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.
You're about to take a whole lot of land. Point being, it's not inherent ownership. You didn't spring into existence with a deed to New Earth in your DNA.
0
Options
AManFromEarthLet's get to twerk!The King in the SwampRegistered Userregular
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?
Because evidence is the basis of these kinds of discussions.
0
Options
AManFromEarthLet's get to twerk!The King in the SwampRegistered Userregular
And there is no regulation that doesn't stem from an outside stimulus in the corporate world.
This already exists today. Why do you need examples?
Because evidence is the basis of these kinds of discussions.
Well, I think most of us can accept that there are various examples of industry groups that enforce regulations on members, even to the extent that it's difficult to do business without following those voluntary regulations.
Now, it's questionable how effective they are, and some came about only due to the threat of government regulation, but hey...they do exist.
The only only good example of non government run regulation in this country that I can think of are Kosher and Halal rules with food and even then they work in conjunction with government regulators not as a replacement of.
This already exists today. Why do you need examples?
Because evidence is the basis of these kinds of discussions.
Well, I think most of us can accept that there are various examples of industry groups that enforce regulations on members, even to the extent that it's difficult to do business without following those voluntary regulations.
Now, it's questionable how effective they are, and some came about only due to the threat of government regulation, but hey...they do exist.
I think we're overlooking the fact that in this new society anything that rayofash thinks is ok about our current situation will keep going as a result of magic.
I am also kind of amused that when I said there is the problem that there is a power imbalance between a company and an individual in selecting an arbitrator his response was that the arbitrator can be selected beforehand. When I pointed out that that creates an imbalance because then the arbitrator has a longstanding relationship with the company and a transitory one with the individual he said then they should pick a new one. You literally are contradicting yourself trying to ignore a simple fact. That having an arbitrator not selected by either party who does not get paid by either party and has the ability to ensure their decision is followed is the most effective option and that is what we have in the status quo.
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.
Okay, I'll acquiesce. With that in mind: Enforcement of a judgment is simply a socially-acceptable form of coercion.
Well yeah. You can't enforce a judgment without somebody applying a legitimate use of force. It'd definitely coercion.
I am also kind of amused that when I said there is the problem that there is a power imbalance between a company and an individual in selecting an arbitrator his response was that the arbitrator can be selected beforehand. When I pointed out that that creates an imbalance because then the arbitrator has a longstanding relationship with the company and a transitory one with the individual he said then they should pick a new one. You literally are contradicting yourself trying to ignore a simple fact. That having an arbitrator not selected by either party who does not get paid by either party and has the ability to ensure their decision is followed is the most effective option and that is what we have in the status quo.
I doubt he's put a whole lot of effort into looking into the issues that stem from binding arbitration. Or...much else. He just knows how he wants the world to work, and it would work, because ponies.
Alternative to coercion: There's a public database that rates your reputation. In the event you don't agree to follow the arbitration, you're rating goes down and people stop doing business with you.
I don't know if this question was already answered but how do you prevent a state from developing. I get the idea of a limited government with enumerated powers but even that seems a bit quaint in the modern world where communications technology makes vast bureaucracies possible AND where nasty state tendencies like making war don't seem to correlate to state size.
“Reject your sense of injury and the injury itself disappears.”
― Marcus Aurelius
I am also kind of amused that when I said there is the problem that there is a power imbalance between a company and an individual in selecting an arbitrator his response was that the arbitrator can be selected beforehand. When I pointed out that that creates an imbalance because then the arbitrator has a longstanding relationship with the company and a transitory one with the individual he said then they should pick a new one. You literally are contradicting yourself trying to ignore a simple fact. That having an arbitrator not selected by either party who does not get paid by either party and has the ability to ensure their decision is followed is the most effective option and that is what we have in the status quo.
I'm saying each situation can be negotiated and different people can agree to different arbitrators. If you don't like that then don't have an arbitrator selected before hand. Agree to choose an arbitrator when the need arises. Negotiate.
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.
Okay, I'll acquiesce. With that in mind: Enforcement of a judgment is simply a socially-acceptable form of coercion.
Well yeah. You can't enforce a judgment without somebody applying a legitimate use of force. It'd definitely coercion.
I am also kind of amused that when I said there is the problem that there is a power imbalance between a company and an individual in selecting an arbitrator his response was that the arbitrator can be selected beforehand. When I pointed out that that creates an imbalance because then the arbitrator has a longstanding relationship with the company and a transitory one with the individual he said then they should pick a new one. You literally are contradicting yourself trying to ignore a simple fact. That having an arbitrator not selected by either party who does not get paid by either party and has the ability to ensure their decision is followed is the most effective option and that is what we have in the status quo.
I doubt he's put a whole lot of effort into looking into the issues that stem from binding arbitration. Or...much else. He just knows how he wants the world to work, and it would work, because ponies magic.
I don't know if this question was already answered but how do you prevent a state from developing. I get the idea of a limited government with enumerated powers but even that seems a bit quaint in the modern world where communications technology makes vast bureaucracies possible AND where nasty state tendencies like making war don't seem to correlate to state size.
Education, and a systematic disdain for monopolized power. A shift in the social zeitgeist.
rayofash, can you try giving just a few really good explanations instead of 50 really shitty ones?
You're basically talking in circles, but I don't know if you even realize it, as it doesn't seem like any of your answers really realize the context of the earlier ones.
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.
The Gilded age WAS capitalist. It didn't work. Why would it work this time?
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.
I am also kind of amused that when I said there is the problem that there is a power imbalance between a company and an individual in selecting an arbitrator his response was that the arbitrator can be selected beforehand. When I pointed out that that creates an imbalance because then the arbitrator has a longstanding relationship with the company and a transitory one with the individual he said then they should pick a new one. You literally are contradicting yourself trying to ignore a simple fact. That having an arbitrator not selected by either party who does not get paid by either party and has the ability to ensure their decision is followed is the most effective option and that is what we have in the status quo.
While not to greatly diminish the OPs original intent and idea experiment, see my post on the second page for a summary of this thread. Basically, everyone who thinks pure unbridled (insert *ism here) is generally bad, will point to the legacy of history, the millennia of empirical evidence, and simplest thought experiments which inherently disprove it. Eventually, they will claim that this mountain of evidence makes it obvious that X idea cannot work in the simplest proposed form. OP will counter by saying that it, in fact, does; while he will also claim that his versions of community rule are inherently not governments. Even though they will wield the same power as governments, behave like governments, and perform many of the same duties, they are clearly not the same thing.
We will insist that they are.
He will insist that they are not.
And the Merry-Go-Round will continue for probably another 20 pages before everyone gets bored.
Also think about the history of fire and police departments. These things didn't just spring up fully formed. I believe in the USA, these operations were half volunteer and half extortion rackets and very corrupt until slowly over time they became professional and transparent. The logic of Rothbardian bare bones libertarianism is logically appealing and the vast majority of human interaction works on such a model. This raises the question of why, in the wild, with humans conducting so many transactions along libertarian lines do they choose (or submit) to governments in those limited transactions where they do?
“Reject your sense of injury and the injury itself disappears.”
― Marcus Aurelius
Alternative to coercion: There's a public database that rates your reputation. In the event you don't agree to follow the arbitration, you're rating goes down and people stop doing business with you.
Unless you've established yourself as the sole provider of something a lot of people need, then they don't have much choice, especially if the arbitration he's ignoring is the only thing preventing competitors from emerging.
What if the person in question provides an incredible service/product that everyone loves but also does horrible things completely unrelated to his business that he refuses to accept arbitration over? We just have to hope that enough people are annoyed by his "law" (which would, of course, just be the opinion of an agreed upon wise person) flaunting to negatively affect his business and coerce him to obey the "law".
>Eventually, they will claim that this mountain of evidence makes it obvious that X idea cannot work in the simplest proposed form. OP will counter by saying that it, in fact, does; while he will also claim that his versions of community rule are inherently not governments. Even though they will wield the same power as governments, behave like governments, and perform many of the same duties, they are clearly not the same thing.
The system of government I proposed has never been properly tried and even those attempts were successful until the larger state came in to stomp them out. As I mentioned before Democracy was once a new idea that people thought was crazy. When it was proposed again in the future people didn't like the idea of tyranny of the majority and pointed to examples of how Democracy had failed throughout history. Yet here we are.
Just because the proposed system has failed the few times it was tried doesn't mean it wouldn't work.
in a capitalist society workers would have unions.
Why would businesses allow unions?
Assuming everybody were in a union, they wouldn't have a choice. But I'm not a fan of capitalism or corporations.
Again, history proves you wrong, time and time again.
Example.
That's going to be difficult to find as there has never been a society on earth (and certainly not a capitalist one) with universal independent union membership.
>And yet you champion a form of society that benefits them more than the status quo does.
Which part of there would still be regulations and no government protection from liability did you not understand?
>That's going to be difficult to find as there has never been a society on earth (and certainly not a capitalist one) with universal independent union membership.
Which I think needs to change. People need to be educated about the IWW.
rayofash on
0
Options
Nova_CI have the needThe need for speedRegistered Userregular
The idea that in a coercion free environment, people would be forced to do certain things (Such as accept terms they do not agree with) seems pretty self-contradictory. If a union forces a corporation to abide by certain labor terms, there is coercion. If an arbitrator sets terms and one or both parties have no choice but to agree or go out of business/starve, there is coercion.
In fact, it is impossible to make a society that doesn't include coercion. It is part of the human condition to coerce others.
The idea that in a coercion free environment, people would be forced to do certain things (Such as accept terms they do not agree with) seems pretty self-contradictory. If a union forces a corporation to abide by certain labor terms, there is coercion. If an arbitrator sets terms and one or both parties have no choice but to agree or go out of business/starve, there is coercion.
In fact, it is impossible to make a society that doesn't include coercion. It is part of the human condition to coerce others.
And some amount is acceptable, like to enforce court decisions in extreme situations.
I don't know if this question was already answered but how do you prevent a state from developing. I get the idea of a limited government with enumerated powers but even that seems a bit quaint in the modern world where communications technology makes vast bureaucracies possible AND where nasty state tendencies like making war don't seem to correlate to state size.
Education, and a systematic disdain for monopolized power. A shift in the social zeitgeist.
I like this answer. Win people over through reason. This means that if you succeed, people really are noble. It also means that if people are not noble your chances are slim.
“Reject your sense of injury and the injury itself disappears.”
― Marcus Aurelius
The idea that in a coercion free environment, people would be forced to do certain things (Such as accept terms they do not agree with) seems pretty self-contradictory. If a union forces a corporation to abide by certain labor terms, there is coercion. If an arbitrator sets terms and one or both parties have no choice but to agree or go out of business/starve, there is coercion.
In fact, it is impossible to make a society that doesn't include coercion. It is part of the human condition to coerce others.
And some amount is acceptable, like to enforce court decisions in extreme situations.
I don't know if this question was already answered but how do you prevent a state from developing. I get the idea of a limited government with enumerated powers but even that seems a bit quaint in the modern world where communications technology makes vast bureaucracies possible AND where nasty state tendencies like making war don't seem to correlate to state size.
Education, and a systematic disdain for monopolized power. A shift in the social zeitgeist.
I like this answer. Win people over through reason. This means that if you succeed, people really are noble. It also means that if people are not noble your chances are slim.
The idea that in a coercion free environment, people would be forced to do certain things (Such as accept terms they do not agree with) seems pretty self-contradictory. If a union forces a corporation to abide by certain labor terms, there is coercion. If an arbitrator sets terms and one or both parties have no choice but to agree or go out of business/starve, there is coercion.
In fact, it is impossible to make a society that doesn't include coercion. It is part of the human condition to coerce others.
And some amount is acceptable, like to enforce court decisions in extreme situations.
So what's the difference between that and what we have now?
Posts
You're about to take a whole lot of land. Point being, it's not inherent ownership. You didn't spring into existence with a deed to New Earth in your DNA.
Because evidence is the basis of these kinds of discussions.
Well, I think most of us can accept that there are various examples of industry groups that enforce regulations on members, even to the extent that it's difficult to do business without following those voluntary regulations.
Now, it's questionable how effective they are, and some came about only due to the threat of government regulation, but hey...they do exist.
The ESRB and.....that other one?
So, a government arbitrator?
Okay, I'll acquiesce. With that in mind: Enforcement of a judgment is simply a socially-acceptable form of coercion.
the "no true scotch man" fallacy.
Why would businesses allow unions?
Well yeah. You can't enforce a judgment without somebody applying a legitimate use of force. It'd definitely coercion.
I doubt he's put a whole lot of effort into looking into the issues that stem from binding arbitration. Or...much else. He just knows how he wants the world to work, and it would work, because ponies.
― Marcus Aurelius
Path of Exile: themightypuck
Assuming everybody were in a union, they wouldn't have a choice. But I'm not a fan of capitalism or corporations.
I'm saying each situation can be negotiated and different people can agree to different arbitrators. If you don't like that then don't have an arbitrator selected before hand. Agree to choose an arbitrator when the need arises. Negotiate.
Education, and a systematic disdain for monopolized power. A shift in the social zeitgeist.
You're basically talking in circles, but I don't know if you even realize it, as it doesn't seem like any of your answers really realize the context of the earlier ones.
The Gilded age WAS capitalist. It didn't work. Why would it work this time?
You're coercing some to stop hurting you. Coercion is coercion. Which means this government you envision includes coercion.
Again, history proves you wrong, time and time again.
While not to greatly diminish the OPs original intent and idea experiment, see my post on the second page for a summary of this thread. Basically, everyone who thinks pure unbridled (insert *ism here) is generally bad, will point to the legacy of history, the millennia of empirical evidence, and simplest thought experiments which inherently disprove it. Eventually, they will claim that this mountain of evidence makes it obvious that X idea cannot work in the simplest proposed form. OP will counter by saying that it, in fact, does; while he will also claim that his versions of community rule are inherently not governments. Even though they will wield the same power as governments, behave like governments, and perform many of the same duties, they are clearly not the same thing.
We will insist that they are.
He will insist that they are not.
And the Merry-Go-Round will continue for probably another 20 pages before everyone gets bored.
― Marcus Aurelius
Path of Exile: themightypuck
And yet you champion a form of society that benefits them more than the status quo does.
Is there no problem with anarchism that magic won't solve? That's a big "assuming", my friend.
Unless you've established yourself as the sole provider of something a lot of people need, then they don't have much choice, especially if the arbitration he's ignoring is the only thing preventing competitors from emerging.
What if the person in question provides an incredible service/product that everyone loves but also does horrible things completely unrelated to his business that he refuses to accept arbitration over? We just have to hope that enough people are annoyed by his "law" (which would, of course, just be the opinion of an agreed upon wise person) flaunting to negatively affect his business and coerce him to obey the "law".
The system of government I proposed has never been properly tried and even those attempts were successful until the larger state came in to stomp them out. As I mentioned before Democracy was once a new idea that people thought was crazy. When it was proposed again in the future people didn't like the idea of tyranny of the majority and pointed to examples of how Democracy had failed throughout history. Yet here we are.
Just because the proposed system has failed the few times it was tried doesn't mean it wouldn't work.
Scabs for one. The history of union breaking in the U.S. for two.
I said assuming everybody were in the union.
>And yet you champion a form of society that benefits them more than the status quo does.
Which part of there would still be regulations and no government protection from liability did you not understand?
>That's going to be difficult to find as there has never been a society on earth (and certainly not a capitalist one) with universal independent union membership.
Which I think needs to change. People need to be educated about the IWW.
In fact, it is impossible to make a society that doesn't include coercion. It is part of the human condition to coerce others.
Except science does that all the time. Also you ignored the whole Democracy part.
"Insanity: doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results."
And some amount is acceptable, like to enforce court decisions in extreme situations.
I like this answer. Win people over through reason. This means that if you succeed, people really are noble. It also means that if people are not noble your chances are slim.
― Marcus Aurelius
Path of Exile: themightypuck
Who decides what an extreme situation is?
This is the primary means to accomplish our goals. Check out The Free State Project.
So what's the difference between that and what we have now?
And this is where I take my leave.