Topic: Criticisms? - page 9. (Read 11909 times)

OK, so now we come to how law is enforced without force. I've said this before, elsewhere, but I'll say it again here.

So, the two siblings who just want a share of the property agree to go to arbitration to settle the dispute, but the a-hole son doesn't agree, he believes that as the first son, he is entitled to the whole thing. He hasn't harmed anyone, unless the other siblings had residence on the property and he won't allow them to stay, but we'll assume he moved in after the father's death and the other siblings likewise had other dwellings. But he still refuses arbitration to resolve the dispute. No harm means no justification in kicking him off by force, so that is off the table.

However, there is still an option available to the siblings. They can make it known to all and sundry that the offending son is refusing arbitration. Since arbitration is the means by which disputes are resolved, anyone who sees that knows that should they get into a dispute with him, it's is not likely that he will accept arbitration on that, either. That means that they are not likely to deal with him. He can't force others to do business with him, so if they decide not to, he's out of luck.

You might think (and maybe he does, too), "Oh, no big deal," but imagine: He can't get clothing, because the clothier knows that if there's a dispute, he won't go to arbitration. He can't get food, because the grocer knows that if there's a dispute, he won't go to arbitration. He can't get any of the services we take for granted in modern life, because the proprietors know that if there's a dispute, he won't go to arbitration. Most importantly, he can't get protection, because the protection companies know that if there's a dispute, he won't go to arbitration. He has, by his own actions, made himself literally an outlaw. He's on his own.

That's a pretty mighty incentive to go to arbitration, yeah?

Lets not play with words and focus on consequences.

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.

You are already agreed that the laws enforced by that court are based on that court being better able to enforce its judgements than the other defunct courts.  

So we are left with a set of laws based on enforcement power.

Calling the body that applies those laws "arbitration" makes no difference.  It comes down to applying violence.  In the example, either there is a remedy for the siblings based on their going to law or there are no real property rights at all.

So in your system, we end up with a set of laws based on fire-power or no private property rights.  It's not attractive is it?

Missing the point again. Who enforces it? Why would one abide by such an enforcement? Is it because the decision rendered is backed by big money and thugs in suits with guns who show up at your door and threaten to kidnap you and incarcerate you?

Is that it?

Your quoted definition is illogical if you insist there are no courts. If there are no courts, as you're saying right now, then the above definition does not apply.

Take a hike, and take your ideology with you.

Court court court court.... You're not listening to me.

Court is government law. Court is enforced by violence.

Arbitration is market law. Arbitration is enforced by the fact that you sign a contract agreeing to the decision before the proceedings start.

You seem to be fond of wikipedia quotes, so here's one that should enlighten you: "Arbitration, a form of alternative dispute resolution (ADR), is a legal technique for the resolution of disputes outside the courts"

People have a property dispute.  They have only 1 place to go to resolve it.  It won't be a mediation or arbitration.  One of them will win and the court will enforce that win. That is going to court.  If you want you can call it something else but the effect is the same; the loser faces violence if she does not comply with the adjudication.

In the scenario you describe, the laws that court enforces are arrived at by means of that court being the most efficient at enforcing its judgements.  That enforcement power comes from fire-power.  So you whole system is based on might making laws and legal rights.

How is that an improvement on democratically elected representatives making laws?

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.

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.

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?

Regulations are becoming increasingly necessary due to humanity's effect on the planet. An alternative to regulations, however, is taxation. As Herman Daly says, tax that which we want less of.

The shortage is not in people willing to do them, but in people able to do them because of regulations. Regulations raise barriers to entry, and reduce the number of people able to get into a field. Placing price caps on the service make it even worse. I'm not even going to get into the problems caused by government subsidies.

Will do!

As far as I know there has been a growing shortage in people willing to do those jobs in almost all western countries. Daycare and aged care are only taken care of privately in highly urban area's where there are lot's of relatively well to do people who have the means to take their bussiness elsewhere. In AnCap this problem would be maginified by leaving the people who have it the hardest with potentially the worst services. This would be a much worse outcome than having governments imposing standards and (pricing)regulations to those kind of services, and making them partially govenment-funded if needed.

I appreciate your input, but kindly make your own thread for this, it sounds like a great discussion, but it's not this discussion.

On the contrary, as I said, I don't worry about there being people willing to do those jobs. Even now, daycare is taken care of privately all the time, as is aged care.

I propose an online government that allows everyone to participate based on an infalible voting system (presumably a fork of Bitcoin, perhaps with built in incentives for good participation.). It would become the de-facto standard and every denizen would be born with the right to operate it once they can prove their age and citizenship.

There are hundreds of millions of folk in the country and each of their so called votes for representatives and presidents is so watered down as to appear almost meaningless. Politicians are practically unaccountable and the common folk are separated by so many degrees from the policies and bills that determine their life's as to be laughable.

The political systems of the world only end up serving to perpetuate the slavery whether by greed, negligence or business influence. In the end democracy has been shown to work however in it's current guise it appears to require too much trust in individuals who are too easily corrupted.

I say de facto standrad since, much like Bitcoin's rejection of central control and monetary policy, this project would simply side step all governments and allow the voice of the actual people to be heard.

All issues would be represented digitally and initially would simply compare the decisions of the people versus the those of their politicians.

It's likely governments would reject this system outright however with enough participation the people would see just how disjoint the decisions they make versus what their so called leaders are backing.

There are good reasons to delegate since there are always so many issues at hand however I believe it would be possible to design a system that could balance this deluge and allow normal citizens to make informed choices about real issues rather than voting for someone else who may or may not end up making the choice they wanted.

Open Source, why not Open Government? It only seems to follow given the importance of the decisions those people are making on our behalf.

The forefathers came here to escape the nonsense of royal rule and yet time has managed to bring it all back.

Indeed, but because of that both the elderly and the infants died much quicker and much more often. you think any extended family can provide the proper care for Alzheimers, Diabetes, Osteoporosis or Arthritis? I think we are now rightly holding ourselves to higher standards than we have for a large majority of human history.

And even if it aren't essential services like you say, just this step back in quality of life that would accompany the AnCap would as far as I'm concerned be enough to reject it outright. (Someone in this thread used the word "barbaric" to describe AnCap I believe that this, among other things, is why he chose to uses that particular word.) Add to that the other critisms I've outlined it becomes clear that the removal of govenment would create much more hardship and problems than it would solve.

I lol'ed.

Arbitration is binding because you agreed beforehand to accept their decision. You're contractually bound to do what they decide.

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

Daycare and caring for the elderly aren't vital services... these were done by the family for a large majority of human history. But I don't really worry about there being people around willing to take those jobs.