LibFedDemRepCon

I haven't seen/read/heard of Snow Crash but uh how do things turn out? haha

Well if EVERYBODY is capable of evil, then you still can't create a monopoly on the initiation of force, because EVERYONE who uses it will at some point use it for evil purposes. I would say that everybody is capable of acting immorally and practically if not everyone has acted immorally at some stage, would you agree with that? If you agree with that then doesn't it follow that the Government doesn't have a monopoly on the initiation of force as everyone else is able to initiate force and act immorally? Not to the same degree but to say that the government is the only one who can initiate force is false. But it is not a false dichotomy since 4% of the population of America are sociopaths (about 12 million people). Hitler loved his dogs and was married. Oh, and he really loved children, too. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xarv7Pl4YXs My point is that people don't act 100% good or bad. A sociopath can act morally so it's silly to make the dictonomy "No one is 100% good or evil." Yes, technically that is true. Though, there is a line that is crossed which can't be undone. I deFoo'd from my father because he was constantly verbally abusive and controlling. I'll never see him again because of the evil he chose to enact upon me. But I have a cousin who said that my dad helped him completely turn his life around and swears up and down that my dad is a really good man. If you hand my dad power over millions of people via the murder machine called the army, with which side of him do you think that is going to resonate? In a totally free society, "the bad" will shrivel and die. It will be unproductive and unable to sustain itself, because people only want what is good. They will search out what is good and leave the bad behind. I underlined a line of yours that I think is important. If as you say in that line "People only want what is good. They will search out what is good and leave the bad behind" and if as you say "No one is 100% good or evil" . So your statements are 1. People only want what is good. They will search out good and leave the bad behind 2. No one is 100% good or evil So if we assume that no one is 100% good or evil then it follows that sometimes people will search out bad and want bad things to happen. Therefore your first statement is incorrect as people search out Good AND Bad things. What if we assume the 1st statement is true. Then because people only want what is good and only search out good then it follows that people are 100% good. Which directly contradicts the 2nd statement. I would say I agree with the second statement and that people want what is good AND what is bad. A totally free society is like an aggressive boot camp detox diet for the world's colon. What if you believe that "No one is entirely good or bad and that people will act both morally correct and incorrectly throughout their lives." How does that fit into Stefan's argument?

I never said you suggested abolishing the government tomorrow. Your position is that "Having a state is not the best social system and society would be better off without a state" correct? If that isn't your position then please correct me. and my point is "Sometimes overthrowing an existing social system might seem like a great idea and infallible but it can lead to horrific consequences. The Russian Revolution and the overthrowing of the monarchy is one example of that." The Communists truly believed that it was going to create a utopia situation but it didn't turn out like that. You're advocating the removal of the state which is a huge social structure change and I'm suggesting that simply having good intentions and a few good ideas and saying that "we'll figure out the details later" can lead to bad things happening.

I have heard that example from Stefan himself and I understand the analogy. Future predictions sometimes sound crazy at that point in time but the unpredictability of life may provide a solution to us that isn't even thought of now. Here I would like to make a couple of points. 1. In the slavery scenario who was it that implemented the abolishment of slavery? Abraham Lincoln, the government and the state. The southern plantation owners didn't give up their slave on their own accord and enact a voluntary relationship with them. The government, which has many shortcomings (as Stefan points out in podcasts), in this scenario improved the situation and did something good. It's important to acknowledge that the government is not entirely bad and has done good things in its time. 2. Here's another analogy Say we're in Russia 1915 Russia and you're advovating an abolishment of the monarchy. I say to you "When we get rid of the monarchy how will we ensure that the country is responsibly governed?" and then you would say "It's not predictable but communism will provide a model. Communism is a model than can survive criticism and what you are talking about is in the abstract. People will come up with better ways of governing and who know what we will invent that will make the future amazing. People will collaborate together and through the thought process of survival of the fittest come up with a great way of living!" and I'd say "you're crazy". Next thing you know Bolshevik's overthrow the government and the paradise of communism doesn't appear and the great way of governing that you assured me would happen never appears. Next thing you know we've got 5-10 million people dying of starvation and Joseph Stalin leading the country. Let's draw the comparison here Monarchy represents the State Communism represents Anarchy and the Free market in a stateless society Yes, things might be better but as Communism illustrates when you overthrow an existing social system things can be really, really bad. Would you criticise someone who questioned Communism and it's ideals in Russia in 1915 "nitpicking over theoretical examples..wasting time and talking in the abstract"?

I think in a free market society you are going to see a lot of the things that exist now. For instance, newspaper/magazine companies exist to make a profit like any other business and thus will continue to be concerned with sales and driven by circulation numbers especially in today's environment in which there is a shift to online media. Tabloid magazines will continue to work as a business model because there is such consumer demand for light celebrity entertainment. A lot of people don't like celebrities or the media circus around them but will continue to buy into the system by either bying magazines about them or clicking on online news stories about them. For example, Miley Cyrus at the VMA's everyone said how stupid it was but people kept reading stories about it, looking at photos about it online, making jokes and talking about it. Tabloids and trashy magazines have a strong appeal to humans. If two stories were posted on BBC one saying "Snooki and Miley Cyrus make out in a nightclub" and another that says "Arguments against Statism" I guarantee you that the first article will receive an absurdly larger number of view than the second one. To illustrate this point I just logged onto my facebook and the first story in my newsfeed is a video of Miley Cyrus at the MTV music awards and it had 4,500 likes and it was posted 20 hours ago. Because of this media companies will print trashy stories like this rather than more complex pieces that require critical thinking simply because people buy papers when Miley's in it and not when it is a heavily academic discussion of economic theory. 2. I think that in the online space we will see niche publications that cater to a demographic with a specific viewpoint. For instance, I think that it is likely that Christian publications for Christian people will form online and communities will form to discuss issues regarding Christianity. I think a risk of this is that because the reason people buy these publications is because they confirm their beliefs they will become narrowly focussed on their worldview and unable to appreciate other's perspectives and become so use to seeing only their viewpoint that they become intolerant of anyone who disagrees with them. If you were the publisher of a Christian online magazine and your readers were comprised of people who believe that the Earth was 6000 years ago and they buy your product because you tell them that it's alright to believe this and that God will provide for all, what incentive would you have to offer them an alternative (and correct perspective)? These people want to hear what they already believe and will complain and might even stop buying your publication (and thus you lose money) if you suggest that hey perhaps the Earth's been around longer than that and fossils prove that. There is a conflict of interest for the editor between providing what the readers want to hear and the truth. FDR could be trapped by this problem as well (hopefully not) Let's say that Stefan finds out conclusively or that it is actually more likely that having a state is the best way to provide for the needs of the population (I'm not suggesting it is but let's say hypothetically). What would he do? He earns his entire income from telling people that statism is not the solution and selling the idea of a better future and post-state society. If he were to say to everyone "Hey actually guys the state is the best solution" then people would feel 1. He's sold out (Even though he's telling the 'truth') 2. That there isn't any longer hope for a better society and that they should just work with what we currently have 3. These negative feelings might mean they don't listen to or donate to FDR anymore. It would go against Stefan's self interest in this hypothetical scenario to tell the truth. Financially, his best option would be to continue espousing non-statist ideologue even though he knew it not to be true (hypothetically) Confirmation bias, which is people's tendency to favour information that supports their beliefs or hypotheses means that publications may have to sacrifice telling the 'truth' in order to cater to the beliefs of the consumers so that they can keep selling stuff and continue to make a profit.

This argument seems to suggest that people are broken up into two categories 1. Morally Virtuous people - Good people 2. Corrupt, evil people - Bad people People are not absolutely good or evil. No one does absolutely everything good or everything absolutely bad. Everyone has flaws and everyone has done both morally wrong and morally right things. Think about yourself. Have you ever done anything morally wrong? (perhaps cheated on a test, lied, hurt someone intentionally) the answers probably "Yes" if you're being completely honest with yourself But have you also done something morally right? And I certainly would hope the answer to this would be yes as well. So which are you a completely evil person or a completely moral person? Neither, you're both a combination of good and bad choices and thus to construct this dichotomy of Good and Bad is a false dichotonomy/dilemma and is a logical fallacy. Think of someone who you would think must be 100% evil perhaps the Head Guard at a Concentration Camp in Nazi Germany. Has he done morally corrupt things? Most certainly. But there are reports where his wife says that he's a loving husband. If he treats his wife with love then that is a morally correct action and thus even he is a combination of good and bad.

Okay no worries. Thanks for playing haha. Perhaps you don't know how Windows 14 will look like but the software engineers at Microsoft would have a pretty damn good idea of what they're designing. If FDR is a place for philosophy, reason and truth and figuring out solutions for stateless societies then a reluctance to engage in practical conversaton and come up with solutions for these types of problems seems to indicate that perhaps it isn't living up to these ideals. Isn't FDR the engineers of the post-state society? Specifics and concrete models that can withstand criticism is what will make people move away from statist ideaologue.

I think that it is possible that the insurance companies could work together. It is also possible that the companies get together and decide to price fix or collude for mutual benefit at the consumers expense. Currently collusion is illegal in the U.S and although it does still occur it is likely that without laws preventing it could expand. These companies will be driven by the profit motive. Their goal is to make a profit. What's to stop all of them colluding together and just raising prices so that no matter the level of crime they're making a profit? If the expected payout per person (Averaged out for non-claimants) is $20 a month then they can charge $40 a month and if crime increases so costs per person increase to $40 a month they could increase the charges to $60 a month. I expect the response argument to this will be 1. The free market will then see other companies intervening and consumers will shift to the cheaper options. What if by this stage these insurance companies have been reporting profits in the $millions for years (say 5-10) and are able to use price-dumping to drive out new competitors from the market? When a new competitor enters the existing companies agree to drop their rates below what is even profitable. The new company is either going to receive little business if it remains pricing above the point where they make a profit. Consumers are going to move to the cheapest companies and are likely to stick with the familiar, much cheaper company that they are already are with. The existing companies are able to survive price dumping due to the reserve of cash their profits have provided over the years while the new enterprise has little cash reserves to draw from. Once the new company has been driven out of business due to the significant costs of starting an insurance business and then having very few customers, the existing companies can then again raise their prices and extort consumers. Insurance companies are in the business of making money. They are interested in the bottom line rather than fighting crime. Imagine this situation. Company A and Company B are the only two companies in the insurance market in an area (for simplicity sake only two but there would be more) Company A decides to take action against crime and spends millions in funds trying to prevent crime, researching ways to reduce crime, implementing these solutions. They face the not insignificant task of answering the question "How do you prevent crime from happening?" and so they spend lots of money of R & D in this area. If they are unsuccessful and crime stays high, they've wasted millions of dollars. If they are successful the crime rate is lower. Company B sees that the crime rate is lower and thanks to the fact that they didn't have to spend millions dealing with this problem they can offer cheaper rates of insurance to customers and can spend more on marketing and advertising to sway customers from Company A. If the insurance companies can make a profit any level of crime what motivation would they have to spend money solving a problem which doesn't create any more profits for them? This scenario is a case of the tragedy of the commons. Company B can free ride and benefit from Company A's work without having to put in any effort themselves. Consumers are fickle just because A is doing a 'nice' thing doesn't mean they would pick it over the cheaper Company B. People in the US and around the world by products made by slave labour, cheap wages and made in terrible conditions. People by chocolate that isn't fair trade because it's cheaper than fair trade. Consumers buy products that are against their own health and economic interests all the time. Think of things like unhealthy food, credit card purchases they can't afford. Consumers often want the cheapest product even if it isn't the morally 'right' thing to do. Think of how many people download illegally TV shows, movies and what not on the internet. These people understand that what they are doing is wrong and the 'right' thing is to pay for these things but they don't. 2. I expect you'll argue that a watchdog organisation will control all of this. How? Who funds the watchdog organisation? What powers do they have over the companies? How do they enforce these? Who is incentivising them to tackle these issues? You mentioned in Case 2 that they would get huge incentives. Who is funding this? That money has got to come from somewhere. The companies themselves wouldn't want regulation or to pay for it as it'd affect their bottom line. Consumers wouldn't want to pay for it as it would make their insurance even more expensive?

I'll respond to the others in turn but I believe this one brings up an important point. It does seem ridiculous that one person could seek damages from another for them looking at them funny but that's just because in our statist society's the laws made by politicians and enforced by the judiciary do not see this as illegal. Who decides what is and isn't illegal once the state has been removed? and how do they decide what is illegal and what is legal?

Dem feels. Dude your mom loves you. I don't think there is any manipulation in play here. She genuinely loves you and wants to listen to you and understand you. The last lines show this so clearly "I do not know how to reach you but I have attached an envelope, so write down what you feel and if there is something, I can do for you and mail me. Many hugs to a loved son." Your parents aren't perfect. I'm not perfect. You're not perfect. Hell, no one is perfect. We all make mistakes and unintentionally offend and hurt people sometimes. The important thing here is that your Mom wants to be better, she wants to listen to you, to understand you. It sounds like you feel like you never felt supported or listened to when you were growing up. Maybe your parents didn't realise you felt like this? What if this failure to do this things wasn't an attempt by them to slight you but instead something that they were totally unaware of? Perhaps in the midst of work, parenting and the madness of modern life they just couldn't see what they were doing wrong? perhaps you were in their blind spot? Your situation is like in almost every romantic comedy where the guy makes a mistake and the girl refuses to answer his calls and won't listen to his explanation of why he messed up and how he loves her and wants to make things better. And your hearts going out for the poor guy because he's trying so hard to get her to listen but she's just ignoring him and if she would just give him a chance to explain himself they could be happier and the misunderstanding would be reduced. Your Mom is that guy. Please give her a chance even by simply writing back and telling her how you feel about everything. It's okay for people to disagree about stuff, it's okay for people to make mistakes and when someone is really trying to reconcile a relationship that is a great opportunity. EDIT: My post has negative votes but I do not believe that that necessarily means that I'm wrong. The majority of people 1000 years ago thought that the World was flat? They weren't right. The Ancient Greeks thought dice were decided by the Gods rather than pure chance? They weren't right and science and mathematics proved them wrong. The majority can easily be as wrong as the minority and I hope that you take that into consideration when you weight the value of each post. Cheers.

Watched the video so here's how it goes 1. Alice lives in a society without a government 2. She contracts her security needs out to a private company 3. She is mugged at gunpoint on the way home 4. She rings security company who attend crime scene and they collect evidence, mugger has gone 5. They immediately pay Alice 'compensation for her losses enought to cover possessions taken and a good deal more for her time, trouble and distress'. 6. Security company does detective work and identifies Bill with 'reasonable confidence' as the aggressor of the crime. 7. They issue a letter to Bill insisting that he pay them $10,000 8. Bill can pay up and admit guilt or refuse to pay 9. Bill refuses to pay and claims he is innocent 10. Security company listen to his case and I quote "it will listen to his case. After hearing his case if they remain convinced of his guilt they will insist on payment. Threatening to use force against him if necessary" 11. If Bill then refuses security company will 'send armed men around to his house to enforce their punishment'. There are a number of queries regarding this system. Firstly, who decides what the law is? Secondly, there is a conflict of interest between the Security Companies (I'll call them SC's from now on) as they make a profit by extracting money from Bill and they are involved in the judgment call into whether he is innocent or not. Case # 1 FACTS: Bill is innocent, Bill is unable to afford a security company to represent him Alice's SC charges Bill with mugging. Bill refuses initial payment as he can't afford it. SC conduct their inhouse decision of whether or not he is guilty. They decide that he is guilty (mostly due to the fact that they want to recoup the money that they had to give Alice) and so they issue the second letter. Bill can't afford a defence contractor so the case never goes to the DRO (3rd Party) and Alice's SC therefore initates force against him and takes his property and makes him confined to a certain area and work for them. As all security companies are private none are interested in his case because he has no money (they exist to make a profit). Alice's SC offer to pay her money and provide her with free protection if she is willing to continue to find poor men without private security protection who they can charge with 'muggings' and therefore initiate force against. Perhaps, some consumers move away from the company when they hear this is happening but others are attracted by the opportunity to recieve a bit of cash on the side and free protection. The company does not go bust despite the move of some consumers away from it as they are extracting free labour, money and property from poor people without protection such as Bill. A week later. Alice tells her SC that she got mugged again. They investigate and find Robert, a poor man with no security company, guilty of the crime. Robert protests his innocence but the SC say he is guilty and demand a payment of $2,000,000 from him. He barely makes ends meet each week and is unable to pay this amount. Alice's SC then decide that he can pay off that debt by working for them for the next 25 years. Robert was innocent but is now subjecated to the force of Alice's SC. Case #2 FACTS: Bill is guilty, Bill has close links with the people who run his SC (friends and family) Alice's SC charges Bill with mugging. Bill refuses initial payment and claims his innocence (even though he is guilty). SC conduct their inhouse decision and decide Bill is guilty. Bill's SC do their own independent research and conclude that he is innocent. Alice's SC suggests going to a DRO and signing an agreement for both parties to be bound by the decision. Bill's SC decline (because they know he will be found guilty) and state that if Alice's SC initiate force against Bill (which they will be doing without the authority of a DRO or of Bill) then they will protect Bill with military force. Alice's SC initiates force. Bill's security company responds and soon there is bloodshed, fighting and violence in the suburb. Case #3 FACTS: There is an increase in crime in the area which means that the cost of having private security has increased. This is because the security companies must pay out money more often to victims, they have to pay more wages in investigation and dispute resolution. As the cost of private security increases only the more wealthy would be able to afford it and then the poor have no protection. Case #4 FACTS: Bill does not mug Alice but sees her in the street and looks at her. Bill is able to afford a SC in this scenario. Alice tells her SC that Bill looked at her in a weird way and she demands compensation. The SC conclude that Bill did look at her funny and demand $10,000,000 from Bill in repayment of this crime. Bill is outraged and his SC say 'That's not even a crime' to which Alice's SC suggest that they go to an DRO to decide this issue. Alice's SC pay the DRO $100,000 to rule in their favour and they do so. Bill's SC is bound by the decision and leaves Bill to work off his debt to Alice's SC on his own. Lots of people stop using this particular DRO (say 98%) but Alice's SC always insists on using it and if the opposing SC disagrees they use military force to kill people such as Bill as well as those involved in running the opposing SC. Every case that Alice's SC uses the DRO they slip them a big bribe so that the DRO is able to remain functioning financially. Furthermore, the DRO has low costs as they don't actually need to hear trials fairly and decide trials based on what Alice's SC tells them to. ------- The ease of corruption, bribery and exploitation in this system is very concerning.

I framed the question this way because a lot of people who have had someone in their family disappear or murdered would feel entitled to 'justice' and so how would they go about achieving such an ends is a pertinent question. This is where the DRO comes in and their function is then evident in the way it resolves this situation. So Bob has killed Paul. Presumably, Paul's family concerned for his wellbeing wonder where he is. How do they know that Bob killed him if Bob just grabbed him randomly off the street? What do they do then?

Watch this. If someone was arguing that "people know they will not help the poor themselves and thus the government is the best way to assist them" they can use the exact same argument as you. In fact I'll keep the words almost the same. Here's what they'll say It's a self defeating argument because the fact that the welfare system even exists is PROOF that people know they themselves won't help the poor and that the government is the best way to assist the poor. Hence people voted for the representative that has the system of welfare in place.

Peter does talk in ridiculously hard to understand language. I think he would be more successful if he made his message more understandable. I had a look on wiki and structural violence seems to be social structures or institutions that prevent people from meeting their basic needs. So for example if there were laws making it illegal for doctors to treat people of a certain race (let's go with african-americans) and they weren't allowed access to basic necessities such as clean water, education or nutritious food this would be an example of structural violence. The system rather than specific individuals are enacting violence against these people. An African-American baby at age 2 might die of a disease that is treatable and if the baby was white would have been treated. No one directly or literally killed the baby but due to the systems in place the baby died. If there were not the racist laws in place (e.g if the system was different) then the baby would have lived. I think structural violence definitely exists but I've got no idea what Peter's argument is about it.

DRO's are dispute resolution organisations which would serve the role of being a third party and helping resolve disputes between individuals in a stateless society where there isn't the traditional government/legal system. People are still going to have conflict without the government so there needs to be some way of dealing with that. Is that your understanding of them aswell?