|
Captain_Maclaine posted:The American economy literally collapsed because I, personally, got my teeth cleaned a couple of times a year without having to pay out of pocket. It's a terrible burden to bear but somehow I manage. Well with the amount of mercury that probably leaked out of your teeth its a wonder that you didn't kill us all.
|
#
?
Sep 17, 2016 01:37
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 10, 2024 11:17 |
|
|
I think you'll find that you plebs agreed to live with the latent mercury contamination in this area when you signed up to my DRO.
|
|
#
?
Sep 17, 2016 01:49
|
|
|
Baronjutter posted:I believe a society with no government or "laws" (which are just oppressive things men with guns arbitrarily enforce) would be the most just one. If you had a disagreement with someone you would settle things how ever you wanted, probably with violence. Everyone would be armed, everyone would be their own men with guns. No one would wrong anyone, no one would oppress anyone, no one would violate a contract or enter into a bad contract because their life might be on the line. Logically, it would be a crime free utopia of fairness since death would be a risk for being a bad person. This is all hypothetical of course, but I've put about 20 seconds of thought into it and it seems good to me so it's actually an objective truth now. It's not violating the NAP if the other person is dead. And if the person is dead now, by my hand, then really they were always destined to die at that time and place and I can't be held responsible for that. If anything, I was just preserving the prime timeline, and the free market says that I should charge a reasonable fee for my service. Coincidentally, this dead body has no need for money or valuables, so I will just strip it bare and keep any proceeds as suitable compensation QuarkJets fucked around with this message at 03:01 on Sep 17, 2016 |
|
#
?
Sep 17, 2016 02:58
|
|
|
OwlFancier posted:I think you'll find that you plebs agreed to live with the latent mercury contamination in this area when you signed up to my DRO. Yes, but my DRO can beat up your DRO, so now you owe me money.
|
|
#
?
Sep 17, 2016 05:09
|
|
|
Ravenfood posted:Yeah, but the fact that you opted to tell me this in a reasoned argument through the internet instead of asserting it with hot, high-velocity loads from your righteous smoking long hard barrel is basically proof that you are Wrong. And once Wrong, you are Wrong in all things. Checkmate, fool. I, a Freeman of My Own Choices, contest You telling Me that I Am Wrong. We will set the Record Straight (in both senses of the word) in the morning (My morning, by My clock, which may be Your evening) at the Freeman's Monument To Rational Freedom in the Freely donated Freedom park / Toxic Waste Disposal Site / Dead Baby Burial Ground. You will be there, or You will be Recorded as non-Straight and a Grade-H Chicken by all these peers that I hereby Impress by my Will and Steel Oratory Dazzle as Witnesses to my Testimony and Claims. Remember You that a Chicken is not a Man, and may be Freely consumed by Ferals and Poors! QuarkJets posted:It's not violating the NAP if the other person is dead. And if the person is dead now, by my hand, then really they were always destined to die at that time and place and I can't be held responsible for that. If anything, I was just preserving the prime timeline, and the free market says that I should charge a reasonable fee for my service. Coincidentally, this dead body has no need for money or valuables, so I will just strip it bare and keep any proceeds as suitable compensation An Equalizing day (by My calendar, which may be a week in Yours, though as a Disclaimer I Make no claims of Belief in weeks, Christian, heathen, metric or otherwise) to You, QuarkJets! I, a Freeman of My Own Choices, Believe that You now Owe Me a Fee for My Freely rendered services in being a Witness to your Claims upon yonder Grade-H Chicken Resource that you have Made. My Fee is all Gold, Silver, and Platinum Free Money in your pockets, all the They Are Cartridges Not Bullets Dammit You may Have on Your Individual Person, and the jaunty cap of ears and fingers on your head. You may Keep the meat of your freshly Made Grade-H Chicken Resource, as I Have plenty of my Own right now. Peaceably Agree with Me and recognize My Will to collect said Fee, or I will be Forced to utilize my Steel Oratory Dazzle to ensure Your Voluntary compliance.
|
|
#
?
Sep 17, 2016 05:44
|
|
|
I keep all of my savings in QuarkCoins, a cryptocurrency of my own design that is virtually guaranteed to be worth 100x all of the world's wealth any day now!
|
|
#
?
Sep 17, 2016 06:14
|
|
|
QuarkJets posted:It's not violating the NAP if the other person is dead. And if the person is dead now, by my hand, then really they were always destined to die at that time and place and I can't be held responsible for that. If anything, I was just preserving the prime timeline, and the free market says that I should charge a reasonable fee for my service. Coincidentally, this dead body has no need for money or valuables, so I will just strip it bare and keep any proceeds as suitable compensation Those valuables are Obviously Abandoned, given that their owner is dead and presumably did not choose an heir while you were shooting him. Those credit cards are ripe for homesteading. The "and then a horde of barbarians comes by and kills everyone, are they allowed to homestead the recently vacated land" scenario is one of the many many questions I asked JRod and never heard back about. 
|
|
#
?
Sep 17, 2016 20:15
|
|
|
Goon Danton posted:Those valuables are Obviously Abandoned, given that their owner is dead and presumably did not choose an heir while you were shooting him. Those credit cards are ripe for homesteading. The answer is yes, and that's why all currently held private wealth has a complete history (or "blockchain," if you will) of fully legitimate payment for services personally rendered and value created out of thin air which is why it is wrong to take any of it away.
|
|
#
?
Sep 17, 2016 20:26
|
|
|
QuarkJets posted:I keep all of my savings in QuarkCoins, a cryptocurrency of my own design that is virtually guaranteed to be worth 100x all of the world's wealth any day now! 
|
|
#
?
Sep 17, 2016 20:39
|
|
|
Bitcoins are just numbers in files, right? We should do plaintext coin, that way when you run out you can just type more in.
|
|
#
?
Sep 17, 2016 20:46
|
|
|
Baronjutter posted:I believe a society with no government or "laws" (which are just oppressive things men with guns arbitrarily enforce) would be the most just one. If you had a disagreement with someone you would settle things how ever you wanted, probably with violence. Everyone would be armed, everyone would be their own men with guns. No one would wrong anyone, no one would oppress anyone, no one would violate a contract or enter into a bad contract because their life might be on the line. Logically, it would be a crime free utopia of fairness since death would be a risk for being a bad person. This is all hypothetical of course, but I've put about 20 seconds of thought into it and it seems good to me so it's actually an objective truth now. 
|
|
#
?
Sep 17, 2016 21:25
|
|
|
I just want to make sure I have the timeline clear. Nitrousoxide started by dismissing minimum wage increases because they're not as good as a mincome. He then progressed to saying that mincome isn't well-studied enough to risk implementing over the status quo. And now he's arguing on behalf of a hypothetical, intellectually-consistent deontological libertarian that such a person might have one decent (but heavily-qualified) political opinion. I think I have an urge to vote for noted establishment Republican Gary Johnson in November, y'all.
|
|
#
?
Sep 17, 2016 22:17
|
|
|
How do ancaps handle inheritance? I'm sure they don't, as in, they just assume it continues to work as it already does. But dead people don't have rights, and therefore what had previously been their property is in no way inviolable. Nor can other people be bound to respect the wishes of a corpse in delivering up what had belonged to him to his so-called "heirs." Inheritance law is merely the formalization of ancient custom, and ancaps respect neither.
|
|
#
?
Sep 17, 2016 22:26
|
|
|
I thought ancaps loved laws just not the ones that THE MEN WITH GUNS use to tell them they can't own slaves. You can't really have the cap part of ancap without property law.
|
|
#
?
Sep 17, 2016 22:51
|
|
|
Jack of Hearts posted:How do ancaps handle inheritance? I'm sure they don't, as in, they just assume it continues to work as it already does. But dead people don't have rights, and therefore what had previously been their property is in no way inviolable. Nor can other people be bound to respect the wishes of a corpse in delivering up what had belonged to him to his so-called "heirs." You pay a DRO to enforce your will with guns, and then have your heirs set up a second contract with another DRO to murder the first DRO if they instead seize your property or fail to defend it. This is perfectly logical 
|
|
#
?
Sep 17, 2016 23:27
|
|
|
Jack of Hearts posted:How do ancaps handle inheritance? I'm sure they don't, as in, they just assume it continues to work as it already does. But dead people don't have rights, and therefore what had previously been their property is in no way inviolable. Nor can other people be bound to respect the wishes of a corpse in delivering up what had belonged to him to his so-called "heirs." I'm shocked that I never wondered about this when I was an ancap; it never occurred to me that, of course contracts become null when the subject dies, and a will is just a contract. On the other hand, I recall the question of "what if someone kills someone with no family or friends," and suggested that a freelance DRO would try to bring their killer to justice and extract restitution, just as debt collection companies today buy debt. I imagine a similar situation would apply for contracts involving deceased individuals, if they had no ... Yeah, contract law really doesn't work without the whole "law" part, does it. Golbez fucked around with this message at 23:52 on Sep 17, 2016 |
|
#
?
Sep 17, 2016 23:50
|
|
|
OwlFancier posted:You can't really have the cap part of ancap without property law. Absolutely true, which is why they have to create weird workarounds with DROs and whatnot.
|
|
#
?
Sep 18, 2016 00:02
|
|
|
I don't see any particular reason why ancaps' a priori assumptions couldn't include "one aspect of property rights is being able to choose how your property will be disposed of after you die." Even if your will is "lock all my stuff in my manor and no one may touch it in perpetuity," the only real complication that arises is how long it takes before someone is allowed to come homestead it. But that homesteading question is a fundamental flaw of ancapism so it's not particular to this. I suppose it could be a contradiction in the ideology of those ancaps who try to claim you can't sell yourself into slavery. (A will is the ultimate contract that you can't change your mind on after it goes into effect, after all.) But I imagine those people, if confronted, are more likely to say "ok, you can sell yourself into slavery" than "you're right, I've been taken in by a hideous, inhuman ideology." Plus, if there's anything we can take away from this thread, it's that logical consistency is in no way a component of libertarianism, and showing this does nothing to challenge libertarians' inner narratives (namely, that segregation and/or feudalism were good).
|
|
#
?
Sep 18, 2016 00:04
|
|
|
I don't understand how anyone justifies a scarce land market as natural when all these entities got to participate before everyone currently involved even had a chance it's like having a game of monopoly where you play the game for 20 turns and then new players enter, and calling that fair to the new players very slanted preferential treatment
|
|
#
?
Sep 18, 2016 00:42
|
|
|
Mornacale posted:I don't see any particular reason why ancaps' a priori assumptions couldn't include "one aspect of property rights is being able to choose how your property will be disposed of after you die." Even if your will is "lock all my stuff in my manor and no one may touch it in perpetuity," the only real complication that arises is how long it takes before someone is allowed to come homestead it. But that homesteading question is a fundamental flaw of ancapism so it's not particular to this. Not to suggest any rationality in the topic of discussion, but this particular issue could also be handled in many cases (i.e., where there is not an unexpected death to deal with) by transferring the property but reserving a life estate, so long as the settlor / transferor doesn't mind having a more limited interest should he or she wish to dispose of it at a later point.
|
|
#
?
Sep 18, 2016 00:54
|
|
|
Im surprised you guys havent tried to figure out how libertarians would weasle wills into being valid contracts. Easiest way would be to argue that a will is a contract for services, in the same way you can contract someone to do something when certain conditions happen a will would be a contract to reposses your property when the designated condition is fulfilled (being dead). So therefore your property is now your heirs property. Alternatively one could argue that since its a contract specifically deals with death then it is still valid when one party dies, and as it was entered into Voluntarily it is Inviolable.
|
|
#
?
Sep 18, 2016 02:12
|
|
|
I just assumed libertarians don't actually believe that death would pose a problem for contracts because that would cause problems with all of their fantasies.
|
|
#
?
Sep 18, 2016 02:25
|
|
|
^^^ Best answer, right there.Golbez posted:I'm shocked that I never wondered about this when I was an ancap; it never occurred to me that, of course contracts become null when the subject dies, and a will is just a contract. The philosopher in me wants to nitpick at this idea. A contract is an agreement between two or more parties. A will is the expression of a single person's (party's) wishes. Wills, therefore, aren't even contracts. It seems like what you'd really need is a contract between two (or more) people, where one (or more) is declared the heir to receive the other's property upon his/her death. Better make sure to have a "no murdering" clause in there, property owner! Also since hiring assassins apparently doesn't violate the NAP, well..that would be dumb to sign such a contract anyway. And will definitely not result in people forging contracts to name themselves as heirs. Definitely a better system than what we have now.
|
|
#
?
Sep 18, 2016 02:31
|
|
|
Oh man, I just realized what a nightmare actually certifying contracts as legit would be in libertopia. No state means no notaries. Or rather there are notaries but instead of being registered with and empowered by the state it'll just be Trustworthy Tim's Certificatorium, known sworn enemy of Susie's Safe Stampers.
|
|
#
?
Sep 18, 2016 03:57
|
|
|
"I'm sorry Mrs. Peterson, but as you and my security experts can clearly see, your husband signed over all your land and possessions to me shortly before his tragic passing. See, there's his signature right there next to the blo, uh I mean coffee stains."
|
|
#
?
Sep 18, 2016 04:00
|
|
|
Buried alive posted:The philosopher in me wants to nitpick at this idea. A contract is an agreement between two or more parties. A will is the expression of a single person's (party's) wishes. Wills, therefore, aren't even contracts. It seems like what you'd really need is a contract between two (or more) people, where one (or more) is declared the heir to receive the other's property upon his/her death. Better make sure to have a "no murdering" clause in there, property owner! Also since hiring assassins apparently doesn't violate the NAP, well..that would be dumb to sign such a contract anyway. And will definitely not result in people forging contracts to name themselves as heirs. Definitely a better system than what we have now. What about the executor of the will? Calling it a contract between the owner and the executor makes the most sense in shoring up it's legal underpinnings, especially in regards to multiple heirs. Also, it's kinda how wills are already handled. To challenge a will, you file suit against the estate with the executor acting on the estate's behalf. In ancap world, the estate has no rights and doesn't exist, but the executor does and is said to be in possession of the deceased property to complete the transfer and transactions that make the heirs the new owners of property. This also provides a protection method from "killing my parents and getting their stuff." The executor has latitude in choosing if everything is on the up and up. I doubt a DRO would oppose such entities from withholding property based on violence. If such a DRO allowed murder-inheritance schemes, why would you, a perfect rational actor, chose one in enforcing your will? If no one would support such a DRO, how would it exist? It's all scientific, really.
|
|
#
?
Sep 18, 2016 04:52
|
|
|
BirdOfPlay posted:In ancap world, the estate has no rights and doesn't exist, but the executor does and is said to be in possession of the deceased property to complete the transfer and transactions that make the heirs the new owners of property. Why doesn't the executor keep all the property?
|
|
#
?
Sep 18, 2016 05:47
|
|
|
Jack of Hearts posted:Why doesn't the executor keep all the property? Because then your DRO will kill them. Why doesn't the DRO then keep the property? Well, this is why your heirs have to have that second DRO on tap. If you're starting to think that this seems like a scenario from Fallout, congrats, you understand anarcho-capitalism. Jazerus fucked around with this message at 06:02 on Sep 18, 2016 |
|
#
?
Sep 18, 2016 05:58
|
|
|
Jack of Hearts posted:Why doesn't the executor keep all the property? Because it's their job and the usual "would go out of business" nonsense? Also, personal property is everything and all property must follow proper transfers of ownership, right? If a certified will, or contract, said "I give Frank this bird to give to Jerry" and Frank keeps the bird, Jerry is then allowed to initiate force against Frank for the retrieval of said bird. I'm not an advocate for An-Cap nonsense, but the argument against wills, specifically, in such a framework is kinda weak. Obviously, Jaz beings up the fallacies inherent in the system itself, but wills don't pass muster as a gotcha to An-Cap.
|
|
#
?
Sep 18, 2016 06:34
|
|
|
BirdOfPlay posted:Because it's their job and the usual "would go out of business" nonsense? Oh no I can't be an executor anymore! Good thing I have all this land and property instead. Oh I'm sorry Jerry, did BirdOfPlay tell you he left you everything? Well, I don't know how to break it to you, but here's his signature leaving everything to me, it's certified by Trustworthy Tom's and everything! I can see you're thinking about getting violent, so I'm going to have to have my newly inherited security personnel see you out You're basically golden unless Jerry has access to some form of superior force like a powerful liege lord he's related to or something. Probably better to just have Jerry quietly killed when he shows up to the estate to receive his property. It's not like there's going to be a county coroner around to call it homicide.
|
|
#
?
Sep 18, 2016 07:14
|
|
|
paragon1 posted:Oh no I can't be an executor anymore! Good thing I have all this land and property instead. Soooo a will is just a contract then? Cool, glad we agree. 
|
|
#
?
Sep 18, 2016 07:30
|
|
|
I listen to a podcast called EconTalk, which bills itself as about "economics and liberty." I probably do this because exposure to arguments for things you don't believe helps you feel more confident in the things you do, but I tell myself it's because the host is well-intentioned, and the discussion is essentially never easily-dismissed mises dot org trash. A recent episode had an interesting guest, but they did make me feel a little crazy. They had written a book called "Why The Law Is So Perverse." I was expecting a bunch of Men-With-Guns bullshit about why laws are Bad and Irrational, but it more sounds like was written for an audience of libertarians who already believes that the law is perverse, and attempts to explain to them why that (apparent) perversity has risen out of the shared interests and morals of the populace. To paraphrase the author, there are many situations where people who believe they are committed to the principles of non-aggressive contracts or w/e, find themselves just as uncomfortable with applying those principles as society is in general, and isn't that interesting, why might that be? They discussed at length a hypothetical situation that really had me through the looking glass. Three people - let's call them Alfred, Betty and Carol - are in the emergency room of a hospital being triaged. The only surgeon on call determines that each will suffer some degree of paralysis without immediate surgery: Alfred will lose the use of both legs, Betty will lose the use of only one leg, and Carol will lose partial mobility in one finger. So, obviously, the priority for surgery is Alfred, then Betty, then Carol. But wait! What if I told you that Alfred loves Carol, and he knows that Carol would be hugely distraught if her skill at piano-playing was degraded by injury, so as a result, he wants the surgeon to help Carol instead of him. Judging from the ensuing conversation, for libertarians, this is a paradox. Betty should be treated before Carol, and Alfred should be treated before Betty, but shouldn't Carol be treated before Alfred? They were two people freely making a private contract involving a limited transfer of rights which does not aggress against anyone else's person or property, and yet, wouldn't the result...be bad?!  (Yes, both the host and the author thought it would be bad. Like I said, well-intentioned.) It's strange to listen to people struggle with something you consider easily-resolved. There was an even crazier one too: why don't we let people serving out prison sentences trade them for shorter periods of, shall we say, greater discomfort? Or rather, why do even we principled and rational liberty-minded people feel like it would be bad to allow this? I mean, they would be agreeing to be tortured!
|
|
#
?
Sep 18, 2016 11:24
|
|
|
I figure this is the best place to ask but does anyone have a link to that thread with the story of the Libertarian private detective etc? It was amazing.
|
|
#
?
Sep 18, 2016 13:55
|
|
|
You don't mean this?
|
|
#
?
Sep 18, 2016 13:58
|
|
|
BirdOfPlay posted:Because it's their job and the usual "would go out of business" nonsense? You seem to be presupposing the legitimacy of wills in a discussion about the legitimacy of wills. A guy has a contract with the executor that says "upon my passing, all my stuff goes to this guy, so that he may distribute it according to my wishes." My point is that once the dude is dead, it isn't his stuff anymore. At the moment of expiration, he ceases to have any property rights. If he hasn't given away his stuff before he dies, why shouldn't his property be treated as abandoned? Tacky-Ass Rococco fucked around with this message at 14:26 on Sep 18, 2016 |
|
#
?
Sep 18, 2016 14:24
|
|
|
Doc Hawkins posted:You don't mean this? That definitely seems familiar but I could have sworn it was an SA thing.
|
|
#
?
Sep 18, 2016 14:38
|
|
|
Ddraig posted:That definitely seems familiar but I could have sworn it was an SA thing. Huh, I thought that was one of ours as well. I know I saw it first here, years ago.
|
|
#
?
Sep 18, 2016 15:24
|
|
|
I think the SA one is the guy's morning routine that involves picking which private sewer company to use that day and the mad max commute.
|
|
#
?
Sep 18, 2016 16:12
|
|
|
The sewer one is home grown but they both get posted a lot
|
|
#
?
Sep 18, 2016 16:16
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 10, 2024 11:17 |
|
|
these discussions are quite diverting if only there were an entire subforum for this sort of thing. a kind of honeypot, with a "let it go" atmosphere, if you will
|
|
#
?
Sep 18, 2016 17:02
|
|