Topic: Defending the NAP: Resource Scarcity and Environmental Issues - page 2. (Read 2256 times)

Quote from: Hawker on July 08, 2012, 05:57:55 AM

I have. All disputes are resolved by arbitration with a set of standards called "market law" that is well published but it is not binding. There is no authority imposing any rules - its all down to what parties work out between themselves and what arbitrators impose after disputes.

Hmm. While I disagree with the philosophical basis for this, I find no fault in the logic. However, since you did stipulate that "everything is owned", I assume that those published standards do include respect for the property rights of one another?

Every arbitration decision that is public has been gathered together and made available on a website. OF course people always to to the website before they go to arbitration as that saves them the cost of an arbitrator.

Sheesh, does no-one want to actually pursue the topic?

some form of governement webside, yes? are you sure its a anarchy you are talking about?

(warning: trolling might be included in the post)

alatus

member

Activity: 73

Merit: 10

Question: In this form of arbitration can there be "class action" type decisions?

Can anykind of group be represented in a process?

If yes, then it is theorethically possible to form such group as: Beneficiaries of Amazon Forests, and go forth from this...

For me, this question boils down to the problem of commons in general, and how commons can be handled in arbitration in particular.
From a rational point of view it is the best strategy for even an individual in the tragedy of commons situation to think twice about starting a cascade which kills his own cettle also. (Thus making long trm profitability impossible for the sake of short term realized profit...)

Just thinkin (yet not too deeply)...

myrkul

hero member

Activity: 532

Merit: 500

FIAT LIBERTAS RVAT CAELVM

Quote from: myrkul on July 08, 2012, 05:47:11 AM

Quote from: myrkul on July 08, 2012, 05:47:11 AM

I have. All disputes are resolved by arbitration with a set of standards called "market law" that is well published but it is not binding. There is no authority imposing any rules - its all down to what parties work out between themselves and what arbitrators impose after disputes.

Hmm. While I disagree with the philosophical basis for this, I find no fault in the logic. However, since you did stipulate that "everything is owned", I assume that those published standards do include respect for the property rights of one another?

Every arbitration decision that is public has been gathered together and made available on a website. OF course people always to to the website before they go to arbitration as that saves them the cost of an arbitrator.

Sheesh, does no-one want to actually pursue the topic?

That was a yes or no question, and that was not a yes or no answer.

Hawker

legendary

Activity: 1218

Merit: 1001

I have. All disputes are resolved by arbitration with a set of standards called "market law" that is well published but it is not binding. There is no authority imposing any rules - its all down to what parties work out between themselves and what arbitrators impose after disputes.

Hmm. While I disagree with the philosophical basis for this, I find no fault in the logic. However, since you did stipulate that "everything is owned", I assume that those published standards do include respect for the property rights of one another?

Every arbitration decision that is public has been gathered together and made available on a website. OF course people always to to the website before they go to arbitration as that saves them the cost of an arbitrator.

Sheesh, does no-one want to actually pursue the topic?

myrkul

hero member

Activity: 532

Merit: 500

FIAT LIBERTAS RVAT CAELVM

Quote from: myrkul on July 08, 2012, 05:39:21 AM

I have. All disputes are resolved by arbitration with a set of standards called "market law" that is well published but it is not binding. There is no authority imposing any rules - its all down to what parties work out between themselves and what arbitrators impose after disputes.

Hmm. While I disagree with the philosophical basis for this, I find no fault in the logic. However, since you did stipulate that "everything is owned", I assume that those published standards do include respect for the property rights of one another?

Hawker

legendary

Activity: 1218

Merit: 1001

Quote from: Hawker on July 08, 2012, 05:38:21 AM

Quote from: myrkul on July 08, 2012, 05:14:21 AM

Quote from: Hawker on July 08, 2012, 05:38:21 AM

I take exception to the "no fixed rights", but the other stipulations are fine. Perhaps change it to "property rights are respected"

Its an anarchy. By definition, rights are respected.

Very well, then kindly change the OP to reflect that. "no fixed rights" makes it sound otherwise.

No. Its an anarchy. There is no power imposing rights. So by definition there can be no fixed rights.

Make up your bloody mind.

I have. All disputes are resolved by arbitration with a set of standards called "market law" that is well published but it is not binding. There is no authority imposing any rules - its all down to what parties work out between themselves and what arbitrators impose after disputes.

myrkul

hero member

Activity: 532

Merit: 500

FIAT LIBERTAS RVAT CAELVM

Quote from: myrkul on July 08, 2012, 05:14:21 AM

Quote from: myrkul on July 08, 2012, 05:14:21 AM

I take exception to the "no fixed rights", but the other stipulations are fine. Perhaps change it to "property rights are respected"

Its an anarchy. By definition, rights are respected.

Very well, then kindly change the OP to reflect that. "no fixed rights" makes it sound otherwise.

No. Its an anarchy. There is no power imposing rights. So by definition there can be no fixed rights.

Make up your bloody mind.

Hawker

legendary

Activity: 1218

Merit: 1001

Quote from: kokjo on July 08, 2012, 05:20:51 AM

I take exception to the "no fixed rights", but the other stipulations are fine. Perhaps change it to "property rights are respected"

Its an anarchy. By definition, rights are respected.

Very well, then kindly change the OP to reflect that. "no fixed rights" makes it sound otherwise.

No. Its an anarchy. There is no power imposing rights. So by definition there can be no fixed rights.

Hawker

legendary

Activity: 1218

Merit: 1001

...snip... fuck you!

That's verbal pollution. Is that really the only Resource Scarcity and Environmental Issue you can think of?

kokjo

legendary

Activity: 1050

Merit: 1000

You are WRONG!

Quote from: Hawker on July 08, 2012, 04:59:48 AM

Your freedom ends when it costs me money.

how about indirectly costing you money? am I not allowed to make a competative business, and force the prices down, becuase it costs you money? fuck you!

myrkul

hero member

Activity: 532

Merit: 500

FIAT LIBERTAS RVAT CAELVM

I take exception to the "no fixed rights", but the other stipulations are fine. Perhaps change it to "property rights are respected"

Its an anarchy. By definition, rights are respected.

Very well, then kindly change the OP to reflect that. "no fixed rights" makes it sound otherwise.

Hawker

legendary

Activity: 1218

Merit: 1001