flat assembler
Message board for the users of flat assembler.

Index > Heap > sleepsleep's vitally important things

Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3 ... 72, 73, 74 ... 245, 246, 247  Next
Author
Thread Post new topic Reply to topic
Furs



Joined: 04 Mar 2016
Posts: 1471
Furs
NOTE: when I say money below, I mean "resources" or "assets" that anyone finds valuable. Obviously, money in its current form is only given value by the government.



ford wrote:
False. Government supposedly exists to enforce the ownership you have. I own me. This evidenced by first movership. I own my actions and energies by extension of owning me. If I have something unclaimed and then invest time and energy in it, I own the result.
Your last claim is not proof. Prove it.

Someone comes and says he disagrees, you can't claim something as yours (other than, well, yourself). Even if you did claim it, what are the exact terms of ownership?

Suppose someone comes and takes something away and claims it as his.

You claim it is yours so he is stealing. Where is your proof?

NOTE: a proof meaning without any government, thus no central authority to verify it or whatever. Because basically what it boils down to is that ownership is an artificial construct by a central authority -- the government.

ford wrote:
People can defend their own property, but they can also hire people to defend that property. Private laws and police can do whatever they want and be bribed. This already happens. The difference is that you could fire a private police force and have different legal systems available.
They can also hire people to take and claim someone else's property. And then defend it claiming it's theirs.

The difference is that this is pure tyranny. Yes, this already happens due to corruption, but it is not "pure" tyranny because it has to be masked at least. Because you know, it is supposedly "illegal". That is, such stories need to be hidden.

In your private world, however, such things are perfectly NORMAL. There is no reason to mask or hide them from the public: those with money can do whatever they please.

Like I said before, corruption is very real indeed, but corruption is proof why a free system (like yours) is catastrophic.

If you can't rely on a construct like a central authority to function well (due to corruption) to avoid tyranny, how can you rely on a construct that imposes no boundaries to someone with money?

If corruption is bad with government, then without a government, it would be an absolute corruption -- one that is COMPLETELY unhindered.

ford wrote:
False. Do not assault me. If you assault me, I will fight you and possibly kill you. With the introduction of the gun, a 120 pound woman has the same chance as a 200 pound man.
So?

1) That is YOUR law (do not assault me or I will assault you). Some people say, instead, "do not do X, or I will kill you". Who forces people other than yourself to follow your "eye for an eye" law?

2) Terrorists already exist, but they are classified so because they are against the law or "rights".

If someone comes to you and says, go pray to God or I will claim everything from you, what will you do? Shoot him? What if he has more money than you do and a private army and you stand no chance?

Yes, splendid system indeed, bend over and start praying.

Your world is money (might) makes right, which is pure tyranny itself.

That "terrorist" in your case wouldn't be a terrorist at all. Why would he be? What is there to classify him as a terrorist? He's simply using his money for his own goals, just like you are.

ford wrote:
False. Slavery is either the ownership of a human being by a different human being, and/or the theft of one's productive labor. If I own 100 acres of land, this does not affect you.
False!

Scenario: John Doe is a billionaire and bought an entire island. In that island, people live. Some people have families and were born in that island.

One day, John Doe decides that all people should be stripped naked on his island or face expulsion. Furthermore, he says if they don't work in HIS way they'll be shot for trespassing. Perfectly legal, after all, it's HIS island.

Keep in mind those people have no boats or ships to leave and John Doe is under no obligation to provide any.

Yes, definitely doesn't affect anyone else, especially those born in that island, at all.

Your land is not virtual. It affects everybody, especially because they have less to claim for themselves. It cannot scale indefinitely. By definition.

ford wrote:
False. In the USA alone there exists plenty of unclaimed land.
But it's not infinite, yet people are born every second.

ford wrote:
Do you have proof of this?
Yeah look above.

No government = total tyranny. Tyranny not by authority, but by those in power/rich people.

ford wrote:
And yet, you want to give the sicko a government to work within and think that the sicko won't fuck up? Your logic is that people are bad and we therefore need a government, which is made up of these bad people, to make certain that people are not bad. Do you not see the contradiction there?
No, I consider government made up of people too. When I said people suck, I did include the government in it.

The difference is that the government by definition needs to follow the law. Whether it does that or not, is another thing -- but you CAN SAY it is corrupt or unlawful or whatever if it FAILS to follow them. Because the concept of a government is GOOD, its implementation is less than ideal.

However in a system WITHOUT a government, you'd have those sick people (who made up the government) end up with private power. There is no such thing as rights or lawful concept anymore. What they do is perfectly legal.

You see it's the same sickos who end up in power. The difference is that if they are in the government, they at least need to have the appearance that they don't break the law -- the law that defines said government's purpose obviously.

Because if so, people will riot. Yes, they can squash them, but it's still illegal by definition. If he doesn't like that definition, he needs to leave the government. Nothing stops him from squashing people if he is not part of the government but at least you can say, indeed, that he is not part of government and being illegal. (this is important in case of external entities etc).

ford wrote:
Do you want to work for racist?
So what will you do? Starve to death...?

You're a black person (or whatever) born in a country where all land is taken by someone else. All crops are owned by someone else. You have no money to move (and even if you did, eventually the entire Earth will be owned by someone) and even if you did they aren't forced to sell you a car or plane or accept you. Nobody is there to force them. So you're fcked, go starve to death.

Your system concept requires infinite expansion or resource depletion to keep it "fair". How can you not find how fatally flawed it is?

ford wrote:
Cops do this all the time.
But it's still illegal. Whereas in your system, it would be perfectly fine.

ford wrote:
Please define fair.
If person A is born and has opportunity X, for example, claiming land or working for Y, person B should have the same opportunity, no matter where he is born.

This is not enforced in a free system, in the slightest. What's more, person A could end up depleting the opportunity for anyone else other than himself.

And yes there are parts of the world where the government is blatantly corrupt and illegal -- which would be the scenario if anyone with private power had the same amount of money.

Those "governments" are NOT held by the people or voted or even acknowledged, so they aren't even governments to begin with. They're hijacks. They're full tyranny incarnate. And guess what? A private system has no obligation to cater to "the people". Tyrants can do what they please: they have the money (and thus support), so why not?


Do you want to know what it is like to not be bound by laws or a government and do what you please? War.

A government used to have no obligation (not anymore now with international treaties) against an enemy government. That's a "free" macro system and look what happens. Did they respect each other's opinions? No, the organism (country) with bigger resources/guns (larger empire) obliterated or colonized the other one. Like what happened in the Americas.

They don't give a shit that the "enemy" government claimed that land. Nobody forces them to recognize it, and since they have bigger guns, they simply stomped and claimed it for themselves. This is how a government-less system would look like. (not like Native Americans could do anything about it)

This was not unlawful, because there were no laws about it or anyone to stop them. In fact there's still no civil laws against the military. That's what would happen without a government, on a normal scale instead of macro. If that's not proof enough of human nature, I don't know what is.



EDIT: Let me put it another way.

A government official is elected and vows to follow the law. In short, he agrees to follow the law. Thus, if he does anything illegal, it is illegal since he agreed. By definition. This is not contested.

Yes, corruption exists already. But at least it IS illegal.

Whereas in a system without a government, if he does anything what YOU consider illegal, it doesn't make it illegal in his eyes. He never agreed to anything. He wasn't elected or otherwise agreed to not do X to the people.

Crucial difference. The concept of a government is good because it FORCES the potential power-hungry tyrants to make those vows or whatever. I mean it forces in the sense that it's the requirement to "join" the government. If they don't do that, at least you can be certain they're just doing illegal corruption stuff.

That's the difference between the government and a private power. Both are ruled by the same people, but in one case, those people had to make certain vows or have obligations. In short, they are required to not break them, or they can't be called part of the government anymore. You'd have just tyrants who hijacked it. (which is what happens with a Coup for example)
Post 27 Mar 2017, 14:15
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
ford



Joined: 21 Jan 2010
Posts: 102
ford
> The difference is that the government by definition needs to follow the law. Whether it does that or not, is another thing -- but you CAN SAY it is corrupt or unlawful or whatever if it FAILS to follow them. Because the concept of a government is GOOD, its implementation is less than ideal.

False. By definition, a government is exempt from law. You cannot kidnap someone and throw him/her in a cage. A cop does this as part of his/her job. You cannot kill another human being. The government does this as part of its function. You cannot steal, a government does this as SOP in taxation.

If you want to debate the morality and truth of government, we should probably start a new thread.
Post 28 Mar 2017, 02:15
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website Reply with quote
revolution
When all else fails, read the source


Joined: 24 Aug 2004
Posts: 17279
Location: In your JS exploiting you and your system
revolution
Laws apply to different things. A government can still follow the laws it creates and simultaneously do things that would be illegal for you to do.

For example: The law can simply say "no person shall kill another ...", but the government is not a person so it can then follow with "... and the punishment shall be death ...". At no time does the government "break" the law even though it can end anyone's life if said person is convicted, but you aren't permitted to end another person's life because that would be illegal.
Post 28 Mar 2017, 02:25
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website Reply with quote
YONG



Joined: 16 Mar 2005
Posts: 8000
Location: 22° 15' N | 114° 10' E
YONG
revolution wrote:
... but the government is not a person so it can then ...
In general, a government is considered a legal person, and thus can sue or be sued. Of course, different countries have different laws, and within a country, a/the government may even assume different legal status under different laws.

Refer to:

Is a government a "legal entity"?? What are some other legal entities?
https://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20071119020420AAAmrYG

Legal personality
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Legal_personality

Government to State: Globalization, Regulation, and Governments as Legal Persons
http://www.repository.law.indiana.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1254&context=ijgls

Wink
Post 28 Mar 2017, 05:01
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website Reply with quote
revolution
When all else fails, read the source


Joined: 24 Aug 2004
Posts: 17279
Location: In your JS exploiting you and your system
revolution
Governments create the laws. So if they accidentally get themselves into a bind about being a person then all they need to do is reword the laws to adjust things accordingly. No problem.
Post 28 Mar 2017, 16:46
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website Reply with quote
Furs



Joined: 04 Mar 2016
Posts: 1471
Furs
They create the laws but they are restricted to do that depending on the type of government. Restricting in ideological sense -- not forcefully. Might doesn't make right, though, so that's okay.

Of course, nothing stops them from forcefully taking power and doing whatever they want, but they won't be the same government. That's like saying, if a cop shot everyone trying to stop him (including other cops) it means that the "police" concept is flawed and murderous. Which is stupid, as that guy is not a cop anymore, by definition. Wearing a badge or being a former cop doesn't cut it. Nobody being able to stop him doesn't change the cop concept at all. It simply means he's too strong.

So if a government steps above its boundaries (for example in a democracy, ignoring people votes etc), it is stripped of its original status: it becomes a Coup, hijack, or rogue government or w/e. Either way, it nullifies the original concept. Shit can happen anywhere obviously.

Obviously that can happen but that's because of humans: governments are made up of people just like anything else.

They obviously do not care of their status as a democratic (or whatever) government, why do you think they wouldn't do even worse if they weren't part of the government? At least the concept of a democratic government stops them a little bit as they cannot make it "too obvious" for the public if they do anything illegal.

That's still something compared to absolute freedom to do what they please (without a government). It's the same people ending up in power anyways. The government doesn't give them inherent power.

Think about it, you think a private power would give a shit if there was a fiasco about him killing people and there were no government/laws? Why would he give a shit?

If he's part of the government at least he needs to cover his tracks, because the concept of the government is good and makes it that way (or he gets in trouble). It doesn't mean the concept is going to turn people into saints.
Post 28 Mar 2017, 20:24
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
YONG



Joined: 16 Mar 2005
Posts: 8000
Location: 22° 15' N | 114° 10' E
YONG
revolution wrote:
Governments create the laws. So if they accidentally get themselves into a bind about being a person then all they need to do is reword the laws to adjust things accordingly. No problem.
When most people speak about a/the government, they refer to the executive branch of it. So, depending on your definition, a/the government may or may not have the powers to create and amend laws. Such powers, in general, belong to the legislative branch or the congress.

Wink
Post 29 Mar 2017, 01:45
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website Reply with quote
revolution
When all else fails, read the source


Joined: 24 Aug 2004
Posts: 17279
Location: In your JS exploiting you and your system
revolution
YONG wrote:
When most people speak about a/the government, they refer to the executive branch of it. So, depending on your definition, a/the government may or may not have the powers to create and amend laws. Such powers, in general, belong to the legislative branch or the congress.
Only some countries have a congress and different branches of the government. But even if all countries had such an arrangement, then things will be worded accordingly. Rule makers always protect themselves.
Post 29 Mar 2017, 01:52
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website Reply with quote
Furs



Joined: 04 Mar 2016
Posts: 1471
Furs
The thing is, it's still an additional hurdle they have to do. With no government, they wouldn't care in the slightest.

People have this skewed view that "free trade" mentality/principle applies to all humans no matter the subject (even without being trade-related), but somehow it's the government stopping them from being all understanding of each other. It's the government that turns people to thieves, murderers, and others who go against the law! Humans would be angels without one. That evil government.

No, humans are evil/irrational/whatever, not the government, regardless of system. If that were the case, there would be no corruption in the government to begin with. The government is corrupt because it is made up of those kind of humans. Everything made up of those type of humans would also be corrupt.

People in the government are the exact same people that would hold power without one. They don't change their corruption because they are in the "government" instead of a huge mega corporation or whatever. They don't suddenly become irrational because they are part of this "government". That's how they're always been.

If anything, corruption in the government proves why lack of government will only make it worse (there will literally be nothing to stop them, then). That's what I'm saying.
Post 29 Mar 2017, 11:19
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
vivik



Joined: 29 Oct 2016
Posts: 671
vivik
I wonder if I should find a job not related to programming already, or I should persist and train more. Whatever I'm doing right now doesn't seem to get me closer to emploiment, but on the other hand I really don't want to stop all this midway.

Tell me about your carieer path a bit. Was your first job related to programming?

Is there a good way to see a good programmer from a bad one?
Post 29 Mar 2017, 13:10
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
vivik



Joined: 29 Oct 2016
Posts: 671
vivik
When you just write down ideas in your text editor instead of coding anything. That's good that I think before I code, but I'm thinking for too long.
Post 29 Mar 2017, 14:37
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
vivik



Joined: 29 Oct 2016
Posts: 671
vivik
By the way, you use anything other than a text editor for keeping your notes? Do you keep notes at all?
Post 29 Mar 2017, 14:38
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
revolution
When all else fails, read the source


Joined: 24 Aug 2004
Posts: 17279
Location: In your JS exploiting you and your system
revolution
An extra 10 minutes of thought can save hours of wasted coding. I see many of my colleagues just jump in and start writing code, only to get stuck have have to delete it all and start over. Wasted time that would have been better spent on proper planning and documenting.
Post 29 Mar 2017, 14:48
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website Reply with quote
vivik



Joined: 29 Oct 2016
Posts: 671
vivik
don't want to talk about your carieer, huh
well, sure
Post 29 Mar 2017, 15:40
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
revolution
When all else fails, read the source


Joined: 24 Aug 2004
Posts: 17279
Location: In your JS exploiting you and your system
revolution
vivik wrote:
don't want to talk about your carieer, huh
Nope.
Post 29 Mar 2017, 15:42
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website Reply with quote
ford



Joined: 21 Jan 2010
Posts: 102
ford
Furs wrote:
ford wrote:
False. Government supposedly exists to enforce the ownership you have. I own me. This evidenced by first movership. I own my actions and energies by extension of owning me. If I have something unclaimed and then invest time and energy in it, I own the result.
Your last claim is not proof. Prove it.

So, I own me. I own me because only I have first movership over my body and mind. I own my actions, because only I have first movership over my actions, because only I have first movership over my volition. I own the result of my actions as a matter of course and convention. Jeff Dahmer owned his hands. He owned the action of cutting people up. He owned the action of eating them. He owned the action of killing them. He then owns his assaults, murders, and cannablism. This is why you can take him to court, toss him in jail, and so on. If I do not own the result of my actions, I cannot be held responsible for the results of my actions. Are you proposing that I can only lay claim to negatives and not any constructive work?

Furs wrote:

Someone comes and says he disagrees, you can't claim something as yours (other than, well, yourself). Even if you did claim it, what are the exact terms of ownership?

Suppose someone comes and takes something away and claims it as his.

You claim it is yours so he is stealing. Where is your proof?

Ownership implies authority and control over that which is owned. If someone comes and tries to steal, I will back up my claim of ownership with a gun. Within centrally governed societies, this right is granted to the state to act on your behalf in the exact same way. The difference here is that the state doesn't quite have the same response times.

Furs wrote:
ford wrote:
People can defend their own property, but they can also hire people to defend that property. Private laws and police can do whatever they want and be bribed. This already happens. The difference is that you could fire a private police force and have different legal systems available.

They can also hire people to take and claim someone else's property. And then defend it claiming it's theirs.

The difference is that this is pure tyranny. Yes, this already happens due to corruption, but it is not "pure" tyranny because it has to be masked at least. Because you know, it is supposedly "illegal". That is, such stories need to be hidden.

In your private world, however, such things are perfectly NORMAL. There is no reason to mask or hide them from the public: those with money can do whatever they please.

In the current system, people hire other people to take things away from people as a matter of every day actions. Every vote for an increase in taxation is a vote by the majority to take money and product of labor of the minority of tax payers. Every time someone files a lawsuit, he/she is hiring the state to take money from another person or organization and give it to the claimant. What evidence do you have that people would steal more under a private system than under a governmental system?


Furs wrote:
how can you rely on a construct that imposes no boundaries to someone with money?[/i]

Those with money would be more limited without the state. The more money one amasses the more inviting a target he/she becomes for theft. Also, without the state, there is no subsidy for absentee ownership and it would be far more costly to own something at a distance. One would have to hire quite a bit of private protection. Not only this, but there are not regulations that act as barriers to entry. The rich cannot pull the ladder up behind themselves to prevent the rise of competition.

Furs wrote:
2) Terrorists already exist

Yes. They are called governments.

Furs wrote:
ford wrote:
False. Slavery is either the ownership of a human being by a different human being, and/or the theft of one's productive labor. If I own 100 acres of land, this does not affect you.
False!

Scenario: John Doe is a billionaire and bought an entire island. In that island, people live. Some people have families and were born in that island.

One day, John Doe decides that all people should be stripped naked on his island or face expulsion. Furthermore, he says if they don't work in HIS way they'll be shot for trespassing. Perfectly legal, after all, it's HIS island.

Keep in mind those people have no boats or ships to leave and John Doe is under no obligation to provide any.

If John bought the island, then either a single individual or organization had owned it previously as well, or every person who owned land on the island sold. In either case, any tenant would have had notice. John is one dude, he cannot force a thousand people to do anything as they could kill him. If his enforcers are a formidable threat, or something like that, I imagine that there will be quite a few news agencies willing to expose this scenario. It would make quite a few headlines. Further, slavery is very expensive. People do not work well with negative incentives. It is far more profitable to give people a little freedom and just tax them like your beloved governments do. For example, the DPRK is impoverished while the ROK is wealthy. If John was motivated only by his perverse incentives and not by any profit motive, he will soon find himself to poor to pay for his army to defend his ownership and control over his island. He will be deposed. History is replete with petty tyrants who go to far and get dead.

Furs wrote:
A government official is elected and vows to follow the law.

So, 50% of population plus one person get to dictate how everyone else lives. Your idea here is that enough people saying something makes it so. Plenty of tyrants have been elected. The slaughter of whole peoples has been carried out under democratic auspices. Segregation was a government program. Slavery was a government program. War is a government program. These were all law. Your defense of law falls on deaf ears.

Furs wrote:
Yes, corruption exists already. But at least it IS illegal.

Laws are just words written on pieces of paper by people called politicians. You can tell when they're being immoral and f!@#$ed up because their mouths are moving and they are writing/typing.

Furs wrote:
Crucial difference. The concept of a government is good because it FORCES the potential power-hungry tyrants to make those vows or whatever. I mean it forces in the sense that it's the requirement to "join" the government. If they don't do that, at least you can be certain they're just doing illegal corruption stuff.

That's the difference between the government and a private power. Both are ruled by the same people, but in one case, those people had to make certain vows or have obligations. In short, they are required to not break them, or they can't be called part of the government anymore. You'd have just tyrants who hijacked it. (which is what happens with a Coup for example)

From what I understand your argument is "people are evil, and therefore a government is needed to keep people in line." This won't work. Any one of your "laws" can just be changed, and that happens all the time. If people are evil then so are the people in government (unless you believe that there are magic people who are not people), and a government is therefore too dangerous to allow to exist. If people are mostly good, then a government is not necessary. People are perfectly capable of defending themselves from some petty minority. If our people are good and foreigners are bad, we need to ask what the difference is. Certainly, it is governments that start war and therefore having a government likely makes it more probable that a war would start. If people are neither good nor bad and it is order you want, there is nothing more orderly than going to work, making some money, paying the mortgage, having some kids, and retiring to Florida to go die. The market seems to have handled it.

_________________
Everything is absurd.
Post 30 Mar 2017, 20:54
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website Reply with quote
vivik



Joined: 29 Oct 2016
Posts: 671
vivik
This thread is about walls of text? It's ok to hijack it, or should I create a new thread instead?
Post 01 Apr 2017, 14:14
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
Furs



Joined: 04 Mar 2016
Posts: 1471
Furs
ford wrote:
So, I own me. I own me because only I have first movership over my body and mind. I own my actions, because only I have first movership over my actions, because only I have first movership over my volition. I own the result of my actions as a matter of course and convention. Jeff Dahmer owned his hands. He owned the action of cutting people up. He owned the action of eating them. He owned the action of killing them. He then owns his assaults, murders, and cannablism. This is why you can take him to court, toss him in jail, and so on. If I do not own the result of my actions, I cannot be held responsible for the results of my actions. Are you proposing that I can only lay claim to negatives and not any constructive work?
That was a more rhetorical question in fact.

I don't disagree with your definition of ownership in the context of society -- but that requires a government/central authority to uphold it.

My point was that ownership does not exist without a government or central authority.

Yes, you can find 1 million people who agree with you (or way more) about that concept, but it only takes one guy to disagree with you to prove why it is not true.

Now, if ownership is defined by a central authority, then it has perfect sense. Yes, someone can disagree with the idea that X belongs to Y, but the definition of ownership is set in stone by the central authority. In that case, that person simply wants to use a different definition.

Think of it like in programming terms. "Namespaces" or "groups". Let's say we prefix those things with their namespace, so we have:

Code:
government__ownership = the ownership defined by a central authority
john__ownership = the ownership defined by John Doe
...    


The first one is always right in the context of a central authority. It doesn't matter if you disagree with it, you cannot disagree with the fact that it is the central authority's definition.

Even in the second case, you cannot deny the *fact* that it IS John Doe's definition. Because that's a fact.

However, you can disagree as to why that is a proper definition of ownership in the first place. What makes John's definition so special? Why is it his more important than yours? Aren't all human beings equal? So how come your definition is less important than John's? Is it because he has money and power and will kill you if you attempt to use your definition? -> Tyranny. What if his definition says "everything touched by Mary Sue is John Doe's property" -- what will you do about it? His definition is correct, since he can enforce it.

Majority agrees with it? How is this different than a majority-elected government enforcing it? Yes this can lead to Tyranny-by-Majority. I never claimed Democracy is perfect system! However, if it's the "majority" that forces John to tone-down his "power" then it is an implicit government system.

Such majority will want to have a central leader controlling them against John, else John will simply enforce his power over them since he's more powerful than any individual. Only together they can keep him in check.

And thus democratic governments were born.

(note that ownership is just one out of many, it's just for illustrative purposes)


PS: If you ask me, of course, the ideal government for me would be a technocratic one, where it is a benevolent dictatorship. That is, it values certain principles and makes all people equal no matter what the majority says, but it requires that it is incorruptible which is not possible with most humans.

So such an ideal government is obviously only fantasy -- or until we get ruled by a benevolent incorruptible AI.


ford wrote:
Ownership implies authority and control over that which is owned. If someone comes and tries to steal, I will back up my claim of ownership with a gun. Within centrally governed societies, this right is granted to the state to act on your behalf in the exact same way. The difference here is that the state doesn't quite have the same response times.
You're both right and wrong. Think about it, it is the same with a bet. You cannot enforce your own claims, because everyone is biased and selfish. You need a 3rd party.

If your reasoning is "the guy who claimed the land gets to defend it", then how is that different from tyranny? Or savagery? Where "might makes right"? Survival of the fittest?

Well, if that's the kind of society you want, then I understand your viewpoints and they make sense.

However, I don't agree with such society, even if I understand it. So to me a government is good else we end up with a society where it's law of the jungle. To me certain principles have to be defended -- such as giving everyone equal opportunities and freedom no matter where/when they were born. A newborn for example is obviously weak in general. That is why there has to be a 3rd party bound by concepts to defend that.

Not to be at John's whim. In fact, that is why something must exist (government) to stop John from doing what he wants. I do not want to trust these vital concepts and "rights" to certain individuals like John.

With a government they can still go corrupt but at least then they're not part of the good concept government anymore (see below).

ford wrote:
In the current system, people hire other people to take things away from people as a matter of every day actions. Every vote for an increase in taxation is a vote by the majority to take money and product of labor of the minority of tax payers. Every time someone files a lawsuit, he/she is hiring the state to take money from another person or organization and give it to the claimant. What evidence do you have that people would steal more under a private system than under a governmental system?
I don't think you understand my point. It's not about if people do it. It's about the principle of it.

If someone steals and gets away with it, because the government/police is incompetent, does that make him not a thief? Does that make governments incompetent as a concept?

No. It simply means that specific government is incompetent. Or that thief is too evasive.

Either way, it doesn't make him any less of a thief. Don't look at what happens but look at what that means.

My problem with your private-society isn't that it will necessarily have people "steal more" -- I can't exactly prove it unless I go with statistics.

For instance, you can have a private island full of "angels" humans and not a single thief, but that doesn't prove anything. The concept is what is important.

Does the concept allow thieves? Who stops them? John? What if he doesn't feel like it? Nothing in the concept forces John to do it. He could do it for personal gain, or he could not be bothered or consider it a waste of his resources.

The point is, even if a government doesn't "do it" because of corruption, at least the concept FORCES them to -- so if they don't do it, then they failed the concept. It doesn't mean the concept is bad, it means that government is not the government in the concept.


Analogy: You enter a group called Assembly Programmers Daily. When you entered this group it was assumed that you code in assembly everyday. That's kind of what makes the group's definition/concepts.

One day, you stop coding in asm. You just don't feel like doing it anymore for a few days.

Does it mean the Assembly Programmers Daily group is corrupt as a concept? NO. It means YOU are not part of the group anymore. If you are corrupt, you're technically not part of the group concept anymore.

However, with a private-society, what you did was perfectly normal: it doesn't expect you to do anything. And that's the problem.

ford wrote:
If John bought the island, then either a single individual or organization had owned it previously as well, or every person who owned land on the island sold. In either case, any tenant would have had notice. John is one dude, he cannot force a thousand people to do anything as they could kill him. If his enforcers are a formidable threat, or something like that, I imagine that there will be quite a few news agencies willing to expose this scenario. It would make quite a few headlines. Further, slavery is very expensive. People do not work well with negative incentives. It is far more profitable to give people a little freedom and just tax them like your beloved governments do. For example, the DPRK is impoverished while the ROK is wealthy. If John was motivated only by his perverse incentives and not by any profit motive, he will soon find himself to poor to pay for his army to defend his ownership and control over his island. He will be deposed. History is replete with petty tyrants who go to far and get dead.
So you're basically resorting to "it will work itself out" or "Might makes right"?

I mean, is your idea some sort of a "Jungle Law" society? Where ultimately it ends up good simply by the will of people and their collective power? Because if the majority is still weaker than one powerful individual, then it won't work at all for the majority, they will be under tyranny.

I just don't agree with such a society at all Razz But I do understand what you mean if that is so, so I'm not going to really argue about it hah.
Post 01 Apr 2017, 15:31
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
ford



Joined: 21 Jan 2010
Posts: 102
ford
So, first, I think you should read up on polycentric legal systems. The fact that some group of people in fancy costumes says something doesn't make that something any more real than anyone else saying it. It is not a government wielding force that makes ownership "real". It is the mass consensual hallucination of society that makes it so. We accept the concept of ownership when we assign guilt, when we credit work, when we trade, and when we describe. The risk of being caught and ostracized, and the risk of violence do limit violations of ownership, and as previously noted guns make people equal in "might". Also, you are sitting here screaming about what could be tyrannical while fully ignoring the fact that what could be could also not be, while governments as they are are already tyrannical.

It's also interesting that you do not see government as the island owner you are so afraid of. They are the exact same thing. As such, your argument sounds to me like this: we must have a government because if we didn't a government might come about. Kind of silly.

As for what stops people from being evil, well, it's people. Governments don't stop a thing. The police are historians. They come around after a crime has been committed and they then try to apprehend someone and hold him/her responsible for whatever violation of rights took place. The FBI only has a clearance rate of around 50%, so government kind of sucks at its job in this regard. The government can't even enforce its laws in the places it has 100% control over: prisons. Drugs, murder, rape, etc... all still happen in prisons. Force is not a good way to control people, and that is all that government offers. When a parent beats a teenager, does it change the teen's behavior in the way a parent wishes? No. The kid will just get better at lying, sneaking, and thwarting control. The kid will become more rebellious. So it is with government.

The things you claim have failed for 10,000 years and they will fail for the next 10,000. Every state that was has failed, and every current state is a future failed state. You keep thinking that government is a good idea, but government is a bad idea. Its perpetual failure seems to empirically prove that it is a bad idea.
Post 01 Apr 2017, 17:04
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website Reply with quote
YONG



Joined: 16 Mar 2005
Posts: 8000
Location: 22° 15' N | 114° 10' E
YONG
vivik wrote:
This thread is about walls of text? It's ok to hijack it, or should I create a new thread instead?
Nope. This thread is about the thread-starter's vitally-important things. sleepsleep is very busy right now, as it takes time for him to get used to a new working environment in a foreign country. When he settles down, he will crack down -- respond to -- the walls of text.

Wink
Post 02 Apr 2017, 05:29
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website Reply with quote
Display posts from previous:
Post new topic Reply to topic

Jump to:  
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3 ... 72, 73, 74 ... 245, 246, 247  Next

< Last Thread | Next Thread >
Forum Rules:
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
You can attach files in this forum
You can download files in this forum


Copyright © 1999-2020, Tomasz Grysztar.

Powered by rwasa.