afterzir

In an anarcho-capitalist economy, money creation would be done by private companies. My question/concern deals with "contagion". If a bicycle shop goes out of business, their bikes still work fine, whereas if a money printing company goes out of business, the currency is now garbage. I envision this leading to a chaotic market. How could this be mitigated? (or something to that affect) Also, this is separate, but if there are many private money printers with different view points then there is a risk that in a time of war that 99% of money printing companies support the home team, but there is one money printer dishing out money to the enemy. What to do about this? Thanks, Afterzir

I am looking for the video where Molyneux describes anarchy as a chess game, and he describes gov't as a chess game with a referee that can be bribed to change the rules. I can't seem to find it. Does anyone know where it is? Thanks.

In "Universally Preferable Behavior", Stefan writes: lying is morally between "being late" & assault. So, "Saddam has weapons of mass destruction" is morally between "being late" & assault?

Some techno-utopians think that in the future (with things like nano-technology etc.) people will do away with the concepts of work, barter, etc. and products will be made without cost-cutting etc. I'm skeptical of this, but they think their economy would be a race to the top. (I now see that the "race to the" wasn't a great way to word things)

Critics of capitalism say that businesses desire to produce the cheapest possible product for their target market; in other words, a race to the bottom. However, the consumers desire the best possible product, which acts as a kind of counterbalance. It looks like the two parties will meet somewhere in the middle. Does this mean that capitalism is a race to the middle? Or is it a race to the top? (or is it neither?) *aside: I think that socialism is a race to the bottom Thanks

Ethics is how one should act. Mises defined economics as the study of human action. Is the difference just syllogistic or more than that? Thanks

Ethics is how one should act. Mises defined economics as the study of human action. Is the difference just syllogistic or more than that? Thanks

I need to think about this. My first thought is that that example with the restaurant sounds more like difficulty than interference. Example: if two men (A & B) are in love with the same woman, then there is a "natural rivalry". A is making it difficult for B but isn't interfering with B (if A tied B up with a rope, then he would be interfering).

Domination, by definition, prevents others from achieving their goals (the video doesn't say this, which is why I tweaked it above) (if you say that interfering with others goals is unethical, then it works out) How does it not? (the only exception I can think of is masochism, but even then your goal is to experience violence)

I think it has the potential to rival UPB (with some tweaking). - initiating violence interferes with goals, hence NAP - reaching goals requires bodily control hence self-ownership http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=98etcB76QYw

a) it causes pain which is bad b) it is a violation of property (i.e. one's body) c) it hinders one from achieving his/her goals d) other I have a unique definition of gov't: it is a group people who act like oracles, representing society, and using violence to carry out their wishes [politicians, in other words]. -It is totally by chance if a slave satisfies a goal of his because he has 0% autonomy and the master has 100% -it is totally by chance if a true democrat satisfies a goal of his because voting is completely arbitrary -it is totally by chance if an oracle seeker satisfies a goal of his because the future is unknowable to the oracle. Hence gov't is pure arbitrariness. So, although choice b) seems the best, could choice c) also work? (I'm working on an ethical philosophy based on goals [telos] so I'm interested to hear) Also, is there another possible explanation ( i.e. choice d) )? Thanks

Over time, basically all of nature will eventually be homesteaded. So, for simplicity one can assume that in the future, transference will be the only way to acquire property... in short I'm not that interested in homesteading anymore. My question is: how are ownership over one's body+actions & ownership over a piece of nature related? Are they identical? similar? different? One owns one's body and therefore owns that which the body creates (like a sentence, pencil, murder). With external property, one can abandon it if one chooses. But you can't abandon your body or its actions. If a judges asks if you said such n' such incriminating statement, then you can't abandon that statement and say no (assuming you did say it). Also, if I hedonistically try to slowly destroy my body, I still have 100% control over it and hence am still the owner. Whereas if I neglect/harm my external property does that eventually ruin my ownership of it? These two scenarios are possible areas where the two properties differ but I am unsure/could be wrong. I'm having difficulty. Thanks

Okay. I see (I just got worried for second thinking that one could morally kill someone using the definition of property).

I think the road example is weaker than entering a house, so I'll switch to the house scenario (weaker because he hasn't deliberately entered another person's homesteaded area) . The fictional guy might respond: I'm not incarcerating him (tying a rope around him would be incarcerating him), I own my door an can lock or unlock it as I see fit, and locking a door doesn't directly harm anyone.

A criticism I've heard is that of building a circular road around a house and trapping that person there to die. How would one counter this without appeal to consequences i.e. the man tells the judge that "I own the road because I homesteaded it and can do whatever I want with my property (i.e exclusive use) as long as I don't directly harm others or their property." aside: this scenario is rare, but it could easily apply to a person entering a house or office, which is a common occurrence, and then being trapped inside.