|
wateroverfire posted:Yeah. The initial idea was that the husband is homicidal and cancels his DRO subscription as a prelude to murder and the woman's DRO, which she contracted to see to her safety and such, offers to remove her from the situation and relocate her. She says "no, I'm good, I'd rather stay with my homicidal husband who is making plans to kill me" so they drop her. Goons are incapable of parsing motivation or context so we end up in this argument. No no, the initial idea was if the husband is homicidal he will cancel his DRO subscription as a prelude to murder, and then the wife will be taken to safety by her DRO because their protocol is the same no matter the reason her husband lost coverage: require all of their customers to no longer deal with him, and convey his family away forever. If he is homicidal, this does protect her, but if he's not and coverage lapsed for some other reason (bounced check, premium increase made it unaffordable, he complained or filed a claim that was too expensive so they dropped him), whatever bitch who gives a poo poo, you and your children get in the van or we'll declare you in breach of contract for exposing us to liability by your proximity to an unperson! Security's already on the way to evict you from your apartment for failure to maintain DRO responsibility and the names are about to go out to every business in town, so what's up you gonna be on that list or are you gonna be a smart girl and abandon your marriage? Libertopia would be absurdly tyrannical even if DRO's perfectly adhered to the NAP and didn't become mafia outfits (they would become mafia outfits). wateroverfire posted:Cap land is just pretty different. If I don't want to pay a given DRO I can contract a different one. If I don't want to pay the US Government I have no alternative. If the US government decided to become a NAP-observing Libertarian DRO tomorrow, there would still be no alternative because it would be impossible to start a new DRO for the same reason it would be impossible to start a new DRO in any ancap world. The existing DROs wouldn't recognize you so you'd have no way to enforce your judgments and no way to attract customers (they'd be unpersoned for signing a contract with you), at least until you became powerful enough to win wars against them and enforce your court orders on your own anyway then it'd finally be in their interest to make arbitration agreements with you. About the only chance to form a new DRO would be to become head of an enforcement wing in an existing one and then break off to start your own with enough of their assets to make you a formidable force. And even then, we all know how well that went when Dixie DRO tried it in 1860... VitalSigns fucked around with this message at 22:58 on Oct 16, 2014 |
#
?
Oct 16, 2014 22:55
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 14, 2024 10:44 |
|
|
wateroverfire posted:Yeah. The initial idea was that the husband is homicidal and cancels his DRO subscription as a prelude to murder and the woman's DRO, which she contracted to see to her safety and such, offers to remove her from the situation and relocate her. She says "no, I'm good, I'd rather stay with my homicidal husband who is making plans to kill me" so they drop her. Goons are incapable of parsing motivation or context so we end up in this argument. So how do you quit a DRO without triggering unpersonhood? Like say I just decided I don't want any DRO. How do I quit my DRO without being forced to divorce my wife who still wants a DRO or being unable to do trade with my neighbor who is a DRO member but trusts me entirely and wants to trade with me? In the example, the husbands unpersonhood was triggered by the husband quitting the DRO, not showing any active malice or criminal intent to the wife. Also remember that answers like "If you want freedom from DROs, go live alone in the woods" is not a valid answer just as "If you want Libertopia, go live in Somalia" is not a valid answer to the AnCap. If fleeing to Somalia isn't good enough for JRod, you have to explain to me how I can stay in the home I'm currently in and live life unmolested while still maintaining my freedom of association and not giving my money at gunpoint to DROs.
|
|
#
?
Oct 16, 2014 22:56
|
|
|
wateroverfire posted:Yeah. The initial idea was that the husband is homicidal and cancels his DRO subscription as a prelude to murder and the woman's DRO, which she contracted to see to her safety and such, offers to remove her from the situation and relocate her. She says "no, I'm good, I'd rather stay with my homicidal husband who is making plans to kill me" so they drop her. Goons are incapable of parsing motivation or context so we end up in this argument.  Why is it that the husband must be homicidal? What if he's cancelling DRO coverage for literally any other reason unrelated to homicidal urges? What if his DRO cancelled coverage because he missed several payments? What if the husband cancelled coverage because he thought that he was now covered by a different DRO, but forgot that his new coverage doesn't kick in for 2 more weeks? The same safeguards kick in with the assumption that he's going to commit crimes, even if the wife is in no actual danger quote:"Do what we say or we'll kill you" is extortion. Making her move or forcing her into a situation where she'll starve to death is what is happening here, which is item 2 in your list of things that are extortion. In ancap libertopia, literally no one will do business with her unless she agrees to do what her DRO says. Furthermore, if they do believe that the husband is planning to kill her, then that also falls under item two: "Do what we say or we'll allow your husband to kill you, which we could prevent but won't unless you do what we say" wateroverfire posted:AnCap land is just pretty different. If I don't want to pay a given DRO I can contract a different one. If I don't want to pay the US Government I have no alternative. You could emigrate. It's not like the "choices" in AnCap land are going to be much different. The DRO owns the land on which you live, including your house (much like an HOA), so contracting to *someone else* is purely at the discretion of the DRO (who is going to say no). Surely you wouldn't violate someone else's property rights, so your only choice is to pack up and leave, hopefully selling your DRO contract to someone else
|
|
#
?
Oct 16, 2014 23:20
|
|
|
Grand Theft Autobot posted:Ancap land is also impossibly stupid and will never happen.
|
|
#
?
Oct 16, 2014 23:26
|
|
|
Weird that all of the DROs in Somalia are so bad at respecting the NAP. Surely there's a grand untapped market there of customers unsatisfied with such poor service, just waiting for a brilliant Libertarian entrepreneur to swoop in and start raking in the cash!
|
|
#
?
Oct 16, 2014 23:28
|
|
|
VitalSigns posted:Libertopia would be absurdly tyrannical even if DRO's perfectly adhered to the NAP and didn't become mafia outfits (they would become mafia outfits). For a second I took your meaning of "mafia outfits" to be a bit more literal and imagined them all in stereotypical gangster wear. I guess it would be one possible dress code!
|
|
#
?
Oct 16, 2014 23:31
|
|
|
VitalSigns posted:Weird that all of the DROs in Somalia are so bad at respecting the NAP. Surely there's a grand untapped market there of customers unsatisfied with such poor service, just waiting for a brilliant Libertarian entrepreneur to swoop in and start raking in the cash! They all have poor time preferences.
|
|
#
?
Oct 16, 2014 23:34
|
|
|
Caros posted:They all have drat, you're right. There goes that dream.
|
|
#
?
Oct 16, 2014 23:43
|
|
|
VitalSigns posted:drat, you're right. There goes that dream. No, no, see that means that Somalia is perfect for a
|
|
#
?
Oct 17, 2014 00:02
|
|
|
Holy hell. I just realized that "time preference" is CPT. That's no good.
|
|
#
?
Oct 17, 2014 00:04
|
|
|
Babylon Astronaut posted:Holy hell. I just realized that "time preference" is CPT. That's no good. Well it is important to remember that time preference is actually a very real economic concept. It is a way of describing why someone would prefer to be paid $10 right now, instead of $15 tomorrow. The difference is that libertarians have a really, really awful tendency of trying to use time preference to explain why poor people, and minorities in particular, are poor. Because they have poor time preference and thus don't save for the future. It can be a useful concept when you're not using it to try and explain away unequal racial outcomes.
|
|
#
?
Oct 17, 2014 01:32
|
|
|
Caros posted:Well it is important to remember that time preference is actually a very real economic concept. It is a way of describing why someone would prefer to be paid $10 right now, instead of $15 tomorrow. The difference is that libertarians have a really, really awful tendency of trying to use time preference to explain why poor people, and minorities in particular, are poor. Because they have poor time preference and thus don't save for the future. Well, there's also the issue of "time preference" being a lovely explanation for the choice between having money tomorrow and actually getting to eat something (or if that's not your style, some other critical expense that can't be delayed - medical bill, auto repair in a city with no public transit, and so on) today, even before you get into the racial aspect.
|
|
#
?
Oct 17, 2014 01:40
|
|
|
Time preference is (a part of) an explanation for why the poor stay poor, not for why they are poor in the first place. A poor man who is out of work needs a job right now to pay the bills, even if waiting would allow him to make more money overall. A rich man is in no immediate hurry to get a new job and has time to shop around. Strange that libertarians would choose to highlight the fact that poor economic mobility is a natural consequence of unfettered capitalism.
|
|
#
?
Oct 17, 2014 02:22
|
|
|
Alright I have two questions that I would like answered (preferably by a libertarian) about libertarianism and its off shoots such as an-caps: 1. How would you transition to a libertarian society? I've never seen this explained and it seems like it would lead to chaos since you are essentially removing institutions that literally everyone relies on. 2. How would you stop governments from reforming in a libertarian society or during the transition? I know many people including myself that would band together to form a society since there is power in numbers. We would also have much more money and property combined than alone giving us more bargaining power against the super powerful and allowing us to easily overshadow anyone trying to live individually only using DROs when it comes to government-like bodies.
|
|
#
?
Oct 17, 2014 03:23
|
|
|
StandardVC10 posted:Well, there's also the issue of "time preference" being a lovely explanation for the choice between having money tomorrow and actually getting to eat something (or if that's not your style, some other critical expense that can't be delayed - medical bill, auto repair in a city with no public transit, and so on) today, even before you get into the racial aspect. Yeah, I should have clarified. Time Preference makes some sense as a term used when discussing investment.
|
|
#
?
Oct 17, 2014 05:22
|
|
|
Papa Jarl says: "From each according to his abilities, to each according to his confirmed kill count."
|
|
#
?
Oct 17, 2014 05:25
|
|
|
How do libertarians and ancaps explain how people would be able to build, run, and manage something like a power plant or any other technological marvel that supports a large population of people under their system?
|
|
#
?
Oct 17, 2014 08:24
|
|
|
Neeksy posted:How do libertarians and ancaps explain how people would be able to build, run, and manage something like a power plant or any other technological marvel that supports a large population of people under their system? ~The Free Market~ No, seriously. Free from the onerous yoke of regulation and taxation, lib/ancap power plants would be marvels of efficiency and technology that a statist can't even imagine. The NAP would ensure that the plant would produce no pollution whatsoever, because any plants that did would get negative reviews on neoYelp and go out of business. The workers would be incredibly safe and well paid once freed from the oppressive moorings of OSHA because any plant that had dangerous working conditions would be lambasted on the internet and therefore unable to garner any prospective employees. The engineers who designed the plant would be freed of tedious limitations like zoning laws or ISO standards, so they'd obviously design plants that would never malfunction and kill an entire town - because their -personal reputation- is on the line.
|
|
#
?
Oct 17, 2014 08:34
|
|
|
Neeksy posted:How do libertarians and ancaps explain how people would be able to build, run, and manage something like a power plant or any other technological marvel that supports a large population of people under their system? The state isn't required to run power plants and the like. Electricity would be a lot more polluting and it would cost a lot more for poor people (since their usage is no longer being subsidized via progressive taxation), but it'd work
|
|
#
?
Oct 17, 2014 09:14
|
|
|
QuarkJets posted:The state isn't required to run power plants and the like. Electricity would be a lot more polluting and it would cost a lot more for poor people (since their usage is no longer being subsidized via progressive taxation), but it'd work I guess what I'm saying is that a power plant and any other form of advanced technology requires materials and labor that would be very hard to coordinate under an ancap system, especially since it would require infrastructure and education that would be much less widespread without public expenditure on roads, trains, and schools. Then there's trying to form all the proper contracts with the various other companies that supply the metal, electronics, cement, etc. and then the standardization for outlets and all that jazz.
|
|
#
?
Oct 17, 2014 09:50
|
|
|
I'm sure Blackbeard DRO will do a much better job of protecting international shipping than the statist US Navy, so there'll be no problem with getting materials and fuel to keep the power plants running.StandardVC10 posted:Well, there's also the issue of "time preference" being a lovely explanation for the choice between having money tomorrow and actually getting to eat something (or if that's not your style, some other critical expense that can't be delayed - medical bill, auto repair in a city with no public transit, and so on) today, even before you get into the racial aspect. Well, it's not a lovely explanation for why the poor are poor and tend to stay poor. It is absolutely true that someone like say, Bill Gates for example was able to spend his free time in childhood learning to code because he didn't have to work in the coal mines 12 hours a day to help his mom put food on the table, and that it's easier to take risks to start a business if you have support in the meantime to pay those bills that are coming in today. It's just that Libertarians are lovely people, so they make that normative and say "well since the poor have obstacles to taking risks that the affluent don't, clearly that's just how it ought to be."
|
|
#
?
Oct 17, 2014 16:03
|
|
|
Neeksy posted:I guess what I'm saying is that a power plant and any other form of advanced technology requires materials and labor that would be very hard to coordinate under an ancap system, especially since it would require infrastructure and education that would be much less widespread without public expenditure on roads, trains, and schools. Then there's trying to form all the proper contracts with the various other companies that supply the metal, electronics, cement, etc. and then the standardization for outlets and all that jazz. Modern communications are technically impossible in an cap society, I'll probably do a giant dump of why this weekend since its my favorite 2x4 for libertarians, and maybe if I lay out the totality of it they'll finally tell me how I'm wrong.
|
|
#
?
Oct 17, 2014 16:17
|
|
|
RuanGacho posted:Modern communications are technically impossible in an cap society, I'll probably do a giant dump of why this weekend since its my favorite 2x4 for libertarians, and maybe if I lay out the totality of it they'll finally tell me how I'm wrong. Really looking forward to this fyi. I used to work as a cell phone salesman, and the immediate go to for a natural monopoly has always been cellular service.
|
|
#
?
Oct 17, 2014 16:21
|
|
|
RuanGacho posted:Modern communications are technically impossible in an cap society, I'll probably do a giant dump of why this weekend since its my favorite 2x4 for libertarians, and maybe if I lay out the totality of it they'll finally tell me how I'm wrong. Alex Epstein, Ayn Rand Institute posted:In January the FCC will auction off the prized 700 MHz spectrum of wireless bandwidth. But instead of offering the spectrum to the highest bidder to employ it however he judges best (for example, a mobile video-on-demand service), the FCC will force the winner to employ a specific business model--an "open access" Internet network that forbids the spectrum-holder from controlling which devices and applications use its network, regardless of how much bandwidth they eat up. Why? Because the FCC and sundry lobbyists claim, "open access" is necessary for the "public interest." 
|
|
#
?
Oct 17, 2014 16:38
|
|
|
Cnidaria posted:Alright I have two questions that I would like answered (preferably by a libertarian) about libertarianism and its off shoots such as an-caps: You wouldn't do it all at once. If a Libertarian government swept Congress with veto-proof majorities in November, you'd no doubt have a gradual transition. Start drawing down the military, cancel useless programs like funding for the arts and scientific research and food inspection and drug approvals and bank regulation immediately of course, and once the budget is balanced you can start returning the proceeds to the people with tax cuts. To settle the rest of our obligations (say Social Security which people have paid into all their lives) you would start privatizing. Auction off roads, schools, highways, utilities, land, military hardware, nuclear weapons, etc. The amount you'd raise by selling off hard assets ought to be enough to settle those obligations. Eventually you'd have to start winding down food stamps and welfare, but by this point the economy will be so juiced from all the low taxes and zero regulation on the job creators that the number of people depending on them would be small and they can be weaned off into freedom. Cnidaria posted:2. How would you stop governments from reforming in a libertarian society or during the transition? I know many people including myself that would band together to form a society since there is power in numbers. We would also have much more money and property combined than alone giving us more bargaining power against the super powerful and allowing us to easily overshadow anyone trying to live individually only using DROs when it comes to government-like bodies. A free people would always be more motivated and passionate about their own defense than the mercenaries and reluctant conscripts of your state military so your attempts at conquest would be hopeless from the beginning.
|
|
#
?
Oct 17, 2014 16:52
|
|
|
RuanGacho posted:Modern communications are technically impossible in an cap society, I'll probably do a giant dump of why this weekend since its my favorite 2x4 for libertarians, and maybe if I lay out the totality of it they'll finally tell me how I'm wrong.
|
|
#
?
Oct 17, 2014 18:09
|
|
|
But states have eminent domain powers which would prevent large landowners from blocking roads. Such concept is impossible in pure ancap/libertopia.
|
|
#
?
Oct 17, 2014 18:59
|
|
|
loving public interest always ruining my plans to control the airwaves 
|
|
#
?
Oct 17, 2014 19:02
|
|
|
Mavric posted:But states have eminent domain powers which would prevent large landowners from blocking roads. Such concept is impossible in pure ancap/libertopia. Valhalla DRO recognizes the eminent domain of the fearsome berserker.
|
|
#
?
Oct 17, 2014 19:10
|
|
|
VitalSigns posted:Valhalla DRO recognizes the A warrior does not expropriate, he claims what's rightfully his from those he has slain. 
|
|
#
?
Oct 17, 2014 19:16
|
|
|
As you can clearly see, my blade hungers for blood, so I give you the opportunity to voluntarily splash some of your vital fluids upon it. Failure to do so shall be interpreted as aggression against my property. Having violated the NAP, you shall be slain where you stand, and all of your treasure and women shall be seized by Valhalla DRO, as Odin demands
|
|
#
?
Oct 17, 2014 19:36
|
|
|
VitalSigns posted:Valhalla DRO recognizes the eminent domain of the fearsome berserker. The imminent domain of my axe is your skull.
|
|
#
?
Oct 17, 2014 20:11
|
|
|
I think I'm gonna watch Conan the Barbarian in an AnCap mindset...
|
|
#
?
Oct 17, 2014 20:38
|
|
|
I have to say, I really really want Valhalla DRO gang tags to be a thing.
|
|
#
?
Oct 17, 2014 20:44
|
|
|
Mavric posted:I have to say, I really really want Valhalla DRO gang tags to be a thing. I'll start the wiki
|
|
#
?
Oct 17, 2014 21:22
|
|
|
How does the whole libertarian idea that reputation and reviews alone will regulate the world explain the government? They hate the government, but it's something democratically elected. By their own ideology, no democracy could ever elect a bad politician because in a free market of votes clearly the best candidate would get the most votes, and any politician who was corrupt or incompetent would quickly be voted out of office. How can they see how democracy mixed with millions in marketing dollars works and then think if you just re-name "government" to "corporations" it's suddenly different.
|
|
#
?
Oct 17, 2014 21:26
|
|
|
Baronjutter posted:How does the whole libertarian idea that reputation and reviews alone will regulate the world explain the government? They hate the government, but it's something democratically elected. By their own ideology, no democracy could ever elect a bad politician because in a free market of votes clearly the best candidate would get the most votes, and any politician who was corrupt or incompetent would quickly be voted out of office. How can they see how democracy mixed with millions in marketing dollars works and then think if you just re-name "government" to "corporations" it's suddenly different. On paper they don't like corporations either. But they know drat well that corporations would not only still exist in their society, but be even more powerful. They just refuse to admit it.
|
|
#
?
Oct 17, 2014 21:33
|
|
|
I would like to announce the creation of Organization of the Faithful DRO, we are created to ensure security for the faithful, and any non believers who wish to join. Note the DRO does state than while non believers will be protected within the Organization on of the Faithful, you will be expected to pay a
|
|
#
?
Oct 17, 2014 22:11
|
|
|
VitalSigns posted:Weird that all of the DROs in Somalia are so bad at respecting the NAP. Surely there's a grand untapped market there of customers unsatisfied with such poor service, just waiting for a brilliant Libertarian entrepreneur to swoop in and start raking in the cash! For example, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fibDNwF8bjs
|
|
#
?
Oct 17, 2014 23:16
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 14, 2024 10:44 |
|
|
Baronjutter posted:How does the whole libertarian idea that reputation and reviews alone will regulate the world explain the government? They hate the government, but it's something democratically elected. By their own ideology, no democracy could ever elect a bad politician because in a free market of votes clearly the best candidate would get the most votes, and any politician who was corrupt or incompetent would quickly be voted out of office. How can they see how democracy mixed with millions in marketing dollars works and then think if you just re-name "government" to "corporations" it's suddenly different. One libertarian explanation For why governments are worse than corporations is the idea that the government uses its unique ability to tax and regulate to take from some groups (i.e. the productive wealth and job creators) and give to other groups (i.e. those lazy bums). In a democratic situation there's a strong incentive for politicians to impose ruinous taxes so that they can "buy" votes through government hands outs. (Note that this is a concern that is shared by many contemporary conservatives (think of Romney's infamous 47% comment). It was also a concern that sometimes crops up amongst 19th century classical liberals. ) Libertarians will also sometimes point out that "special interests" can bribe people in government and thereby subvert a government's normal outcome. They think that because of the government's unique power it is especially suspectible to a level of corruption that would be impossible in a corporation. Now at this point you might want to reply by pointing to examples of corporate corruption. But the libertarian will say that corporations as they exist today rely on the government. Thus any problems of corporate corruption are actually problems of government corruption. In a stateless world I think the presumption is that businesses would be hyper responsive to people's needs because they wouldn't be able to rely on government created rules to corner markets or establish monopolies. They'd be in a truly free market where the desire of the customer is the only way to make a profit, and they'd behave accordingly. With all the distortions of government and central banking removed, the economy would flourish and people would be far better off. Of course there are also libertarians who I don't think share this utopian view. These are libertarians like Hermann-Hoppe who want to abolish big government so that they can consciously replace it with a thousand local tyrannies. This is, frankly, where the real impulse for most actually existing libertarianism in places like America comes from but it's not as common on the internet. Most libertarians that you debate online are a sort of idealistic and don't really understand that their philosophy was originated by angry racist reactionaries, or that racism remains close to the core of modern libertarianism.
|
|
#
?
Oct 17, 2014 23:41
|
|
