Topic: Libertarians/ACists who support a rollback of MtGox transactions (Read 2447 times)

MtGox gets paid to provide a market for honest traders, not a market for stolen goods. At least that's what I pay for.

Actually, I'm in favor of the rollback, and have been from the start.

If my car got stolen, and you could press rewind to put it back on the curb, then give me my keys back, I'd be ecstatic. I might not even mind that you had left it there in the first place. After all, I got my car back, didn't I?

Notice that the promise doesn't say they won't reverse fraudulent transactions.

Now that the main site is back, here's your promise:

Well put.

I bought three 22" computer monitors from a company. I then bought a triple monitor stand from another company. After a while, it got to be a little unwieldy. The three monitors were taking up too much space. I sold that stand and purchased a double monitor stand as well as an articulating monitor mount from two other companies. Now I have two of the monitors in one room and the third hanging on a wall in another room. Why am I telling you this? Because as I'm doing all this swapping around, I found it slightly amazing that all these different companies producing different stands worked on the same monitors. They were all using the same standard by VESA which isn't a government association. There's no law saying "all you companies have to make compatible parts". Yet somehow, all these companies are cooperating so that I can have all this awesome interchangeable technology. My point is, the free market can settle on standards without being coerced to do so if it's in their best interest and if consumers demand it. All of these companies are doing more business because their mounts will work on virtually any flat display. The same thing can work with roads if the market demands it.

In this instance, it would be in the road companys' best interest to a) standardize on most things, such as allowable speed, etc, and b) Clearly post any variance from those standards. It would also behoove them to limit the things they consider 'violations'.

The reason for this is simple: If traveling is a chore, nobody travels. If nobody travels, Nobody's using their service. If nobody's using their service... they go broke.

If you have a constitution that lays down basic rules that all states must follow and let them determine everything else, you don't have a monopoly, you have 50 different justice providers to choose from.  Funding for the government can be done without taxes.

I appreciate and agree to a certain extent with what Murphy has to say.  That being said, I still maintain that it is a utopia.  I do not feel his explanation of what to do with those who do not have "insurance" and disregard "contracts" is adequate however.  At least in the US, you would be throwing a large portion of the population under the bus, those who live in remote or rural areas.

I like his ideas, but they aren't practical.  How is anyone supposed to keep track of who is using what legal company and what definitions that company is using?  Traveling 100 miles would be a chore, you'd have to spend weeks figuring out what you could and couldn't do because you'd be subjecting yourself to thousands of different contracts just by driving through places.  How would anyone know their rights, or what they are obligated to do or not do?  You'd arrive at your destination with a bunch of "private" detectives, each with a "right" to bring you in.

I suppose what I'm trying to get at is that what Murphy describes is how a government should be (and could be) run.

No you can't. More on that below...


Not at all. By definition, a government (state):

• Has a monopoly on the ultimate dispute resolution (Justice monopoly)
• Although not imperative, almost always finance itself through theft (taxes)

There is no competition or voluntary contracts regarding governments. That's a huge difference between them and what I describe in the paragraphs you quoted.


If you have a legitimate interest (I guess you might have some, otherwise you would not have read the auto-translated text of mine ), consider reading Chaos Theory by Robert Murphy. It's a short, easy to read book.

Quickly answering this, it would be just very unlikely for anyone not subject to any sort of anti-murder law (or "not insured", in Robert Murphy's terms) to even be anywhere near any civilized place in a free society. And in the event that really happens, and this someone commits murder and is caught, he would probably have to willingly submit himself to some court, otherwise he'd be much more screwed if he happens to be ostracized. Remember, he would lose all legal protection in such situation. Just link the dots to realize what that could mean.


From where you are today, if you are not happy with your government, what can you do? Can you cancel your contract and subscribe yourself to a different justice provider, with different rules? Or create your own justice provider, with your own set of rules?

Government, by definition, is a monopoly, which depend on coercion to exist. The "foolishness" you criticize is a free market of law and justice. They are completely different things.

I won't answer the rest of the post because it's basically the same thing, you're confusing free markets with monopolies.

You can have a government and a free society.  Just because a government punishes murderers doesn't mean society is any less free, unless you believe murder to be a freedom for society to enjoy.


"For a formal contract has credibility, ie, to be more than just a piece of paper or bits on a computer, it is necessary that at least one legal institution recognizes that contract. This institution - that these institutions - may be responsible for resolving any disputes between the signatories in their contracts, enforcing their own laws. From an ethical point of view, they also could use coercion to enforce the contract. Who initiates a criminal action is one that violates a legal agreement, and not one that guarantees this respect using the minimum force necessary to do so.

We could have justice institutions for the sole purpose of establishing laws to its signatories, without necessarily agreements to arbitrate between them. Individuals or institutions could require those wishing to interact with them regarding a series of rules and laws. To this end, they would have to voluntarily submit to an institution accepted as a supporter of these laws in particular. This will certainly vary substantially, ranging from compliance with requirements of highly restrictive laws (religious radicals, for example) to most everyday requirements, such as an employer requires its employees to submit to certain minimum laws which he considers essential for the exercise the service that he hires. In the absence of a legislative monopoly, people would demand guarantees for virtually everything that they would do much more than they do today. "

So basically a government that people willfully support.

"But for the sake of argument, let's imagine what would happen in the advent of a crime committed by someone not submissive to any legal set. The victim of the alleged criminal could summon him to trial. Ideally, the victim and defendant agree upon who will be the arbiter of the dispute, and presto, we have a contract again in play. But if no agreement is reached? In this case, as it was in medieval examples, the accuser would have the opportunity to require the labeling of the criminal as "out-of-law."

The details of how such a system of ostracism would work - as, for example, how many different propositions of the accused judges could refuse to be branded as out-of-law, among other more specific criteria - can not and need not be provided. They could even be multiple systems of ostracism, with different criteria. Someone labeled by a very strict system, the kind that finds it very easily someone as out-of-law, would have fewer difficulties to continue living in society than someone labeled by a more permissive system, which gives many chances to a criminal."

So how do we keep murderers from murdering?  OSTRACIZE THEM, YOU'LL HURT THEIR FEELINGS AND THEY WON'T BE ABLE TO LIVE 'CAUSE PEOPLE WON'T SELL THEM SHIT.  OK, so if you've got all these murderers wandering around the countryside, what's to stop them from, you know, murdering for what they need to survive?

Fucking foolishness, it's just government by another name.


Don't be childish, you're advocating for exactly what I said, a body that people willingly submit to to ensure their rights are protected.  Call it what you will, it serves the function of a government.


Stealing people?  What?

You can make them drive safely, if you enforce fines or penalties in the event that they don't, which requires an outside entity, OTHERWISE KNOWN AS A GOVERNMENT.  Once again, call it what you will.

Anarchism (as in "no government") = free society, you should know. Like, if you're forced to work for others, you're not really free...
I just avoid the word anarchism since it has been somehow hijacked by confused communists, and in many cultures it means "chaos".


You don't need any sort of mafia to have laws and justice: http://translate.google.com/translate?js=n&prev=_t&hl=fr&ie=UTF-8&layout=2&eotf=1&sl=pt&tl=en&u=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.mises.org.br%2FArticle.aspx%3Fid%3D605


That's a logical contradiction.


Sure! Only by stealing people and forcing them to abide to our decisions we can make them drive safely! Property rights and contracts are useless on that matter... how couldn't I see such a thing!?
Seriously, man? That's all you've got?

Nice straw man, I never said anything about a free society.  I said that anarchism is a utopia, and it is.  As long as you have idiots, you'll need laws, and a justice system to enforce them.  A government that protects the rights of its people by enforcing laws that punish those who violate the NAP, either foreign or domestic, will be needed unless you live in a closed system full of really great people.  Such governments would inevitably spring up under an anarchist society anyways as people found that letting people go 85 mph through residential areas isn't conducive to a safe neighborhood.  Unless anarchism was enforced, at which point you would be a massive contradiction.

I find it extremely difficult to believe that if MtGox simply fixed the security issue but didn't reverse any transactions would just shrug and go, "Oh well, I guess it's their choice." Also, MtGox is responsible for their own negligence, regardless of their TOS. And by that I of course mean that they are responsible both to people who lost money due to the hack and people who they allowed to place bids which they are now not going to honor due to their own incompetence.

Couldn't have said it better. Especially not this late at night.

You know what is even much less likely to happen than a free society? A world without intentional murders. I just can't imagine that happening... can you?
And, just wondering, knowing that intentional murders will probably always happen, do you by conclusion support a minimum number of murders so everything keeps working fine, as we know it?

Anarchism is the libertarian equivalent of the socialist's utopia.  Both are equally likely to happen.

Right so, since MT is going to revert all the fraudulent trades of stolen Bitcoins, because he owns the site they were made on and he thus has the ability to do so, that is somehow against the precepts of both anarcho-capitalism, which basically says that possession=ownership, and also libertarianism, which opposes theft through fraud or violence?

Once again, great thread, guys.  Top notch logic, here.

Oh, untwist your panties. Ancap is just libertarianism taken to its logical conclusion.

Nice trollish attempt to conflate libertarianism with anarcho-capitalism with this thread.  Bravo.

You know.... I think you may have a point. I don't recall a specific promise of security.

There is, however, an implied promise of security when you ask people to give you their money.