Don't like the snow? You can make a bookmark with the following text instead of a url: javascript:snowStorm.toggleSnow(). Clicking it will toggle the snow on and off.
Our new Indie Games subforum is now open for business in G&T. Go and check it out, you might land a code for a free game. If you're developing an indie game and want to post about it, follow these directions. If you don't, he'll break your legs! Hahaha! Seriously though.
Our rules have been updated and given their own forum. Go and look at them! They are nice, and there may be new ones that you didn't know about! Hooray for rules! Hooray for The System! Hooray for Conforming!

Libertarianism, Anarchism, and Society with Voluntary Self Governance

145791040

Posts

  • MalkorMalkor Registered User regular
    edited April 2012
    Neaden wrote: »
    Nova_C wrote: »
    Just because the vast majority of the earth's surface is claimed by various nations does not invalidate taxation.

    International waters for a ...... submerged city, which could be called Rapture for example, is totally an option. :P
    Spoiler:

    http://news.yahoo.com/blogs/lookout/silicon-valley-billionaire-funding-creation-artificial-libertarian-islands-140840896.html
    Pay Pal founder and early Facebook investor Peter Thiel has given $1.25 million to an initiative to create floating libertarian countries in international waters, according to a profile of the billionaire in Details magazine.
    Nova_C wrote: »
    Nova_C wrote: »
    Just because the vast majority of the earth's surface is claimed by various nations does not invalidate taxation.

    International waters for a ...... submerged city, which could be called Rapture for example, is totally an option. :P
    Spoiler:

    http://news.yahoo.com/blogs/lookout/silicon-valley-billionaire-funding-creation-artificial-libertarian-islands-140840896.html
    Pay Pal founder and early Facebook investor Peter Thiel has given $1.25 million to an initiative to create floating libertarian countries in international waters, according to a profile of the billionaire in Details magazine.

    A man chooses, a slave obeys!
    So rarely in our modern society can you look at someone and say to yourself "That man is going to get murdered by pirates for his gold."

    What unifies Somalia won't be a new government, it will be the armada they build to wreck face.

    Malkor on
    14271f3c-c765-4e74-92b1-49d7612675f2.jpg
  • rayofashrayofash Registered User regular
    Neaden wrote: »
    I'm watching this youtube video and so far it is just a really boring explanation of what the government is presented in a way that I can tell that I am supposed to object to but am completely ok with. Like yeah, taxation is essentially a legal form of theft, but I'm cool with that.

    You can see why libertarians always do this. It is hard to argue against youtube videos without transcribing the bloody things. Thus the libertarian can leave for lunch, content that no-one will be able to address the video adequately, revealing that we are all no doubt foundering in response to the video's persuasive arguments.
    Dude, I was hungry. I'm back now and rewatching the videos.

  • NeadenNeaden Registered User regular
    rayofash wrote: »
    Neaden wrote: »
    I'm watching this youtube video and so far it is just a really boring explanation of what the government is presented in a way that I can tell that I am supposed to object to but am completely ok with. Like yeah, taxation is essentially a legal form of theft, but I'm cool with that.

    You can see why libertarians always do this. It is hard to argue against youtube videos without transcribing the bloody things. Thus the libertarian can leave for lunch, content that no-one will be able to address the video adequately, revealing that we are all no doubt foundering in response to the video's persuasive arguments.
    Dude, I was hungry. I'm back now and rewatching the videos.
    I gave it a shot and watched the first one. It is pretty much a boring explanation of how government works followed by him talking about having free market judges. He does not address how this would work with criminal disputes, how we would prevent things like bribery or a company just having one of these judges on retainer who knows which side his bread is buttered on, what would happen if two people don't agree on an arbitrator, or what happens if the person simply rejects the decision. Like in the island video, the one guy agrees to pay the dude 2 apples just because otherwise they would be back where they started. But back where they started was a better situation for him.

  • PantsBPantsB Registered User regular
    edited April 2012
    A huge part of the above fallacies is the idea that property rights are inherent.

    We only inherently own two things: Our own bodies and our labor.

    As all men are equal, everyone has an equal claim to everything else. A tree, an apple, a fish, a rock each belong to each individual equally in a state of nature. If there are two people on this "island" and you eat an apple, you have stolen from me the half of the apple that is mine. If you eat half an apple, you have taken from me half of the half of an apple that is mine.

    As its not possible to use these resources in every way that its possible (a parcel of land can't be used to hunt, build a house and plant a field in, a Cow used for meat no longer produces milk), societies formed and agreed to rules to establish a just system of property rights and to protect the natural rights of individuals that form these societies.

    So while it gets more complicated than that (the establishment of just government also involves the protection of those rights that are inherent, including the ownership of self and labor for instance), without government all exclusive ownership is theft from the people in general. Exclusive property rights require either a system by which exclusive ownership of resources beyond self and one's own labor is awarded, or a unanimous agreement of all people. As the latter is neither tenable (one asshole ruins it for everyone) or at all efficient, governments exist.

    The computer you're working on now requires thousands of natural resources (from its materials to the materials needed to construct the machinery that built it, to the materials needed to create the electrity that runs it or built it to the resources to ship it to the resources needed to enable its design...).

    No one owned them inherently. They became more valuable through the application of labor, yes. But their exclusive use requires a government to establish a system by which they were apportioned. If taxation is theft, you are currently guilty of the same because you can only justly own that computer through government sanction.

    PantsB on
    11793-1.png
    Spoiler:
  • ArbitraryDescriptorArbitraryDescriptor Registered User regular
    edited April 2012
    Rayofash, as far as you have described it, you do not appear to think there are any downsides to the society you describe. Do you feel that there would be any aspects of this society that would be less desirable than their counterparts in your present society?

    If so, I would be curious to know what sort of sacrifices you see this society requiring of you / what you would willingly give up.

    ArbitraryDescriptor on
    Automata-Sg.png
  • NeadenNeaden Registered User regular
    PantsB wrote: »
    A huge part of the above fallacies is the idea that property rights are inherent.

    We only inherently own two things: Our own bodies and our labor.

    As all men are equal, everyone has an equal claim to everything else. A tree, an apple, a fish, a rock each belong to each individual equally in a state of nature. If there are two people on this "island" and you eat an apple, you have stolen from me the half of the apple that is mine. If you eat half an apple, you have taken from me half of the half of an apple that is mine.

    As its not possible to use these resources in every way that its possible (a parcel of land can't be used to hunt, build a house and plant a field in, a Cow used for meat no longer produces milk), societies formed and agreed to rules to establish a just system of property rights and to protect the natural rights of individuals that form these societies.

    So while it gets more complicated than that, without government all exclusive ownership is theft from the people in general. Exclusive property rights require either a system by which exclusive ownership of resources beyond self and one's own labor is awarded, or a unanimous agreement of all people. As the latter is neither tenable (one asshole ruins it for everyone) or at all efficient, governments exist.

    The computer you're working on now requires thousands of natural resources (from its materials to the materials needed to construct the machinery that built it, to the materials needed to create the electrity that runs it or built it to the resources to ship it to the resources needed to enable its design...).

    No one owned them inherently. They became more valuable through the application of labor, yes. But their exclusive use requires a government to establish a system by which they were apportioned. If taxation is theft, you are currently guilty of the same because you can only justly own that computer through government sanction.
    This is why I liked when Glenn Beck was popular and talking about Thomas Paine, given that Thomas Paine thought that property right was theft from everyone else and that as such it should be taxed specially and then the money from that given equally to the rest of society.

  • CelestialBadgerCelestialBadger Registered User regular
    Malkor wrote: »
    What unifies Somalia won't be a new government, it will be the armada they build to wreck face.

    Where do you think governments come from?

  • rayofashrayofash Registered User regular
    Neaden wrote: »
    rayofash wrote: »
    Neaden wrote: »
    I'm watching this youtube video and so far it is just a really boring explanation of what the government is presented in a way that I can tell that I am supposed to object to but am completely ok with. Like yeah, taxation is essentially a legal form of theft, but I'm cool with that.

    You can see why libertarians always do this. It is hard to argue against youtube videos without transcribing the bloody things. Thus the libertarian can leave for lunch, content that no-one will be able to address the video adequately, revealing that we are all no doubt foundering in response to the video's persuasive arguments.
    Dude, I was hungry. I'm back now and rewatching the videos.
    I gave it a shot and watched the first one. It is pretty much a boring explanation of how government works followed by him talking about having free market judges. He does not address how this would work with criminal disputes, how we would prevent things like bribery or a company just having one of these judges on retainer who knows which side his bread is buttered on, what would happen if two people don't agree on an arbitrator, or what happens if the person simply rejects the decision. Like in the island video, the one guy agrees to pay the dude 2 apples just because otherwise they would be back where they started. But back where they started was a better situation for him.

    The second and third are criminal disputes. The video are also from a capitalist perspective.



    >how we would prevent things like bribery or a company just having one of these judges on retainer who knows which side his bread is buttered on

    The arbiter is agreed on before hand.

    >what would happen if two people don't agree on an arbitrator

    Assuming they have insurance agencies, one possible solution is the insurance agencies will pick one. Otherwise they'll have to settle it without one or find some way to agree on an arbitrator.

    >or what happens if the person simply rejects the decision

    They can agree on a different court, or a voluntary police force will enforce the courts decision.

    >the one guy agrees to pay the dude 2 apples just because otherwise they would be back where they started. But back where they started was a better situation for him.

    Yea I didn't like the decision either but I can see how they came up with it. They wasted a lot of time with that dispute and the one guy could have gotten a lot more apples with that time.

  • rayofashrayofash Registered User regular
    PantsB wrote: »
    A huge part of the above fallacies is the idea that property rights are inherent.

    We only inherently own two things: Our own bodies and our labor.

    No one owned them inherently.

    I didn't make my leg but I claim ownership over it.

  • FeralFeral Who needs a medical license when you've got style? Registered User regular
    rayofash wrote: »
    a voluntary police force will enforce the courts decision.

    "non-coercively"



    every person who doesn't like an acquired taste always seems to think everyone who likes it is faking it. it should be an official fallacy.
    the "no true scotch, man" fallacy.
  • mcdermottmcdermott Registered User regular
    rayofash wrote: »
    PantsB wrote: »
    A huge part of the above fallacies is the idea that property rights are inherent.

    We only inherently own two things: Our own bodies and our labor.

    No one owned them inherently.

    I didn't make my leg but I claim ownership over it.

    Wouldn't your leg fall under "our own bodies?"

  • NeadenNeaden Registered User regular
    edited April 2012
    Are you aware that right now binding arbitration is used frequently and that many people who work for companies have to sign papers saying they agree to binding arbitration to work there in the event of a dispute? And that the binding arbitration firm is paid by the company and knows that if they make too many decisions against it they might be replaced? How would your system work better? Why would I not prefer that someone who does not have an economic interest in the decisions and is agreed upon as a good judge by the whole community arbitrates my case instead? Which is pretty much the status quo.
    Edit: Also it has the huge problem of not having precedence as a factor which court cases do, so there would be no real way of preparing before hand or having a basis for expecting a decision. It would also make any sort of advocate system incredibly difficult.
    Lets think of an example. Lets say I eat at a restaurant, but I get sick from the food! So I go up to them and say that I am mad and want them to pay me for my medical bills and compensation. The restaurant says they'll pay for half and we can't resolve the situation. I say that I want Frank to arbitrate for it since I've used him before and I like him. They want Billy to arbitrate for them because that is who they always use. Neither of us have an incentive to settle for the other persons arbitrator but meanwhile the hospital is coming after me for my bills while the restaurant is fine with the situation not being resolved because then they don't have to pay me anything. There is clearly an imbalance of power here and no real means of rectifying it.

    Neaden on
  • FeralFeral Who needs a medical license when you've got style? Registered User regular
    mcdermott wrote: »
    rayofash wrote: »
    PantsB wrote: »
    A huge part of the above fallacies is the idea that property rights are inherent.

    We only inherently own two things: Our own bodies and our labor.

    No one owned them inherently.

    I didn't make my leg but I claim ownership over it.

    Wouldn't your leg fall under "our own bodies?"

    Well, hopefully it stands under your own body.

    every person who doesn't like an acquired taste always seems to think everyone who likes it is faking it. it should be an official fallacy.
    the "no true scotch, man" fallacy.
  • SheepSheep Registered User, __BANNED USERS regular
    PantsB wrote: »
    A huge part of the above fallacies is the idea that property rights are inherent.

    We only inherently own two things: Our own bodies and our labor.

    As all men are equal, everyone has an equal claim to everything else. A tree, an apple, a fish, a rock each belong to each individual equally in a state of nature. If there are two people on this "island" and you eat an apple, you have stolen from me the half of the apple that is mine. If you eat half an apple, you have taken from me half of the half of an apple that is mine.

    As its not possible to use these resources in every way that its possible (a parcel of land can't be used to hunt, build a house and plant a field in, a Cow used for meat no longer produces milk), societies formed and agreed to rules to establish a just system of property rights and to protect the natural rights of individuals that form these societies.

    So while it gets more complicated than that (the establishment of just government also involves the protection of those rights that are inherent, including the ownership of self and labor for instance), without government all exclusive ownership is theft from the people in general. Exclusive property rights require either a system by which exclusive ownership of resources beyond self and one's own labor is awarded, or a unanimous agreement of all people. As the latter is neither tenable (one asshole ruins it for everyone) or at all efficient, governments exist.

    The computer you're working on now requires thousands of natural resources (from its materials to the materials needed to construct the machinery that built it, to the materials needed to create the electrity that runs it or built it to the resources to ship it to the resources needed to enable its design...).

    No one owned them inherently. They became more valuable through the application of labor, yes. But their exclusive use requires a government to establish a system by which they were apportioned. If taxation is theft, you are currently guilty of the same because you can only justly own that computer through government sanction.

    :^:

    QlBGc.jpg
  • rayofashrayofash Registered User regular
    Neaden wrote: »
    Are you aware that right now binding arbitration is used frequently and that many people who work for companies have to sign papers saying they agree to binding arbitration to work there in the event of a dispute? And that the binding arbitration firm is paid by the company and knows that if they make too many decisions against it they might be replaced? How would your system work better? Why would I not prefer that someone who does not have an economic interest in the decisions and is agreed upon as a good judge by the whole community arbitrates my case instead? Which is pretty much the status quo.

    That's from a capitalist perspective. From a socialist perspective there would be no such binding arbitration as the workers would own the business.
    Feral wrote: »
    rayofash wrote: »
    a voluntary police force will enforce the courts decision.

    "non-coercively"

    If a police force is needed it's only to defend against the aggression of the individual.

  • rayofashrayofash Registered User regular
    mcdermott wrote: »
    rayofash wrote: »
    PantsB wrote: »
    A huge part of the above fallacies is the idea that property rights are inherent.

    We only inherently own two things: Our own bodies and our labor.

    No one owned them inherently.

    I didn't make my leg but I claim ownership over it.

    Wouldn't your leg fall under "our own bodies?"

    Only in the same way land and property is. The point is we didn't make our own bodies so how can we claim ownership over it? It's the same principle used against land ownership.

  • QuidQuid The Fifth Horseman Registered User regular
    Rayofash, are you familiar with the Gilded Age? It was a time of minimal government interference. How would your system, one of even less government regulation, prevent a similar era from coming to pass?

    PSN: allenquid
  • QuidQuid The Fifth Horseman Registered User regular
    rayofash wrote: »
    Neaden wrote: »
    Are you aware that right now binding arbitration is used frequently and that many people who work for companies have to sign papers saying they agree to binding arbitration to work there in the event of a dispute? And that the binding arbitration firm is paid by the company and knows that if they make too many decisions against it they might be replaced? How would your system work better? Why would I not prefer that someone who does not have an economic interest in the decisions and is agreed upon as a good judge by the whole community arbitrates my case instead? Which is pretty much the status quo.

    That's from a capitalist perspective. From a socialist perspective there would be no such binding arbitration as the workers would own the business.
    Feral wrote: »
    rayofash wrote: »
    a voluntary police force will enforce the courts decision.

    "non-coercively"

    If a police force is needed it's only to defend against the aggression of the individual.

    Using coercion.

    PSN: allenquid
  • IncenjucarIncenjucar QA Tester -> Game Producer Seattle, WARegistered User regular
    rayofash wrote: »
    If a police force is needed it's only to defend against the aggression of the individual.

    And why would they do this?

    freefallagentad_zps635a83ed.png
  • BurtletoyBurtletoy Registered User regular
    edited April 2012
    What if the police force is the aggressors?

    Like, you know, what currently happens too often already

    Burtletoy on
  • NeadenNeaden Registered User regular
    rayofash wrote: »
    Neaden wrote: »
    Are you aware that right now binding arbitration is used frequently and that many people who work for companies have to sign papers saying they agree to binding arbitration to work there in the event of a dispute? And that the binding arbitration firm is paid by the company and knows that if they make too many decisions against it they might be replaced? How would your system work better? Why would I not prefer that someone who does not have an economic interest in the decisions and is agreed upon as a good judge by the whole community arbitrates my case instead? Which is pretty much the status quo.

    That's from a capitalist perspective. From a socialist perspective there would be no such binding arbitration as the workers would own the business.
    That is ridiculous. If I work for a company owned by my fellow workers and have a dispute with it that requires arbitration the exact same incentives would happen. Just because the company is owned by the employees in general does not mean that it would be nice to any individual employee in any individual instance.

  • rayofashrayofash Registered User regular
    Quid wrote: »
    Rayofash, are you familiar with the Gilded Age? It was a time of minimal government interference. How would your system, one of even less government regulation, prevent a similar era from coming to pass?

    In a socialist society the workers would own the business, in a capitalist society workers would have unions.

  • RozRoz Let the Storm follow Nap TimeRegistered User regular
    mcdermott wrote: »
    rayofash wrote: »
    PantsB wrote: »
    A huge part of the above fallacies is the idea that property rights are inherent.

    We only inherently own two things: Our own bodies and our labor.

    No one owned them inherently.

    I didn't make my leg but I claim ownership over it.

    Wouldn't your leg fall under "our own bodies?"

    No! You coerced your leg into being a part of you. You could set your leg free at any time, but will you? Most certainly not! And why? Because you want the slave labor your leg provides for free! You filthy scumbag!

    Burnage wrote: »
    If the Fiora rework actually makes her play like a fencer I will never select another champion ever again.
  • QuidQuid The Fifth Horseman Registered User regular
    I mean I just read through every page and I'm seeing you repeatedly suggest this be entirely voluntary and THEN suggest voluntary organizations would force people to do things.

    PSN: allenquid
  • BurtletoyBurtletoy Registered User regular
    Wait.

    How did I not make my leg?

    Is my DNA/genes not, in essence, me?


    I'm pretty sure I made my legs. I sure as shit didn't buy them anywhere.

  • rayofashrayofash Registered User regular
    Neaden wrote: »
    rayofash wrote: »
    Neaden wrote: »
    Are you aware that right now binding arbitration is used frequently and that many people who work for companies have to sign papers saying they agree to binding arbitration to work there in the event of a dispute? And that the binding arbitration firm is paid by the company and knows that if they make too many decisions against it they might be replaced? How would your system work better? Why would I not prefer that someone who does not have an economic interest in the decisions and is agreed upon as a good judge by the whole community arbitrates my case instead? Which is pretty much the status quo.

    That's from a capitalist perspective. From a socialist perspective there would be no such binding arbitration as the workers would own the business.
    That is ridiculous. If I work for a company owned by my fellow workers and have a dispute with it that requires arbitration the exact same incentives would happen. Just because the company is owned by the employees in general does not mean that it would be nice to any individual employee in any individual instance.

    Then agree on an arbitrator before hand.

  • rayofashrayofash Registered User regular
    Quid wrote: »
    rayofash wrote: »
    Neaden wrote: »
    Are you aware that right now binding arbitration is used frequently and that many people who work for companies have to sign papers saying they agree to binding arbitration to work there in the event of a dispute? And that the binding arbitration firm is paid by the company and knows that if they make too many decisions against it they might be replaced? How would your system work better? Why would I not prefer that someone who does not have an economic interest in the decisions and is agreed upon as a good judge by the whole community arbitrates my case instead? Which is pretty much the status quo.

    That's from a capitalist perspective. From a socialist perspective there would be no such binding arbitration as the workers would own the business.
    Feral wrote: »
    rayofash wrote: »
    a voluntary police force will enforce the courts decision.

    "non-coercively"

    If a police force is needed it's only to defend against the aggression of the individual.

    Using coercion.

    Self defense is not coercion.

  • BurtletoyBurtletoy Registered User regular
    edited April 2012
    rayofash wrote: »
    Neaden wrote: »
    rayofash wrote: »
    Neaden wrote: »
    Are you aware that right now binding arbitration is used frequently and that many people who work for companies have to sign papers saying they agree to binding arbitration to work there in the event of a dispute? And that the binding arbitration firm is paid by the company and knows that if they make too many decisions against it they might be replaced? How would your system work better? Why would I not prefer that someone who does not have an economic interest in the decisions and is agreed upon as a good judge by the whole community arbitrates my case instead? Which is pretty much the status quo.

    That's from a capitalist perspective. From a socialist perspective there would be no such binding arbitration as the workers would own the business.
    That is ridiculous. If I work for a company owned by my fellow workers and have a dispute with it that requires arbitration the exact same incentives would happen. Just because the company is owned by the employees in general does not mean that it would be nice to any individual employee in any individual instance.

    Then agree on an arbitrator before hand.

    So, elected judges.


    Edit: Whoops. Forgot the word voluntary.

    Burtletoy on
  • rayofashrayofash Registered User regular
    Neaden wrote: »
    rayofash wrote: »
    Quid wrote: »
    Rayofash, are you familiar with the Gilded Age? It was a time of minimal government interference. How would your system, one of even less government regulation, prevent a similar era from coming to pass?

    In a socialist society the workers would own the business, in a capitalist society workers would have unions.
    So they would have the exact same incentive to ship shady products that make them money, but would have better workplaces while they do it? So that is an improvement, I guess. I mean when I am being literally poisoned by my medicine it will be nice to know that they guy who made it has adequate emergency exists at his workplace.

    We've discussed this earlier. There would still be regulation.

  • FeralFeral Who needs a medical license when you've got style? Registered User regular
    I second that thumbs-up for PantsB's post. :^:

    every person who doesn't like an acquired taste always seems to think everyone who likes it is faking it. it should be an official fallacy.
    the "no true scotch, man" fallacy.
  • ArbitraryDescriptorArbitraryDescriptor Registered User regular
    rayofash wrote: »
    mcdermott wrote: »
    rayofash wrote: »
    PantsB wrote: »
    A huge part of the above fallacies is the idea that property rights are inherent.

    We only inherently own two things: Our own bodies and our labor.

    No one owned them inherently.

    I didn't make my leg but I claim ownership over it.

    Wouldn't your leg fall under "our own bodies?"

    Only in the same way land and property is. The point is we didn't make our own bodies so how can we claim ownership over it? It's the same principle used against land ownership.

    If you wipe the slate clean, naked refugees on new planet with no supplies, there is no property anyone can claim to inherently own. You would still own your body.

    Automata-Sg.png
  • NeadenNeaden Registered User regular
    rayofash wrote: »
    Quid wrote: »
    Rayofash, are you familiar with the Gilded Age? It was a time of minimal government interference. How would your system, one of even less government regulation, prevent a similar era from coming to pass?

    In a socialist society the workers would own the business, in a capitalist society workers would have unions.
    So they would have the exact same incentive to ship shady products that make them money, but would have better workplaces while they do it? So that is an improvement, I guess. I mean when I am being literally poisoned by my medicine it will be nice to know that they guy who made it has adequate emergency exists at his workplace.

  • rayofashrayofash Registered User regular
    edited April 2012
    rayofash wrote: »
    mcdermott wrote: »
    rayofash wrote: »
    PantsB wrote: »
    A huge part of the above fallacies is the idea that property rights are inherent.

    We only inherently own two things: Our own bodies and our labor.

    No one owned them inherently.

    I didn't make my leg but I claim ownership over it.

    Wouldn't your leg fall under "our own bodies?"

    Only in the same way land and property is. The point is we didn't make our own bodies so how can we claim ownership over it? It's the same principle used against land ownership.

    If you wipe the slate clean, naked refugees on new planet with no supplies, there is no property anyone can claim to inherently own. You would still own your body.

    And by the sounds of it, I'm also about to own a whole lot of land.

    rayofash on
  • FeralFeral Who needs a medical license when you've got style? Registered User regular
    rayofash wrote: »
    Self defense is not coercion.

    Yes, it is. It's simply a socially-acceptable form of coercion.

    every person who doesn't like an acquired taste always seems to think everyone who likes it is faking it. it should be an official fallacy.
    the "no true scotch, man" fallacy.
  • NeadenNeaden Registered User regular
    rayofash wrote: »
    Neaden wrote: »
    rayofash wrote: »
    Neaden wrote: »
    Are you aware that right now binding arbitration is used frequently and that many people who work for companies have to sign papers saying they agree to binding arbitration to work there in the event of a dispute? And that the binding arbitration firm is paid by the company and knows that if they make too many decisions against it they might be replaced? How would your system work better? Why would I not prefer that someone who does not have an economic interest in the decisions and is agreed upon as a good judge by the whole community arbitrates my case instead? Which is pretty much the status quo.

    That's from a capitalist perspective. From a socialist perspective there would be no such binding arbitration as the workers would own the business.
    That is ridiculous. If I work for a company owned by my fellow workers and have a dispute with it that requires arbitration the exact same incentives would happen. Just because the company is owned by the employees in general does not mean that it would be nice to any individual employee in any individual instance.

    Then agree on an arbitrator before hand.
    But that is the problem that we have in real life. If we agree on an arbitrator beforehand that arbitrator has a longstanding relationship with the company and a transitory relationship with me. That will create bias towards the company. It also means that when the decision on who should be the arbitrator is made it is in one where there is a severe power imbalance, that is when the person is applying for a job and the company is deciding if they are going to hire him/her. The fact that this company is owned by the current workers doesn't really fundamentally change that like you seem to think it does.

  • NeadenNeaden Registered User regular
    rayofash wrote: »
    Neaden wrote: »
    rayofash wrote: »
    Quid wrote: »
    Rayofash, are you familiar with the Gilded Age? It was a time of minimal government interference. How would your system, one of even less government regulation, prevent a similar era from coming to pass?

    In a socialist society the workers would own the business, in a capitalist society workers would have unions.
    So they would have the exact same incentive to ship shady products that make them money, but would have better workplaces while they do it? So that is an improvement, I guess. I mean when I am being literally poisoned by my medicine it will be nice to know that they guy who made it has adequate emergency exists at his workplace.

    We've discussed this earlier. There would still be regulation.
    But you haven't explained how you could have this regulation in a way that wouldn't be the government.

  • mcdermottmcdermott Registered User regular
    edited April 2012
    Feral wrote: »
    rayofash wrote: »
    Self defense is not coercion.

    Yes, it is. It's simply a socially-acceptable form of coercion.

    No, it isn't.

    But that's not relevant, since enforcement of a judgment is not self-defense.

    EDIT: Well, I guess you could "coerce" somebody into not killing you using force. But that's a pretty twisted use of the word, IMO.

    mcdermott on
  • rayofashrayofash Registered User regular
    Neaden wrote: »
    rayofash wrote: »
    Neaden wrote: »
    rayofash wrote: »
    Neaden wrote: »
    Are you aware that right now binding arbitration is used frequently and that many people who work for companies have to sign papers saying they agree to binding arbitration to work there in the event of a dispute? And that the binding arbitration firm is paid by the company and knows that if they make too many decisions against it they might be replaced? How would your system work better? Why would I not prefer that someone who does not have an economic interest in the decisions and is agreed upon as a good judge by the whole community arbitrates my case instead? Which is pretty much the status quo.

    That's from a capitalist perspective. From a socialist perspective there would be no such binding arbitration as the workers would own the business.
    That is ridiculous. If I work for a company owned by my fellow workers and have a dispute with it that requires arbitration the exact same incentives would happen. Just because the company is owned by the employees in general does not mean that it would be nice to any individual employee in any individual instance.

    Then agree on an arbitrator before hand.
    But that is the problem that we have in real life. If we agree on an arbitrator beforehand that arbitrator has a longstanding relationship with the company and a transitory relationship with me. That will create bias towards the company. It also means that when the decision on who should be the arbitrator is made it is in one where there is a severe power imbalance, that is when the person is applying for a job and the company is deciding if they are going to hire him/her. The fact that this company is owned by the current workers doesn't really fundamentally change that like you seem to think it does.

    >That will create bias towards the company.

    Choose a different arbitrator. Or choose a public arbitrator who doesn't accept payment.

    There's also an idea of a public database of peoples behavior so you can see who is trustworthy. If somebody doesn't agree to arbitration, it will go into a database that everybody could see. If you are innocent and prove so, the record is wiped. I think this is an invasion of privacy, there's also the the problem of false claims.

  • mcdermottmcdermott Registered User regular
    rayofash wrote: »
    rayofash wrote: »
    mcdermott wrote: »
    rayofash wrote: »
    PantsB wrote: »
    A huge part of the above fallacies is the idea that property rights are inherent.

    We only inherently own two things: Our own bodies and our labor.

    No one owned them inherently.

    I didn't make my leg but I claim ownership over it.

    Wouldn't your leg fall under "our own bodies?"

    Only in the same way land and property is. The point is we didn't make our own bodies so how can we claim ownership over it? It's the same principle used against land ownership.

    If you wipe the slate clean, naked refugees on new planet with no supplies, there is no property anyone can claim to inherently own. You would still own your body.

    And by the sounds of it, I'm also about to own a whole lot of land.

    If you think so.

    More likely Drogo's gonna come along, take it from you, and if you're lucky leave you alive.

  • rayofashrayofash Registered User regular
    Neaden wrote: »
    rayofash wrote: »
    Neaden wrote: »
    rayofash wrote: »
    Quid wrote: »
    Rayofash, are you familiar with the Gilded Age? It was a time of minimal government interference. How would your system, one of even less government regulation, prevent a similar era from coming to pass?

    In a socialist society the workers would own the business, in a capitalist society workers would have unions.
    So they would have the exact same incentive to ship shady products that make them money, but would have better workplaces while they do it? So that is an improvement, I guess. I mean when I am being literally poisoned by my medicine it will be nice to know that they guy who made it has adequate emergency exists at his workplace.

    We've discussed this earlier. There would still be regulation.
    But you haven't explained how you could have this regulation in a way that wouldn't be the government.

    This already exists today. Why do you need examples?

145791040
Sign In or Register to comment.