There are countries like that. This is not fiction I just forget which ones. Hand removal was punishment for theft. Death penalty was used in China with great success - except they killed whole families, not just the individual. Or whole towns I don't recall.

Either way it's obvious how effective this is. Just that we aren't able to pass laws like that currently, because half the people who pass laws would lose their hands, predictably.


Hence the real solution is what I outlined earlier - changing from inside out. One individual at a time.

That's a bit baffling if your facts are correct. The law was in place and applied, yet the crime still occurred?
In general, do death penalty countries have much lower to zero crime rates ( in the crimes punishable by death)? That's probably a statistic we can look up somewhere.

Those statistics would mean absolutely nothing. One has to have a very good understanding of how things work. How people operate, how societies operate and so on.

So there is a demand for crime prevention, and you even have a particular interest in it yourself. I would hope so, otherwise we could conclude that state-provided police is just another wasteful government program.


How is that a goalpost shift?

I am not.

I would agree with that. Further, I would not claim that under AC, that violations of rights would be prevented. Rights violations will occur. I'm not a utopian.

That's only true if you're going to argue that either:

1) the status quo is the absolute pinnacle of rights preservation. Since we can show a lot of recent developments in rights violations in "modern democracies" that's going to be a tall order.

or

2) what I'm advocating is something that you have historical records of, AND will turn out exactly the same every time.

The fact that they "can" repossess it doesn't show legitimate ownership. Decree doesn't show legitimate ownership.

What would be different if I simply said that I own whatever land you're standing on, so you better do what I say?

Does might make right?

This isn't unique to the US. No government can legitimately own property. Here's something I posted in another thread a while back:

-----
I would *definitely* argue that governments have no legitimate basis to acquire land resell them. I believe I've addressed this in a previous thread. Basically, it comes down to the fact that the nature of government makes it impossible for a state to have a property right: states acquire land either by buying it (with stolen funds), by decree (which does not confer a legitimate property right) (also note escheat would fall into this category), by conquest (effectively robbery), by emminent domain (a subset of conquest), or by "working" the land (which would not confer property rights in the case of government, since they are working the land either with conscripted labor or they are purchasing labor with stolen funds).
-----

Well, maybe. AFAIK, most native americans didn't really have the concept of land ownership. And they certainly didn't own the entire continent. And you would have this problem basically everywhere in the entire world.

I've already said that these are not mutually exclusive. You can have all of the government you want on your own land. It's not the existence of government that is objectionable, it's the forcible inclusion of other people. The "monopoly land owner" is illegitimate because the ownership is not legitimate, and the monopoly is established by violence, not voluntary agreements.

Because it's not true.

A) there is a government there

B) the previous government basically crashed the entire country (the "I was drinking last night, I stopped drinking, now I have a hangover, obviously not drinking causes hangovers" argument)

C) there's really no widespread concept of "capitalism" or respect for property rights.

If somalia is a representative example of an AC society, then I will claim north korea as a representative example of a statist society.

That said, somalia actually has made a lot of improvements over many of its neighbors that have more invasive governments.

CIA factbook:

"Despite the seeming anarchy, Somalia's service sector has managed to survive and grow. Telecommunication firms provide wireless services in most major cities and offer the lowest international call rates on the continent. In the absence of a formal banking sector, money exchange services have sprouted throughout the country, handling between $500 million and $1 billion in remittances annually. Mogadishu's main market offers a variety of goods from food to the newest electronic gadgets. Hotels continue to operate, and militias provide security."

http://www.cia.gov/cia/publications/...s/so.html#Econ

See also the 2004 world bank report: http://rru.worldbank.org/Documents/2...va-harford.pdf

Somalia has lacked a recognized government since 1991 -- an unusually long time. In extremely difficult conditions the private sector has demonstrated its much-vaunted capability to make do. To cope with the absence of the rule of law, private enterprises have been using foreign jurisdictions or institutions to help with some tasks, operating within networks of trust to strengthen property rights, and simplifying transactions until they require neither. Somalia's private sector experience suggests that it may be easier than is commonly thought for basic systems of finance and some infrastructure services to function where government is extremely weak or absent."



A decidedly different situation.

Wow, nice nit quibble. Is it "less bad" if she hands over her wallet without a fight when you're bigger, faster, and stronger?

If it IS more cost effective, why isn't coke hiring thugs to break knee-caps? You didn't ask a different question, you just re-phrased the same question.

Underground markets have reduced competition. You can get away with violence when your customers don't have any alternatives. This is also the reason that government officials are able to extract bribes - they have a monopoly!

Ok, this is good. So the idea that underground markets are always more profitable isn't true, since this gang found the opportunity cost of passing on additional underground activity to be less than the potential in a "legitimate" market.

Well, the state (another force-backed monopoly) apparently didn't stop this from arising!

As for how easy this would be without a state monopoly, well, first consider that organized crime wouldn't have contraband markets from which to build their power base. Second, consider that without a monopoly police force, competition would likely provide more effective security resource allocation (both through the removal of the monopoly and through the end of things like the war on drugs).

Yes! And without government creating black markets, drugs would be a similarly low-margin market.

Oh, we're comparing one market player with an entire market (and at that, one where government intervention drives prices up)? Yeah, I'm definitely the one who needs to check what he's talking about. Where is the magic number between a $30 billion individual player and a $400 billion global market where things change?

Goalpost shift of the year.

I agree.

Which is more decent:

* violently coercing people

or

* people working together via voluntary agreements

?

I totally agree! Replacing Bush with Gore or Obama or whatever bozo you can come up with isn't going to change anything.

Strawman of the month.

Yawn. If you don't think this is an interesting conversation, why bother participating in it?

I think he has stated his position, it's just not the kind of position you're expecting. When you're searching for the "correct" universal answer to everyone's problems, someone who claims there is no one answer probably looks like he's dodging the question at first.

Are you familiar with prohibition in the US? Before prohibition, legitimate people sold booze. When it was in effect, gangsters sold booze, and legitimate companies did not. Afterwards, the scumbags got driven out of the market by more efficient legitimate players.

This thread is quickly getting out of hand. Both in terms of the array of topics discussed, and the way they are being presented.

pvn you made 7 posts in a row. It could've been done in 2-3 at the most. Just a suggestion for the future, to avoid clutter.


Now, what we all seem to have in common is the desire to make the world a better place. I am merely suggesting that every BIG decision, such as change of political system or change of law - is a reflection of MANY small decisions.

Societies are complex and beautiful in their own right. Trying to change things on the law level, to me, is legit in some instances - but should be the one of the LAST steps.

As an olympic runner spends YEARS training, to run those 100 meters to earn a gold medal, so does a change of law, require YEARS of change of heart/mind of the citizens. I'm just trying to point out that the common denominator here is human intention, which is based in human morality/decency.

So it is my core belief that one who can't make sense of his/her personal life, shouldn't look up to government/political/society changes to make it right. That's what I see a lot - people wanting to do good but spending their effort - learning about history of nations or laws and all that jazz. That's not what determines success, while it is part of it.

The core is always human intention and once we get that handled - people who sell heroine, who spend 600 billion on violence (USA military budget) will slowly go extinct, on their own. This will open up the doors AUTOMATICALLY, for all the great things humans are capable of. But it starts with yourself, with one individual.

I see this as a longterm process - not a matter of quick changes.

This might include changes in terms of law, policies or even the way we operate - maybe there wont' be a central government. That's what I mean when I say free market or not is not all that relevant. If we can't get along on a forum - what are the chances of us figuring out how to make the world a better place, right?

While I disagree with much of what this guy has to say, to give him his dues, he has Nielsio figured out pretty fast.

The burden of proof is on your side because you're not able to demonstrate clearly why an AC soceity did not arise at the start of human history. Voluntary interaction was clearly either not preferred or not +EV. Either way, you need to demonstrate why this has changed.

Wow. So depriving people of property, as long as they havent completed a graduate degree on the subject of property ownership, is OK. And they didn't own the entire continent because... why exactly? Where are the boundaries of what was owned? By what right do you claim any territory that was unowned?

It's certainly a representative of an undemocratic statist society. You can claim any country you like as a representative of a democratic statist society providing it has a functioning democracy.

Huh? I was making a sarcastic post that's on your side here and you're too ******ed to even realise it.

Ok now that I've bothered to actually read up on what AC is, LOL It does shine some fresh light on the way folks here think

AC assumes most people are long term thinkers. Most people are short term thinkers. End of AC.

I like what Chris has said on the topic thus far.

AC society is completely counter-intuitive to almost every human instinct. Hence it cannot work without forced security, as Chris has already pointed out. The forced security = government. So we come back to having a government - as does every system - because if you let people do their own thing - they'll quickly die due to lack of leadership/teamwork, or some new leader will emerge and once again be a government system... Inevitable in other words

I mean, why do sports have judges in them? Everyone knows what the rules are right? It's because humans are emotional, short term thinkers who are easily swayed - so there has to be someone at the top who can overlook everything with a stone-cold heart and make wise decisions

p.s. What's that book about kids being left on an island and violently murdering one another? The cover had a pig's head on a stick?

The burden of proof to show what exactly?

And again, you fall back into a variant of the death star objection. The fact that something did not occur doesn't mean that it was "not preferred" or is "not +EV". Do you think the citizens of alderan did not prefer an outcome where the death star blew up before it destroyed their planet? When you see a plane crash, do you think, "oh, well that plane landing safely must not have been +EV"?

Where did I say this was OK?

The people who were wronged here, and the people that wronged them, are long gone. If you think someone has a case for damages, that's great, I have no objection to them pursuing it. But basically every square inch of land on this earth has been forcibly taken at one point or another. So singling out the US is bogus, and *no* system of "fairly" resolving every single past conflict has been proposed, nor will one ever be. This is a pointless sidetrack that is not intended to do anything other than to bog down the debate in a tarpit.

Well, the boundaries of what is owned cannot possibly extend past the boundaries of what is claimed is owned. And if nobody was claiming ownership, then, well, you figure it out.

There quite clearly is some land that did not even exist at the time europeans first arrived. I'm currently, this very minute, on a piece of land that was quite literally underwater 500 years ago.

All I said was "a statist society". I guess if you want to put all these restrictions about "functioning" and particular types of statism, well, don't I get the same accomodation?

Well, you're getting further than most people. AC doesn't assume anything about anyone.

It won't function, though, unless people have long-term time preferences. Which is basically what you're getting at when you say "long-term thinkers". But statism doesn't work either if people in general have extremely short time preferences! Such time preferences are basically what leads one to prefer violence over voluntary cooperation. A fully voluntary society will need people to have longer time preferences. Luckily, as wealth, education, etc increase, time preferences mature too.

??

Totally unbacked assertion.

Of course people want third-party arbitrators. That's no shocking revelation.

Oh, fiction? And what do you think the time preferences of a bunch of kids, suddenly thrown into a situation they are unprepared for, with their survival threatened constantly would look like?

Do you notice that every "gotcha" example (dawn of time, somalia, lord of the flies) involves people on the edge of subsistence, in dire situations?

Well a third party arbitrator is what I would call government.

A third party arbitrator on hockey level is a referee.

AC suggests we can do without referees or a government. I'm not sure how that is possible.


It seems to boil down to what you think human nature implies. I think it implies inevitable leadership. Do you disagree with such an assertion?

I don't recall who I gave the example to earlier, but place 2 people in a room - is one going to be a leader, another follower? Or are they going to be perfectly 50/50? I don't think 50/50 is possible or even a smart way to go about it. So one has to be a leader, another a follower. Look at marriage - male has the final word. If he doesn't, the marriage is usually a big mess, because at the end of the day - there has to be trust in a leader to make decisions that not everyone agrees upon. Voluntary agreement - I just don't see how that is possible - humans are bound to disagree on most things and hence compromise. When a compromise is made, both parties are not equally satisfied, one is more satisfied than the other - so one is above the other. You see what I'm saying? Equality or freedom seems to be this illusion people are floating on but it just makes no sense.

There is a leader and then those below. The people below can make suggestions that the leader will listen to, and take into account, but in the end - the leader decides. This leader is a necessary part of any group of individuals, even among 2 people one is more assertive than another. So AC doesn't make sense to me because I see it quickly turning into 2 camps in a huge power struggle because whoever wins in the end is going to have it all - and this sort of thinking is going to appeal to most individuals - as opposed to "can't we all just get along?" No we can't, that's why we need referees, governments and leaders.

wow

Lord of the Flies by William Golding.

The problem is not with leadership or authority it is with involuntary relationships. I defer to my doctor when she says to take some pill that I have no idea what's in it pretty safe in the knowledge that it'll be good for me. I defer to my my mechanic when he says I need a new johnson rod. The point is I get to choose where to enter into these interaction or not. With government I have no choice. I have to defer to some scumbag regardless of whether or not I agree with a word they say.

Well, again, government isn't objectionable.

Imposed government is.

No. Opposition to a monopoly of referees does not equal an opposition to referees in the general case.

You and I want to play hockey. We both want a third party referee. If we can't agree on a referee, or which rules to use, we can simply not play the game.

Wow.

Compromise is a voluntary agreement.

How do you determine which one is more satisfied?

So the fact that someone might be "more satisfied" with some transaction means we need imposed overlords?


So, you can't imagine anything other than XYZ occurring, therefore imposing an overlord upon me is justified?

Where did I say imposing an overlord is justified?

You keep responding to one liners and then jumping to ridiculous conclusions. It reminds me of Nelsio on some level. Perhaps it's just lack of forum etiquette or something, but given 14,000 posts, I was expecting something else.

You gotta respond to the whole message - not separate sentences. If you're going to take separate sentences and ignore the whole - you're as worthless as a man using quotes from the Bible to support his biased his opinion. You'll find what you look for and miss what you don't already know. So you gotta expect to be able to learn something new - not jump to your pre-conceived notions.

You don't get what I'm saying because you're too busy dividing my responses into sentences to disagree with. You gotta first seek to understand, then be understood. In laymen terms - it's called taking your head out of your ass

Read what I'm saying instead of quoting one liners and responding with worthless "Wow." What is that supposed to achieve, other than my already growing concern that you are not out to discuss anything in a mature fashion, but rather troll around like Nielsio.

So if you wanna redeem yourself and post something of value, feel free. Otherwise our little dialogue is coming to an end

Well, what then is your solution to the "problem" of one person possibly being more satisfied than another with a given transaction?

Personally, I don't see this as a problem, not to mention that I don't see how you can actually objectively determine which one is more satisfied than the other.

This is a bunch of tripe. If you think I've missed your point, rephrase it. I'm not taking anything you've written out of context instead of accusing me of trolling because you don't like the way I format my posts.

Wat? Of course I'm talking about a situation where force was applied. That's the whole point of my line of questioning, to find out what happens when powerful people apply force in an AC society.

We're not discussing accidents here. When I see white collar criminals on TV, I assume that they must have thought that their crimes would be +EV.

OK, fine. In that case, what's your objection to the government having control over all the land in the United States? It doesn't matter how they acquired that control, right? Wouldn't want the debate to get bogged down.

You would if there were any examples of functioning AC societies, but there aren't, which is really the whole point.

Any number of things might happen. There's not just "one true AC society."

But if we're talking about a society where people cared enough about individual freedom to get rid of large-scale, involuntary government, it's probably pretty safe to assume they aren't just going to roll over for the next tinpot dictator wannabe who rolls through town.

Of course, for any given population, there's SOME level of force that will be sufficient to destroy, overwhelm, or conquer. But that's true of any state as well.

BTW, back at the beginning of time, why didn't western-style democracy emerge right away? Why can't you take that observation and draw the same conclusion you're trying to draw based on the observation that "AC" didn't emerge right away?

Well thinking it doesn't make it true, don't you agree? I saw a guy walk away from a roulette table busto. I guess he thought his martingale system was +EV.

As I lined out earlier, it's IMPOSSIBLE for such a government to have legitimate ownership of property. The means by which the government obtains property is INHERENTLY illegitimate.

For individuals engaging in voluntary trade, it IS possible, even if particular instances involve ill-gotten gains. The wronged parties still have legitimate damages claims against the parties who wronged them, but if these are not pursued then at some point the claims become effectively abandoned.

Obviously we can't know with 100% certainty that a particular person is THE legitimate owner of a piece of property, and we can't know with 100% certainty when ancient claims become abandoned (it's sort of a property uncertainty principle, but observation doesn't decrease the accuracy). But hey, it's admittedly non-utopian.

And again, states suffer from (and exacerbate!) this same problem, so this isn't really a strike against voluntary agreement.



Your "whole point" is a fact that isn't in dispute?