while ignoring the fact that even at the best of times, government is based on who has the most guns. I don't pretend it would be perfect, but the majority of cases will be settled peaceably, between the two parties involved. In a government system, the majority forces the minority in every decision.

Hawker

legendary

Activity: 1218

Merit: 1001

Quote from: myrkul on June 21, 2012, 01:49:11 PM

Quote from: Hawker on June 21, 2012, 06:10:28 AM

Back to the topic, in the inheritance situation, primogeniture is not a social evil. In your system, eldest son has a market incentive to take possession and refuse to arbitrate. All the local eldest sons will agree with him and the rest of the people will just get used to him.

Leaving aside the fact that I explicitly described a market incentive not to screw over your family, if primogeniture becomes the accepted method, then that is what the market selected. If you don't like it, I suggest you draw up a will.

...snip...

No your market incentive is to take possession and refuse arbitration.

By "accepted method" you mean the method with the most enforcement fire-power.

Siblings who have been excluded don't get to say whether or not a parent dies intestate. But on your logic, a will won't matter as anyone can take possession and refuse arbitration.

You made the thread asking for criticisms. My criticism is that you want a system where the person with the most fire-power wins every time. That is not an improvement on what we have now. In fact, its a crap system.

FirstAscent

hero member

Activity: 812

Merit: 1000

Quote from: myrkul on June 21, 2012, 01:49:11 PM

Secondly, You mentioned NAP, yes? He is actively harming people, yes? Right now? Shoot his ass.

Either they do, and you have an escalation of violence and retaliation. Feuds.

Or they don't, due to intimidation.

FirstAscent

hero member

Activity: 812

Merit: 1000

Quote from: myrkul on June 21, 2012, 01:49:11 PM

Ranting into the aether... Apparently FirstAscent doesn't understand the concept of "ignored"

So what if you're ignoring me. My posts are to show others how ridiculous and ill formed your ideas are.

myrkul

hero member

Activity: 532

Merit: 500

FIAT LIBERTAS RVAT CAELVM

Quote from: Hawker on June 21, 2012, 06:10:28 AM

Back to the topic, in the inheritance situation, primogeniture is not a social evil. In your system, eldest son has a market incentive to take possession and refuse to arbitrate. All the local eldest sons will agree with him and the rest of the people will just get used to him.

Leaving aside the fact that I explicitly described a market incentive not to screw over your family, if primogeniture becomes the accepted method, then that is what the market selected. If you don't like it, I suggest you draw up a will.

Quote from: Equilux on June 21, 2012, 07:05:41 AM

Now what would possebly stop him from claiming land, kicking people out of their houses and stores? Sure people would want to "sue" him, get him into arbitraging. Mister bigshot could just insist on only using his own firms, so what if the competing arbitrage firm would suggest a common ground? Mister bigshot could just refuse till the and of time while he just enforces his own "laws" and the people would be homeless and/or dieing in the street. Justice has become a commodity for sale, and the richer of more powerfull you become you can buy more "justice".

First, some definitions. Words matter, and, in fact, the Wikipedia article on arbitration mentions, "Not to be confused with arbitrage"
Arbitration: non-court dispute resolution.
Arbitrage: the practice of taking advantage of a price difference between two or more markets.

Secondly, You mentioned NAP, yes? He is actively harming people, yes? Right now? Shoot his ass.

Quote from: Equilux on June 21, 2012, 12:16:50 PM

Quote from: FirstAscent on June 21, 2012, 11:55:35 AM

Isn't that what I said here:

And here?

Quote from: FirstAscent on June 21, 2012, 01:32:03 AM

Quote from: myrkul on June 21, 2012, 01:03:30 AM

If anyone actually agrees with FirstAscent and would like his points addressed, feel free to quote him and ask. Otherwise, I'll just assume he's ranting into the aether.

True, true, but it seemed to me that the understanding of the implications of this didn't fully carry over to the other examples that are still discussed. And I thought an example that took smaller and more detailed steps wouldn't hurt

Ranting into the aether... Apparently FirstAscent doesn't understand the concept of "ignored"

FirstAscent

hero member

Activity: 812

Merit: 1000

Quote from: Equilux on June 21, 2012, 12:16:50 PM

True, true, but it seemed to me that the understanding of the implications of this didn't fully carry over to the other examples that are still discussed. And I thought an example that took smaller and more detailed steps wouldn't hurt

I appreciate you reinforcing the concepts.

Equilux

sr. member

Activity: 353

Merit: 251

Quote from: FirstAscent on June 21, 2012, 11:55:35 AM

Quote from: Equilux on June 21, 2012, 07:05:41 AM

I'd like to introduce an example that has a bit more weight to it, which will show more clearly where there is a problem in milder examples.

Imagine someone who is just rich and powerfull, a warlord, wallstreet bigshot, ceo of a multinational, or gangleader. There are plenty of people like that now, and there will be in an AnCap, or under NAP. This guy has his own arbitraging companies, his own private army/policeforce and a chain of stores and hotels to bring in the money.

Now what would possebly stop him from claiming land, kicking people out of their houses and stores? Sure people would want to "sue" him, get him into arbitraging. Mister bigshot could just insist on only using his own firms, so what if the competing arbitrage firm would suggest a common ground? Mister bigshot could just refuse till the and of time while he just enforces his own "laws" and the people would be homeless and/or dieing in the street. Justice has become a commodity for sale, and the richer of more powerfull you become you can buy more "justice".

"The idea of "free contract" between the potentate and his starving subject is a sick joke"

Isn't that what I said here:

Quote from: FirstAscent on June 21, 2012, 12:36:11 AM

Quote from: finkleshnorts on June 20, 2012, 07:36:59 PM

If arbiters can't/don't back up their decisions with violence, then they are just a bunch of dickheads with neat opinions.

Exactly. So some arbiter says I owe someone else x. I don't agree. Ha! Better yet, I'll just hire the arbitration firm that I own - after all, they are private firms, no? Think of the benefits of doing so. The fee I pay them goes back into my pocket, and they'll render the decision I desire.

Wait though. Myrkul will say that I can't do that. Oh yeah? Just who the fuck says I can't do that? The NAP doesn't.

Firepower. It all boils down to that. Violence. Who's guns are bigger and more numerous. Who has less scruples. Who is the bigger and richer asshole.

Does that sound like the world we want to make for ourselves?

And here?

Quote from: FirstAscent on June 21, 2012, 01:32:03 AM

Quote from: myrkul on June 21, 2012, 01:03:30 AM

If anyone actually agrees with FirstAscent and would like his points addressed, feel free to quote him and ask. Otherwise, I'll just assume he's ranting into the aether.

You just don't get it, do you?

Let me spell it out for you. Nobody has to abide by any damn thing in your society.

Except they do. They have to unfortunately abide by the whims and fancies of whoever has the biggest guns and the most money.

True, true, but it seemed to me that the understanding of the implications of this didn't fully carry over to the other examples that are still discussed. And I thought an example that took smaller and more detailed steps wouldn't hurt

FirstAscent

hero member

Activity: 812

Merit: 1000

Quote from: Equilux on June 21, 2012, 07:05:41 AM

I'd like to introduce an example that has a bit more weight to it, which will show more clearly where there is a problem in milder examples.

Imagine someone who is just rich and powerfull, a warlord, wallstreet bigshot, ceo of a multinational, or gangleader. There are plenty of people like that now, and there will be in an AnCap, or under NAP. This guy has his own arbitraging companies, his own private army/policeforce and a chain of stores and hotels to bring in the money.

Now what would possebly stop him from claiming land, kicking people out of their houses and stores? Sure people would want to "sue" him, get him into arbitraging. Mister bigshot could just insist on only using his own firms, so what if the competing arbitrage firm would suggest a common ground? Mister bigshot could just refuse till the and of time while he just enforces his own "laws" and the people would be homeless and/or dieing in the street. Justice has become a commodity for sale, and the richer of more powerfull you become you can buy more "justice".

"The idea of "free contract" between the potentate and his starving subject is a sick joke"

Isn't that what I said here:

Quote from: FirstAscent on June 21, 2012, 12:36:11 AM

Quote from: finkleshnorts on June 20, 2012, 07:36:59 PM

If arbiters can't/don't back up their decisions with violence, then they are just a bunch of dickheads with neat opinions.

Exactly. So some arbiter says I owe someone else x. I don't agree. Ha! Better yet, I'll just hire the arbitration firm that I own - after all, they are private firms, no? Think of the benefits of doing so. The fee I pay them goes back into my pocket, and they'll render the decision I desire.

Wait though. Myrkul will say that I can't do that. Oh yeah? Just who the fuck says I can't do that? The NAP doesn't.

Firepower. It all boils down to that. Violence. Who's guns are bigger and more numerous. Who has less scruples. Who is the bigger and richer asshole.

Does that sound like the world we want to make for ourselves?

And here?

Quote from: FirstAscent on June 21, 2012, 01:32:03 AM

Quote from: myrkul on June 21, 2012, 01:03:30 AM

If anyone actually agrees with FirstAscent and would like his points addressed, feel free to quote him and ask. Otherwise, I'll just assume he's ranting into the aether.

You just don't get it, do you?

Let me spell it out for you. Nobody has to abide by any damn thing in your society.

Except they do. They have to unfortunately abide by the whims and fancies of whoever has the biggest guns and the most money.

Equilux

sr. member

Activity: 353

Merit: 251

I'd like to introduce an example that has a bit more weight to it, which will show more clearly where there is a problem in milder examples.

Imagine someone who is just rich and powerfull, a warlord, wallstreet bigshot, ceo of a multinational, or gangleader. There are plenty of people like that now, and there will be in an AnCap, or under NAP. This guy has his own arbitraging companies, his own private army/policeforce and a chain of stores and hotels to bring in the money.

Now what would possebly stop him from claiming land, kicking people out of their houses and stores? Sure people would want to "sue" him, get him into arbitraging. Mister bigshot could just insist on only using his own firms, so what if the competing arbitrage firm would suggest a common ground? Mister bigshot could just refuse till the and of time while he just enforces his own "laws" and the people would be homeless and/or dieing in the street. Justice has become a commodity for sale, and the richer of more powerfull you become you can buy more "justice".

"The idea of "free contract" between the potentate and his starving subject is a sick joke"

Hawker

legendary

Activity: 1218

Merit: 1001

Quote from: myrkul on June 21, 2012, 05:57:45 AM

Quote from: Hawker on June 21, 2012, 05:37:41 AM

Look at my sig - I only do business with rule breakers, cheats and scammers. Their money is as good as money from the Pope.

I have to admit, that was the last response I expected. But... You get your money up front, dont'cha?

Quote from: Hawker on June 21, 2012, 05:37:41 AM

I see where you are coming from. You seem a nice person and to assume that bad people don't prosper in a lawless environment like the Internet. But they do - they really do.

Sure, in the internet, where a fresh rep is just a few clicks away. In meatspace, having a bad reputation has slightly more weight to it.

Oddly no. I've extended a lot of credit in my time. Its always a risk, I do get ripped off, but the rewards are there too.

Back to the topic, in the inheritance situation, primogeniture is not a social evil. In your system, eldest son has a market incentive to take possession and refuse to arbitrate. All the local eldest sons will agree with him and the rest of the people will just get used to him.

Can't you see that is a terrible thing to encourage?

myrkul

hero member

Activity: 532

Merit: 500

FIAT LIBERTAS RVAT CAELVM

Quote from: Hawker on June 21, 2012, 05:37:41 AM

Look at my sig - I only do business with rule breakers, cheats and scammers. Their money is as good as money from the Pope.

I have to admit, that was the last response I expected. But... You get your money up front, dont'cha?

Quote from: Hawker on June 21, 2012, 05:37:41 AM

I see where you are coming from. You seem a nice person and to assume that bad people don't prosper in a lawless environment like the Internet. But they do - they really do.

Sure, in the internet, where a fresh rep is just a few clicks away. In meatspace, having a bad reputation has slightly more weight to it.

Hawker

legendary

Activity: 1218

Merit: 1001

Quote from: myrkul on June 21, 2012, 05:13:16 AM

Quote from: Hawker on June 21, 2012, 05:09:45 AM

What you are describing is a market incentive. It rewards people who take possession and refuse arbitration. I can't see how that is better than the existing system.

Let me put it into terms that might be more familiar.

Would you do business on here with someone who had earned the "Scammer" tag?

Look at my sig - I only do business with rule breakers, cheats and scammers. Their money is as good as money from the Pope.

I see where you are coming from. You seem a nice person and to assume that bad people don't prosper in a lawless environment like the Internet. But they do - they really do.

myrkul

hero member

Activity: 532

Merit: 500

FIAT LIBERTAS RVAT CAELVM

Quote from: Hawker on June 21, 2012, 05:09:45 AM

What you are describing is a market incentive. It rewards people who take possession and refuse arbitration. I can't see how that is better than the existing system.

Let me put it into terms that might be more familiar.

Would you do business on here with someone who had earned the "Scammer" tag?

Hawker

legendary

Activity: 1218

Merit: 1001

Quote from: myrkul on June 21, 2012, 05:00:10 AM

Quote from: Hawker on June 21, 2012, 04:41:10 AM

Um no. He is merely exercising his rights. Even people who disagree with him will accept that. He will have food from Tesco, petrol from BP, clothes from Armani, cars from Mercedes. The market does not judge people and say "Your cash is not good here." Of course security companies will want to protect him; he has the assets that are worth protecting.

It seems your position is that the guy who has taken possession is the winner. He has the land, money and the protection. The siblings have nothing.

How can that be an improvement on what we have now?

The market does indeed judge people and say "your money is no good here" Or rather, your credit. Why would Mercedes sell him a car, when no contract he signs would be worth the paper it was written on? Likewise the protection agency. Likewise the insurance agency. I'll admit, clothes, groceries and gas might be relatively easy to get, as long as he pays cash. Once his cash runs out, then what? Nobody's going to hire him. Nobody's going to work with him. He's screwed over family. What will he do to someone with no ties to him?

He has exercised his right to inheritance by primogeniture. Socially that has no downside - it was normal until a few decades ago in most of the common law world.

Credit decisions are taken by computers based on assets and credit score. He will have no problem getting credit.

People need jobs and he has assets. He will have no problem getting people to work for him in protection.

There is no downside for the eldest son. He has the land and his siblings just have to accept that in your system, they have no rights.

What you are describing is a market incentive. It rewards people who take possession and refuse arbitration. I can't see how that is better than the existing system.

myrkul

hero member

Activity: 532

Merit: 500

FIAT LIBERTAS RVAT CAELVM

Quote from: Hawker on June 21, 2012, 04:41:10 AM

Um no. He is merely exercising his rights. Even people who disagree with him will accept that. He will have food from Tesco, petrol from BP, clothes from Armani, cars from Mercedes. The market does not judge people and say "Your cash is not good here." Of course security companies will want to protect him; he has the assets that are worth protecting.

It seems your position is that the guy who has taken possession is the winner. He has the land, money and the protection. The siblings have nothing.

How can that be an improvement on what we have now?

The market does indeed judge people and say "your money is no good here" Or rather, your credit. Why would Mercedes sell him a car, when no contract he signs would be worth the paper it was written on? Likewise the protection agency. Likewise the insurance agency. I'll admit, clothes, groceries and gas might be relatively easy to get, as long as he pays cash. Once his cash runs out, then what? Nobody's going to hire him. Nobody's going to work with him. He's screwed over family. What will he do to someone with no ties to him?

Hawker

legendary

Activity: 1218

Merit: 1001

Topic: Criticisms? - page 8. (Read 11932 times)