Topic: How to run an Anarchy (Read 17518 times)

Sometimes you can just say without actually doing. The mere threat of doing is often enough.

Well, I prefer to say and do, but to each their own.

+1.  Don't say.  Just do.  Others will be inspired and join you.  Agorism.

It will grow again, just as if you leave one cancer cell, eventually you will have a tumor again. That is why I prefer the Agorist method of getting people used to dealing without the state to the Minarchist.

Well, IDEALLY that is what would happen, but then that is just my perspective.

From my point of view, the idea is that libertarianism is presented in a modest form, people get used to the idea, and then take it to its logical conclusion and the state withers away. This has the benefit of getting people in the right mindset so to speak; if the apparatus of the state disappeared, there would be mass chaos for about a week and then governments would probably pop right back into existence again because people wouldn't be able to conceive of anything else.

Alternatively, it might stay that way for a very long time. I would be fine with that too. Or it might grow again, which is why a lot of ancaps refuse to bother working within the system.

Ok if we're all for brevity we could just say: 'Protect Contract'

Why "protect contract". Well that's easy. You can't have self government without control over your own life. If you have that right, then you have a right to property - to which you can make a title claim. Without such property claim, your life cannot be sustained. From those former 2 premises constitutes ones liberties, choices, decisions and or agency over what is one's own. Once you assume that, every interaction (if consensual) between men can be defined as contract. Even simple barter exchange represents a simple contract. Contract implies an absence of coersion and force, otherwise it would just be theft, rapine or expropriation. But that would be assuming a lot of things.

So 'PROTECT CONTRACT'. There you go. Was that short enough for ya?

'An Ye harm none, do as ye will.'

Although I can agree it's a well written document, I still say that Maybury's Two Laws represent the shortest body of law ever devised.

1)  Do all that you have agreed to do.

2)  Do not encroach upon another's person or property.

Granted, there is a lot of room for interpretation; but there is something to be said for a legal framework that can be printed onto a bumper sticker.

heh. 'Sorry it's so long'.

You condensed a concept as complex as a rational legal framework into a single page and managed to keep it relatively readable, and you apologize for the length.

My apologies for the jargon and length. It was as short as I could reasonbly make it without leaving loopholes and unanswered questions.

It is my personal belief that my "Law" document contains the entirety of the definition of Law. I wish I could have made it shorter. Any shorter, and you have might have to start assuming things. Not something scientists like to do as they tend to get called on it. Some parts of 6.x could be condensed, I suppose.

Of course, this document doesn't suggest one type of government over another, nor the application thereof, just the template for such things, as it were.

At the very least, there could be less confusion as to why one man justifies the application force against another and under what circumstances.

Unfortunately, when life isn't "fair" we jump on the legislative bandwagon without realizing what the consequences are.

I forgot to mention that 6.5 and 6.6 also reinforce what 6.1 implies. That being, intellectual property, or whatever you wish to call it, cannot force another man from his property without his consent. You cannot break the cardinal rule of "no theft, no injury", if the property cannot be exchanged with proper incentive sans coersion. To wit, you would commit an act of plunder thru legislative fiat. Simple Simon.

Lysnander Spooner said it eloquently,

"If they can offer him no inducements, sufficient to procure his free consent to part with it, they must leave him in the quiet enjoyment of what is his own."

Thought so. Good. tl/dr is 'Too long, Didn't read'.

I'll grant you it's jargony. But it defines its own jargon and doesn't over do things. Easier to read scienceese than legalese.

I'm curious what "tl/dr" means MoonShadow.
I am a physicist and engineer.

Here's the thing about IP. One must define what property is. If it is in physical things, and those things can be possessed, then they become property. For property to be property it has to have some degree of exclusivity (at least for a measurable amount of time). IP is real property while it resides in your head or hidden in a pattern on a piece of parchment. However, once you let the cat out of the bag, that pattern, knowledge, truth, or fact becomes public, then others can now retain a similitude of that knowledge. In fact it's now almost impossible to prevent the dissemination thereof.

To then claim that semblence or pattern now contained on another man's property, is to claim that property itself. IP has the problems associated with censorship and theft. We all emulate each other and nature. That's how we learn and change behaviourly. If I were the first to "invent" or "discover" that 1+1=2 or how to build a house, then I could reasonably coerce all of mankind. And thru my heirs and assigns effectively force the world to yield to me for the use of that knowledge forever.

It's bad enough that we fight over scarce things. But now were trying to intentionally create scarcity thru force and manipulation of other's property. Yikes!

As I said, I couldn't find any loopholes. 6.1 appears to outlaw Intellectual property. Did I read that right?

Have you read my post? I'd welcome all opinion and critiques. Bash away. Thanks for the neighborly invite

I'd be happy to have you as a neighbor. That's not something I say lightly.

In my #360 post/thread about what the law is, that's exactly how I wrote it. It is physics.

If the law does not coincide with the laws of physics (known to man thru observation and empirical evidence) followed by experimentation, then you merely have dogma, indoctrination, personal opinion, or religion.

To be clear here. I have no beef with anybody's religion or opinions etc. But the second you make it law, I'll take issue with it. Law is force legalized. We all should be very careful as to its application per chance we commit acts of plunder, enslavement or murder/injury (these being in direct opposition to protection of life, liberty, and property).

http://forum.bitcoin.org/index.php?topic=21217.msg341902#msg341902

Right??

lol. Imagine if a physicist wrote the constitution. I couldn't find any loopholes.

tl/dr

Is nobody going to respond, or am I getting to complicated here. Seems pretty obvious...


Men, Women, Agent(s), Person(s), and Life collectively or individually have synonymous equivalent meaning herein. De facto entrusted crucially dependent Life admits safe guardianship or conveyance thereto.
1.   All men are equal in Rights.
  1.1.   All men are intrinsically free, whose expression when manifest, admits autonomy.
  1.2.   Rights exist because man exists (consequent to Life).
  1.3.   Rights are inalienable and inherent, hence discovered not created.
  1.4.   Man commits autonomous choices apart from all other men.
2.   Rights are defined as the Liberty to control, secure and defend one’s Property and Life.
3.   Liberty consists in the freedom to do everything not in violation of other’s Rights.
4.   Rights Violations are unprovoked physical aggressions (UPAs) initiated by man against another, or Breaches of Contract (BOCs), resulting in an incontrovertible diminishment in one’s Rights.
  4.1.   UPAs are non-consenting acts which cause an Object (Property or Life) to undergo a transferred or transformed change to the Object’s original energy state or condition.
  4.2.   Energy transfer to/from an Object or energy transformation of the Object occurs by means of three ways, namely: thermodynamic work, heat transfer, or mass transfer.
  4.3.   Contracts are compulsory promissory agreements involving Property or Life (and specific performances or forbearances therewith) between mutually consenting men.
  4.4.   Misrepresentation of Contract obligations or BOCs resulting in misappropriation of Property or Life, or expenditures related thereto, is subject to Rights Violations.
5.   Property can be anything comprised of physical material matter (PMM).
6.   Property is the exclusive non-simultaneous possession or dominion of discrete PMM.
  6.1.   Unconstrained/non-delimited/uncontrolled PMM (UPMM), UPMM effusions or energy transmissions, are not Property; they are ownerless nonexclusive UPMM or Emissions thereof, until physically made to become otherwise.
  6.2.   A Property’s inertial reference frame, dimensions, Emissions/Emitters, usage and genesis thereof, define and constitute its Property Scope Ambit (PSA).
  6.3.   PSAs that initiate tangible material perturbations which intersect or preclude another’s preexisting or antecedent PSAs may be subject to Rights Violations.
 6.4.   Preexisting antecedent unconstrained Emitters cannot proscribe the receipt of similar, both in magnitude and direction, intersecting Emissions Flux.
  6.5.   Property cannot transform into something extracorporeal, extrinsic or compulsory due to the manipulation or interpretation of its PMM composition.
  6.6.   Absent Contract and Force, Property or Life of one man shall not control, compel or impede Property or Life of another.
  6.7.   Unintentional personal ingress vouchsafes unimpeded passage and egress.
7.   Force is the means –proportionate to the aggression– to obstruct, inhibit or extirpate the Rights of any man who interferes with or imminently threatens the Rights of other men.
  7.1.   Force can only be applied to resolve Rights Violations and is consequently just.
  7.2.   Man, or an Agent to man, must ascertain that a Rights Violation has occurred.
  7.3.   Man is severally liable and accountable for solely his Rights Violations a posteriori.
8.   Justice, viz., lawfulness effectuates disjunctive Rights between men.
9.   That which is neither just nor lawful is Violence and imperils the Rights of man.
10.   Violence causes inequality (unequal in Rights of man) and is forbidden.