Evil Avatar

Evil Avatar (http://www.evilavatar.com/forums/index.php)
-   Totally Off Topic (http://www.evilavatar.com/forums/forumdisplay.php?f=9)
-   -   Anarcho-capitalism (http://www.evilavatar.com/forums/showthread.php?t=210530)

Anenome 05-12-2014 08:24 PM

Anarcho-capitalism
 
I'm gonna resurrect the libertarianism thread explicitly with ancap ideas.

Let's kick it off with how we get roads in an ancap region sans taxes:


vallor 05-14-2014 12:01 AM

Interesting but I'm not sure it supports your argument. And it makes no case for how we'd fund roads without taxes. Unless you're suggesting the sin and gas tax is actually appropriate in an ancap society which then goes to some "oversight" body to build roads around the nation.

Plus if government would limit themselves to the services mentioned (e.g. building roads), which everyone can take advantage of, why not? The onus is on us to make sure we don't fall for the shell game and they don't start shaking us down for the $600b to fund their worldwide spying program, etc.

That doesn't make people ancaps nor does this video show how ancap actually improves anything, it just points out how dumb, misinformed, and apathetic the majority are. We reap what we sow.

Anemone 05-14-2014 01:40 PM

When you give gov a monopoly on any service, you pay the monopoly price, which is the highest possible price, for monopoly service, which is the lowest possible service they can provide.

This is always the case when you outlaw competition.

In any case, since the first ancap society is likely to be at sea, the "roads" make themselves, in the form of watery-canals.

If you actually did need to pay for roads, it's doable privately. You don't inherently need a government to pay for roads. And if you could do it privately, you can therefore do it cheaper and more high quality.

So, if your goal is roads, having the government provide them is the worst possible solution.

inscribed 05-14-2014 03:35 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Anemone (Post 2302751)
When you give gov a monopoly on any service, you pay the monopoly price, which is the highest possible price, for monopoly service, which is the lowest possible service they can provide.

ObamaCare Processors Getting Paid To Do Nothing

Quote:

Wentzville, MO - An ObamaCare processor operated by Serco with a 1.2 billion dollar contract is paying its employees in a Wentzville, Missouri process center to do nothing, according to a Serco employee and whistleblower.

The whistleblower claims that despite not having enough work for their current employees Serco is still hiring. “They want to hire more people even though we still don’t have work to keep the people we have busy.” He claims that hundreds of employees sit staring into computer screens with little or nothing to do.

“There are weeks that a data entry person would not process an application.”

The whistleblower goes on to say:

“They’re told to sit at their computers and hit the refresh button every ten minutes.”

The goals set for the processors are to handle two applications a month and sometimes they are unable to even do that. The whistleblower claims that throughout several states Serco has 1,800 employees vying for 1 to 30 applications that appear in the database.

Why would Serco have so many employees working on a handful of applications? According to the whistleblower, Serco gets paid based on the number of workers they have employed, which means they want employees to show up even if there is nothing to do.

Serco refused to respond to the whistleblower’s comments.

Anenome 05-15-2014 08:49 AM

A lot of the challenges to my ideals given by people like Venom fall into this intellectual trap of demanding free markets offer a perfect solution to situations that statism doesn't handle well either, whereas I'm fine if free markets handle the situation at least as well. Here's more on that idea:

Pessimistic anarchism
Quote:

I received email recently asking me to respond to an article in the Huffington Post, No Safe Harbor on Gulf Coast; Human Blood Tests Show Dangerous Levels of Toxic Exposure. Questioner’s English wasn’t very good, but the question he was trying to pose was how market anarchists like myself can oppose government action to mitigate disasters like the Deepwater Horizon blowout, and what we have to say about the charge that corporate money is suppressing news of the full toll of the disaster.

What I had to say to him about that follows, slightly edited and expanded. It’s as good an individual case as any to explain why my free-market anarchism is a result not of optimism about the perfectibility of markets but of profound pessimism about the limits of any sort of collective action by human beings.

It does not matter for purposes of answering your question whether or not I think this article is factually accurate, since the situation it describes (environmental disaster followed by insidious long-term health effects that those responsible may be using corrupt means to cover up) represents a possible sort of collective-action problem with which anti-statists have to deal.

Our key insight is a pessimistic one: this is the sort of situation which, though individuals and markets don’t handle it well, isn’t actually handled well by governments either. The fundamental mistake of statist thinking is to juxtapose the tragically, inevitably flawed response of individuals and markets to large collective-action problems like this one against the hypothetical perfection of idealized government action, without coping with the reality that government action is also tragically and inevitably flawed.

The implicit burden of the article, after all, is indignation that the government has been done too little and the wrong things. What the author fails to grasp (because his thinking is warped by the religion of state-worship) is that this sort of dysfunction is not a sporadic accidental failure that could be corrected by sufficiently virtuous thoughts and deeds; it is an essential failure, entirely predictable from the incentives operating on all the actors (including the actors within government).

His sort of fantasy thinking implicitly throws a burden of proof on anarchists to construct a perfect response to something like the Deepwater Horizon disaster in a stateless system, or else have their critique of statism dismissed as heartless and inadequate. But the correct analysis is to notice that we can only do what we can only do, and compare the rationally expectable effectiveness of flawed government action against the rationally expectable effectiveness of flawed individual and market action.

The second level of error, once you get this far, is to require that the market action achieve a better outcome without including all the continuing, institutional costs of state action in the accounting. So, for example, other parts of the continuing costs of accepting state action to solve this individual toxic-exposure problem in the Deep Horizon aftermath is that Americans will be robbed every April 15th of five in twelve parts of their income (on average), and be randomly killed in no-knock drug raids. And it’s no use protesting that these abuses are separable from the “good” parts of government as long as you’re also insisting that the prospect of market failures is not separable from the good behavior of markets!

Irrational anarchists believe that utopia is somehow achievable in a stateless system; they make the exact reciprocal error from statists, believing that all evil proceeds from government. Rational anarchists like myself know that stateless systems will have tragic failures too, but believe after analysis that they would have fewer and smaller ones.

If this seems doubtful to you, do not forget to include all the great genocides of the 20th century in the cost of statism. It was contemplating those that turned me into an anarchist – because that sort of eruption of fire and blood, too, is not accidental but essential given the logic of state collectivism.

VenomUSMC 05-15-2014 08:53 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Anenome (Post 2302918)
A lot of the challenges to my ideals given by people like Venom fall into this intellectual trap of demanding free markets offer a perfect solution to situations that statism doesn't handle well either, whereas I'm fine if free markets handle the situation at least as well. Here's more on that idea:

I don't ask for a perfect solution. This has been stated many times. You think the free markets will rise to meet any demand put forward?

Anemone 05-15-2014 10:54 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by VenomUSMC (Post 2302919)
I don't ask for a perfect solution. This has been stated many times. You think the free markets will rise to meet any demand put forward?

You've criticized my proposed society for the same thing that plagues current societies. As I said before, you've chosen to focus on what's the same as our current society instead of what's different.

You say a free society can't prevent murder, nor child molestation, nor attempts to make people slaves, or any other kind of aggressions--this is true, preventing them entirely is impossible and nowhere have I claimed they could be possible. I claim only that they will be dealt with via a justice system just as they are now, and that a free society makes the situation probably a little bit better by giving you the ability to exclude people via COLAs, something that is largely impossible now in a society of publicly-owned roads.

If you have a sex-offender and you want to prevent them from coming into your town--currently this isn't possible, or at least very difficult to achieve. You have to rely on laws passed usually at the state level which can take years to pass. And then you usually have to wait for a tragedy to occur to give public focus to that issue, things like Megan's law and the like then get passed.

In a COLA you don't have to wait. If you believe that sex-offenders should be excluded from your city, you simply join or start a COLA that believes the same thing. You don't have to wait for a tragedy, you can adopt the law for yourself. You don't have to convince millions of people first via a vote. And you don't have to make compromises, where such laws try to balance the rights of a sex-offender with the rights of ordinary citizens, creating laws that are unenforceable, such as barring the sex-offender from coming within 500 yards of a school, or a child, or w/e. A COLA can bar them from an entire city without creating a civil rights case out of it.

And beyond that, you don't even need to wait for a conviction--this is a massive improvement over the now. If someone is merely a strongly suspected sex-offender not yet convicted, you can blackball him from entry to your COLA and thus protect your children ahead of the event.

And this is true for every other critique you've levelled, from slavery, to Nambla members, to a hundred other objectionable means of living. The answer is separate yourself from them via COLAs, do not associate with them at all, and if they're abusing others then you have the ethical justification to step into their property and save those being abused--which you also critiqued heavily even though it's the exact same rationale we use right now in our own society to save those being abused on private property!

In short your critiques have come across as mere criticalism, without substance, because you do not apply your rubric to our current society, so you have no right to complain. If you're fine with a certain situation in our current society, how can you complain about it my proposed society?

You conflate justice with "forcing a law" on someone, even though justice is higher than law, you refuse to even acknowledge this.

I now await your troll-filled, irrational cheap-shot of a reply, which I'm sure is coming, because that's all we've gotten out of you for weeks now. Why don't you surprise me for once and reply thoughtfully, without obvious venom.

Anemone 05-15-2014 12:19 PM

Things the state won't let you do in the US: Feed the poor edition

"This refrigerator was installed on the street by a very generous Saudi man. He and his friends leave leftovers and other food in there to feed the less fortunate children of his town with nutritious food, and to save them from the "shame" of begging."
https://i.imgur.com/sgl4NQG.jpg
http://gulfnews.com/news/gulf/saudi-...ouse-1.1328931

VenomUSMC 05-15-2014 01:11 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Anemone (Post 2302968)
You've criticized my proposed society for the same thing that plagues current societies. As I said before, you've chosen to focus on what's the same as our current society instead of what's different.

You say a free society can't prevent murder, nor child molestation, nor attempts to make people slaves, or any other kind of aggressions--this is true, preventing them entirely is impossible and nowhere have I claimed they could be possible. I claim only that they will be dealt with via a justice system just as they are now, and that a free society makes the situation probably a little bit better by giving you the ability to exclude people via COLAs, something that is largely impossible now in a society of publicly-owned roads.

If you have a sex-offender and you want to prevent them from coming into your town--currently this isn't possible, or at least very difficult to achieve. You have to rely on laws passed usually at the state level which can take years to pass. And then you usually have to wait for a tragedy to occur to give public focus to that issue, things like Megan's law and the like then get passed.

In a COLA you don't have to wait. If you believe that sex-offenders should be excluded from your city, you simply join or start a COLA that believes the same thing. You don't have to wait for a tragedy, you can adopt the law for yourself.

You're merely falling victim to your own selective hearing. I haven't stated ANY system can get rid of sex-offenders, etc. What I HAVE been saying - many times - is that your system legally enables such activity as it absolutely opens the door to such actions being perfectly "legal" if someone makes it up in their COLA.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Anenome
And beyond that, you don't even need to wait for a conviction--this is a massive improvement over the now. If someone is merely a strongly suspected sex-offender not yet convicted, you can blackball him from entry to your COLA and thus protect your children ahead of the event.

Uhhhh you can do this in the United States too. Home Owners Associations, local government, State gov, Federal gov.

Never mind the obvious problem. If you "merely suspect" someone - as you put it - then they're guilty. Awesome, sounds fun.

This is actually a very common practice in places such as Iraq and Afghanistan. People accuse others that they dislike of some sort of crime - a mere accusation - and justice is served by blowing their doors in and dragging them out. SWATting is becoming a bigger thing in the United States. Apparently you're a fan of this. Bring on the seasteading crusades!


Quote:

Originally Posted by Anenome
And this is true for every other critique you've levelled, from slavery, to Nambla members, to a hundred other objectionable means of living. The answer is separate yourself from them via COLAs, do not associate with them at all, and if they're abusing others then you have the ethical justification to step into their property and save those being abused--which you also critiqued heavily even though it's the exact same rationale we use right now in our own society to save those being abused on private property!

Is this a joke? First, making something illegal doesn't save you from it. You use this fact to support your desire to legalize all drugs, etc. Magically declaring something illegal saves you in your dystopia. Second, ethics - once again - are not universal. The world proves this. If someone acting unethically enables me to ignore all of their laws, on their own private property, at a time and place of my choosing, then that sounds horrible. As the world proves - the reality we actually live in - there is a WIDE, WIDE range of what deemed ethical behavior. Declaring it's okay to go onto someone else's property to enforce your ethics merely justifies such things as Sharia Law. Some cultures "honor killings" are perfectly ethical. It's perfectly ethical in some cultures to kill people who do not abide by their ethical standards. It's an abuse to a higher being - in their eyes - to not ethically behave by their standard. You're advocating this action. Disgusting.

This is absolutely not the same rationale as used in our present society. Our present society as umbrella laws that apply to all - ancap doesn't. Laws ultimately come as a result of people voting in the United States. Your dystopia simply creates a free-fire zone of a person or group's own ethical standard enforcement. Even then, what are we limiting abuse to? Physical? Emotional? Fiscal? I'm sure the Occupy Wallstreet types would love to burn down the 1%'s sweet dwellings because they're "abusing the people".

Even your premise posted here is contradictory. One one hand, you say produce a COLA, separate yourself, live by your own rules. On the other hand, if you think someone's unethical actions is causing harm - delivery swift justice (what "justice" is depends completely on the individual delivering it). It's like saying "run and hide from everyone", while also advocating "seek and destroy."

Quote:

Originally Posted by Anenome
In short your critiques have come across as mere criticalism, without substance, because you do not apply your rubric to our current society, so you have no right to complain. If you're fine with a certain situation in our current society, how can you complain about it my proposed society?

I've stated I don't like our society - many times.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Anenome
You conflate justice with "forcing a law" on someone, even though justice is higher than law, you refuse to even acknowledge this.

... You conflate justice with ethical. Look at many acts of "justice" carried out around the globe. Honor killings is seen as serving justice by many. Honor killings are seen as ethical by many.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Anenome
I now await your troll-filled, irrational cheap-shot of a reply, which I'm sure is coming, because that's all we've gotten out of you for weeks now. Why don't you surprise me for once and reply thoughtfully, without obvious venom.

As soon as you realize the straw you're looking through to see the world isn't the reality of the world we all live.

VenomUSMC 05-15-2014 01:12 PM

I guess you still believe the ancap society will simply step-up to meet any demands placed on it by consumers?

the acid attacks or honor killings of women in Muslim countries who refuse to cover their faces. Remember to wear your Burqa if you happen to be born with a vagina before someone delivers "justice" on a completely "ethical" basis in their views.

Don't worry, Muslims aren't the only culture taking part in honor killings. Hindu vs. Muslim Honor Killings. Completely ethical in these eyes of many, unfortunately.

Anemone 05-15-2014 02:09 PM

Listen, here's why allowing invasions when there is someone being oppressed isn't forcing my morality on them. Because there's a human being in their property bounds who does not consent to what's being done to them. It's THEIR moral sense that's being protected, not my moral sense being forced. That complaint is a legitimation of invasion. Absent that complaint, I don't legitimate invasion.

As I said, all people reject their own victimization, and consensual activity, regardless of its type, is prima fascie legitimate.

If someone is on your property and wants to escape it, anyone can ethically invade to help them escape.

So you say various cultures have different ethical standards. Fine. If the people on their property do not complain about how they're being treated, no one will invade them.

And after the invasion the result is dispute resolution for damages. That's influence by local custom too, but that's the nature of the beast. Each visitor should agree to the legal basis on which they will settle any dispute that arises before setting foot on that property, then there's no issue, since each has agreed ahead of time how to deal with a dispute. Voluntarism remains.

Going on to cite honor killings and acid attacks is ridiculous. The victims of acid attacks do not defend their attackers or forgive them (and if they did, who could complain), they seek justice for these attacks. These are not accepted or legitimated even in their own countries.

Same for honor killings, the women whom are the victims of the killings do not accept their own murder, even if everyone else turns a blind eye. A libertarian society would seek to save such people and remove them from that situation.

Just because my society has a different way of dealing with these problems you assume there's no way of dealing with them. This is not a reasonable assumption.

You again say that a pedophile could make pedophilia legal on their property. Didn't I already say that this would be the greatest favor they could do us, to publicly announce their intent to molest children so that everyone would avoid them? Why are you avoiding that obvious consequence?

Seems you can't respond to the realities that go against your complaints, you outright ignore them.

VenomUSMC 05-15-2014 04:57 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Anemone (Post 2303033)
Listen, here's why allowing invasions when there is someone being oppressed isn't forcing my morality on them. Because there's a human being in their property bounds who does not consent to what's being done to them. It's THEIR moral sense that's being protected, not my moral sense being forced. That complaint is a legitimation of invasion. Absent that complaint, I don't legitimate invasion.

Oppression can be in the eye of the beholder. You cannot escape that. You've stated that forced taxes - which you're subject to in the United States and California specifically - are immoral. Does that give someone to the right to invade the United States to free you? You've already stated that it's unacceptable to ask someone to move.... of course you've advocated moving too.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Anenome
As I said, all people reject their own victimization, and consensual activity, regardless of its type, is prima fascie legitimate.

You've opened the door to the enforcement of what a person or group believes is ethical treatment. How about anarchists "freeing" the oppressed people who are too blind to see the state is oppressing them? Or do you have to wave a white flag declaring that you're a victim? I'm sure there is some magic requirement of forcing private property owners to allow their slaves to interact with visitors to complain. Do they get union breaks as well? Remember, those that suffer from Battered wife syndrome are not to be "saved" unless they formally complain. Watch an episode of cops for heaven's sake.... it's not uncommon for a person to be abused to outright refuse to go against the abuser.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Anenome
If someone is on your property and wants to escape it, anyone can ethically invade to help them escape.

Sounds great, but ultimately unrealistic and out of touch with many cultures that exist in the world today. If someone comes onto your property they are consenting to your COLA. As you've conveniently continued to ignore, there is no legally required way in which a property owner must display their COLA - just ways you hope will become standard.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Anenome
So you say various cultures have different ethical standards. Fine. If the people on their property do not complain about how they're being treated, no one will invade them.

I'd say reality proves various cultures have different very different ethical standards. I'll make sure to tell the slaves, the people locked up, etc to file a complaint.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Anenome
And after the invasion the result is dispute resolution for damages. That's influence by local custom too, but that's the nature of the beast. Each visitor should agree to the legal basis on which they will settle any dispute that arises before setting foot on that property, then there's no issue, since each has agreed ahead of time how to deal with a dispute. Voluntarism remains.

... After invading Sharia Island they'll go to the people's court? Give me a break. If it's influenced by local customs many of these abuses will be declared absolutely legal and ethical. You do know many people are born into their circumstances, right? Again, the idea that people will meet at the docks and go over the COLA seems far from realistic. Never mind merely going to the wrong floating Sharia fortress can lead to consenting to imprisonment.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Anenome
Going on to cite honor killings and acid attacks is ridiculous. The victims of acid attacks do not defend their attackers or forgive them (and if they did, who could complain), they seek justice for these attacks. These are not accepted or legitimated even in their own countries.

While such actions are ridiculous in my view, they're quite ethical in some people's views. It doesn't matter if the victims complained or not. The attackers carried out such actions per their ethical code, many believing these women were harming others by simply not wearing a burqa. Many of these attacks are considered accepted and legitimate in their own countries. Never mind the many smaller communities that support such action, which is more aligned with the dystopia you hope to build - small communities.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Anenome
Same for honor killings, the women whom are the victims of the killings do not accept their own murder, even if everyone else turns a blind eye. A libertarian society would seek to save such people and remove them from that situation.

Sounds pretty hawkish to me. "would save such people and remove them from that situation" is a huge presumption. Even some of the doctrines that the United States follows forbids taking that course of action (the Powell Doctrine for example).

Quote:

Originally Posted by Anenome
Just because my society has a different way of dealing with these problems you assume there's no way of dealing with them. This is not a reasonable assumption.

No, I don't. Again, you're unable to understand anything but your own view. I've expressed that your "solutions" simply result in opening the door to people to go on their own crusades. In fact, you've expressly removed the presumption of innocence from people. Mere rumor can apparently result in swift "justice" - such an ambiguous term - that displaces and isolates people.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Anenome
You again say that a pedophile could make pedophilia legal on their property. Didn't I already say that this would be the greatest favor they could do us, to publicly announce their intent to molest children so that everyone would avoid them? Why are you avoiding that obvious consequence?

Sure, if he's required to post his COLA online, on the docks, or whatever. There are no umbrella laws in your dystopia - thus no requirement of such action to be taken. Why are you avoiding that many people would obviously hide this? Why are you avoiding that they would simply put their floating pedophile world outside of the some community to be a pedophile getaway? A Dream Vacation for Pedophiles - Child Sex Tourists in Southeast Asia

Quote:

Originally Posted by Anenome
Seems you can't respond to the realities that go against your complaints, you outright ignore them.

Haha, as you ignore the questions posted in your direction and reality we live in. Look at this insanity:

Quote:

Originally Posted by Anenome
you don't even need to wait for a conviction--this is a massive improvement over the now. If someone is merely a strongly suspected sex-offender not yet convicted, you can blackball him from entry to your COLA and thus protect your children ahead of the event.

Don't wait for convictions - you're already guilty! Rape Culture is a ‘Panic Where Paranoia, Censorship, and False Accusations Flourish’ - false accusations? You're already guilty!

I thought about posting a pic of Judge Dredd in regards to your ideas about justice... but, in reality, people are far more empowered than Judge Dredd in your society. Judge Dredd - from the latest movie - enforces the laws via judging and punishing, but he does not create them. In your world, a person can not only "legally" enforce laws by judging and punishing but create them as well!


Also, do you still believe the completely free market will meet any demand put forth?

VenomUSMC 05-15-2014 05:19 PM

Two little girls are 'lost' in a busy shopping centre and asking for help - watch what happens next -This video reveals the shocking truth of heartless 'busy Britain' as Uma and Maya took turns to 'be lost' in the concourse next to crowded Victoria Station

Shooting victim's body ignored by convenience store customers in disturbing video
"When they told me people were still coming in that gas station, stepping over my child in the doorway, I couldn't believe it; I couldn't believe it," says victim's mother.


India in shock over footage showing crowds ignoring accident victim's pleas
Outrage and introspection greet video of drivers passing bloodied father and son as wife and baby bleed to death in road


Jaipur: Accident victim cries for help, ignored by all

Alexandra Kovacs trial: Murder victim's cries for help were ignored by flatmates

This is unfortunately all too common. Apparently that magically stops in your sea-world. Funny how people that are escaping the state - largely so they can be allowed to mind their own business - will suddenly be expected to stop minding their own business and spring into action.

Maybe you had the foresight to sign on this guy to save the people? :

http://ts4.mm.bing.net/th?id=HN.6080...630596&pid=1.7

VenomUSMC 05-15-2014 05:29 PM

Sudan judge sentences Christian woman to death for apostasy.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Article
Meriam Yahia Ibrahim Ishag, 27, is married to a Christian and eight months pregnant, human rights activists say.

"We gave you three days to recant but you insist on not returning to Islam. I sentence you to be hanged," Judge Abbas Mohammed Al-Khalifa told the woman, addressing her by her father's Muslim name, Adraf Al-Hadi Mohammed Abdullah.

Khalifa also sentenced Ishag to 100 lashes for "adultery". Under Sudan's interpretation of sharia, a Muslim woman cannot marry a non-Muslim man and any such relationship is regarded as adulterous.


Anemone 05-15-2014 05:48 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by VenomUSMC (Post 2303083)
Oppression can be in the eye of the beholder.

This has been answered. When someone claims they're being oppressed in another's property the reasonable thing to do is to separate the two, invading the one's property if need be to do so, and then engage in dispute resolution, ala a court. Their cry of oppression is legitimation for invasion.

Quote:

Originally Posted by VenomUSMC (Post 2303083)
You cannot escape that. You've stated that forced taxes - which you're subject to in the United States and California specifically - are immoral. Does that give someone to the right to invade the United States to free you?

By destroying the US gov? No, since that would also be aggression against those who pay taxes willingly. The situation is not that simple. And I am no being held against my will, but rather stolen from consistently. Not the same thing.

Quote:

Originally Posted by VenomUSMC (Post 2303083)
You've opened the door to the enforcement of what a person or group believes is ethical treatment. How about anarchists "freeing" the oppressed people who are too blind to see the state is oppressing them?

This has been answered. You're not reading me if you can ask this. I said all people reject their victimization and the cry of the victim makes invasion ethical, and if there's no complaint then invasion cannot be condoned. So if there's a group that doesn't think they're being oppressed, then no, invasion is not ethical. We would instead endeavor to dialogue with them.

Quote:

Originally Posted by VenomUSMC (Post 2303083)
Remember, those that suffer from Battered wife syndrome are not to be "saved" unless they formally complain. Watch an episode of cops for heaven's sake.... it's not uncommon for a person to be abused to outright refuse to go against the abuser.

Yes, exactly. The abused must have the courage to complain, but partly that's a function of whether or not they believe the interceder has the power to actually save them from the abuser long-term.

Quote:

Originally Posted by VenomUSMC (Post 2303083)
If someone comes onto your property they are consenting to your COLA. As you've conveniently continued to ignore, there is no legally required way in which a property owner must display their COLA - just ways you hope will become standard.

This has been answered. I explained this to you already.

Question, would you be part of a COLA that doesn't require display? Why do you think other people would then? The first law you accept for yourself is to become part of the COLA framework, and the framework has a statement of rules that effect how the COLA system itself works. Part of this would be the requirement that laws must be accepted before entry is granted.

While it's theoretically possible that a COLA could be built without the requirement, you have not offered any compelling reason why anyone ever would, since it would go both ways.

Quote:

Originally Posted by VenomUSMC (Post 2303083)
I'd say reality proves various cultures have different very different ethical standards. I'll make sure to tell the slaves, the people locked up, etc to file a complaint.

It's an epistemological problem more than anything, Venom. If they don't tell someone they've been enslaved, how can anyone help them. Only they know.

Quote:

Originally Posted by VenomUSMC (Post 2303083)
... After invading Sharia Island they'll go to the people's court? Give me a break. If it's influenced by local customs many of these abuses will be declared absolutely legal and ethical.

This has been answered.

In a COLA system either participant in the suit gets veto power over which court is chosen until one is found acceptable to both of them. And if one never is, they agree on a 3rd party who will choose one for them. Under this system, victims can be sure to choose a court that will not simply rubber stamp their victimization due to cultural acceptance of such practices--they can demand a court outside their culture.

Quote:

Originally Posted by VenomUSMC (Post 2303083)
You do know many people are born into their circumstances, right? Again, the idea that people will meet at the docks and go over the COLA seems far from realistic. Never mind merely going to the wrong floating Sharia fortress can lead to consenting to imprisonment.

This has been explained. Simply stepping on another's property is not consent. Quit acting as if it is. It's trespassing. You would not have permission to enter until you've sign an entry agreement. The remedy is removal from the premises until becoming a signee.

Quote:

Originally Posted by VenomUSMC (Post 2303083)
While such actions are ridiculous in my view, they're quite ethical in some people's views.

Unless the victim thinks so too, it's a non-point.

Quote:

Originally Posted by VenomUSMC (Post 2303083)
It doesn't matter if the victims complained or not.

It doesn't now perhaps; it would in a COLA.

Quote:

Originally Posted by VenomUSMC (Post 2303083)
The attackers carried out such actions per their ethical code, many believing these women were harming others by simply not wearing a burqa. Many of these attacks are considered accepted and legitimate in their own countries.

Don't you realize that in a COLA system, those with extremist views would automatically be separated from those without them. They wouldn't even have opportunity for an acid attack.

Quote:

Originally Posted by VenomUSMC (Post 2303083)
Sounds pretty hawkish to me. "would save such people and remove them from that situation" is a huge presumption. Even some of the doctrines that the United States follows forbids taking that course of action (the Powell Doctrine for example).

It is hawkish. We plan to one day liberate entire people groups from nation states if we gather that kind of power.

Quote:

Originally Posted by VenomUSMC (Post 2303083)
you're unable to understand anything but your own view. I've expressed that your "solutions" simply result in opening the door to people to go on their own crusades.

Just ebcause you think it likely doesn't mean I have to think it likely. Considering that I actually understand my proposal and you both don't understand it fully and haven't taken the time to ask me questions about it, 95% of your challenges are due to ignorance about what I'm proposing, and not thinking critically about your own challenges. Classic example: your acid attacks scenario--people would separate into COLAs of either extremist Islam or moderate Islam and never the twain would meet.

Soon the people radical enough to do acid attacks would find they don't have any women to attack in the first place. Then that culture would finally die its natural death.

Quote:

Originally Posted by VenomUSMC (Post 2303083)
In fact, you've expressly removed the presumption of innocence from people. Mere rumor can apparently result in swift "justice" - such an ambiguous term - that displaces and isolates people.

You're presuming things. If you had asked me under what circumstances I would support invasion, it would be after evidence presented in a public hearing and a court issuing an invasion reasonable based on the evidence. Only excepting cases of obvious imminent harm would that be avoidable in my preferred scenario.

Quote:

Originally Posted by VenomUSMC (Post 2303083)
Sure, if he's required to post his COLA online, on the docks, or whatever.

A COLA that doesn't publish its laws is also unvisitable.

Quote:

Originally Posted by VenomUSMC (Post 2303083)
There are no umbrella laws in your dystopia - thus no requirement of such action to be taken.

This has been explained.

Quote:

Originally Posted by VenomUSMC (Post 2303083)
Why are you avoiding that many people would obviously hide this?

What you also don't understand is that entrants to any COLA can also demand certain provisions be included, including tings against child molestation--I'm sure that would be a standard clause everywhere for obvious reasons. Thus if the owner hid it, didn't declare a law about child molestation, then they'd be convicted of child molestation based on agreeing to the visitor's visitation agreement.

Quote:

Originally Posted by VenomUSMC (Post 2303083)
Don't wait for convictions - you're already guilty! Rape Culture is a ‘Panic Where Paranoia, Censorship, and False Accusations Flourish’ - false accusations? You're already guilty!

This has been explained.

Quote:

Originally Posted by VenomUSMC (Post 2303083)
I thought about posting a pic of Judge Dredd in regards to your ideas about justice... but, in reality, people are far more empowered than Judge Dredd in your society. Judge Dredd - from the latest movie - enforces the laws via judging and punishing, but he does not create them. In your world, a person can not only "legally" enforce laws by judging and punishing but create them as well!

If you'd bothered to ask instead of assuming you wouldn't look like a moron right now.

Quote:

Originally Posted by VenomUSMC (Post 2303083)
Also, do you still believe the completely free market will meet any demand put forth?

Define "demand" in this context, and provide an example.

Here's what I know: government is just a group of people. And if you're trying to tell me that government can do things that other people cannot do, then you're saying that people can do what people cannot do, and that's obviously wrong.

Anything one group of people can do another group of people can do, quite obviously.

Anything government can do, the market can do--both are just groups of people acting.

Anemone 05-15-2014 05:50 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by VenomUSMC (Post 2303089)
Two little girls are 'lost' in a busy shopping centre and asking for help - watch what happens next -This video reveals the shocking truth of heartless 'busy Britain' as Uma and Maya took turns to 'be lost' in the concourse next to crowded Victoria Station

Shooting victim's body ignored by convenience store customers in disturbing video
"When they told me people were still coming in that gas station, stepping over my child in the doorway, I couldn't believe it; I couldn't believe it," says victim's mother.


India in shock over footage showing crowds ignoring accident victim's pleas
Outrage and introspection greet video of drivers passing bloodied father and son as wife and baby bleed to death in road


Jaipur: Accident victim cries for help, ignored by all

Alexandra Kovacs trial: Murder victim's cries for help were ignored by flatmates

This is unfortunately all too common. Apparently that magically stops in your sea-world. Funny how people that are escaping the state - largely so they can be allowed to mind their own business - will suddenly be expected to stop minding their own business and spring into action.

Maybe you had the foresight to sign on this guy to save the people? :

Again, you're acting as if I suggest such things aren't possible in a seastead. I have not claimed this. And they're dealt with the same way.

Why you think this is a challenge to my idea at all is completely mystifying to me, except that you must not understand it very well. Lord knows you don't ask me a thing about it and just assume every time.

Anemone 05-15-2014 05:52 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by VenomUSMC (Post 2303092)

Had they had COLAs, she could've moved to a christian region and not been under the power of someone like this.

You're making a case for COLA law, not against it. This is also a case against all law that forces itself on people geographically rather than allowing each person to accept what laws they prefer. She would never have accepted a law saying non-muslims must be executed or w/e.

She is a victim of statism. Religious statism but statism nonetheless. Anyone who says you should be able to force laws on people has, in part, helped kill this woman.

SpectralThundr 05-15-2014 06:13 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Anemone (Post 2303097)
Had they had COLAs, she could've moved to a christian region and not been under the power of someone like this.

You're making a case for COLA law, not against it. This is also a case against all law that forces itself on people geographically rather than allowing each person to accept what laws they prefer. She would never have accepted a law saying non-muslims must be executed or w/e.

She is a victim of statism. Religious statism but statism nonetheless. Anyone who says you should be able to force laws on people has, in part, helped kill this woman.

Says the guy who's society will indeed force personal laws on people. This comedy almost writes itself at this point. :rolleyes:

VenomUSMC 05-15-2014 06:46 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Anemone (Post 2303097)
Had they had COLAs, she could've moved to a christian region and not been under the power of someone like this.

Sure, it's that easy. They'd probably help her pack her bags... :eek:

Quote:

Originally Posted by Anenome
You're making a case for COLA law, not against it. This is also a case against all law that forces itself on people geographically rather than allowing each person to accept what laws they prefer. She would never have accepted a law saying non-muslims must be executed or w/e.

She never would have? How do you know? First, you don't. Second, this is a wonderful illustration of how silly your beliefs are versus reality.


Quote:

AnenomeShe is a victim of statism. Religious statism but statism nonetheless. Anyone who says you should be able to force laws on people has, in part, helped kill this woman.
She's a victim of Sharia Law. That isn't bound by any state. You helped kill this one by your own statements. This same sort of thing can and would likely exist in an ancap water world. You've stated you should be able to force your own laws on people via invasion. Congrats.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Anenome
Again, you're acting as if I suggest such things aren't possible in a seastead. I have not claimed this. And they're dealt with the same way.

Why you think this is a challenge to my idea at all is completely mystifying to me, except that you must not understand it very well. Lord knows you don't ask me a thing about it and just assume every time.

You're enabling such actions. It's mystifying to you because you believe your dsytopia to be a perfect vision with any "chinks in your armor". Hubris.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Anenome
This has been answered. When someone claims they're being oppressed in another's property the reasonable thing to do is to separate the two, invading the one's property if need be to do so, and then engage in dispute resolution, ala a court. Their cry of oppression is legitimation for invasion.

Reasonable? Ha! Once again, you're inserting your view of what is reasonable. Look not further than your own views to see that "reasonable" can take many forms. Their cry to oppression? Again, look at the victims of reality. Then again, you do advocate guilt and punishment based entirely upon presumption.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Anenome
By destroying the US gov? No, since that would also be aggression against those who pay taxes willingly. The situation is not that simple. And I am no being held against my will, but rather stolen from consistently. Not the same thing.

You've stated it's not realistic for you to be able to simply leave the United States - a land of oppressing you. Aggression against slave holders is also aggression against those that agree to live with that individual and deal with him by the same logic.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Anenome
This has been answered. You're not reading me if you can ask this. I said all people reject their victimization and the cry of the victim makes invasion ethical, and if there's no complaint then invasion cannot be condoned. So if there's a group that doesn't think they're being oppressed, then no, invasion is not ethical. We would instead endeavor to dialogue with them

Yes, you did say this. The idea that all people reject their victimization is, of course, not true. Enabling people to invade based others - based on what they deem to be unethical treatment of others - is simply opening the door to crusades. Continuing to invoke the false belief that "all people" reject their victimization only serves as evidence of how out of touch with reality you are.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Anenome
Yes, exactly. The abused must have the courage to complain, but partly that's a function of whether or not they believe the interceder has the power to actually save them from the abuser long-term

What a disgusting outlook. Yes, child, you must have the courage (never mind understanding) that you are being abused.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Anenome
Question, would you be part of a COLA that doesn't require display? Why do you think other people would then? The first law you accept for yourself is to become part of the COLA framework, and the framework has a statement of rules that effect how the COLA system itself works. Part of this would be the requirement that laws must be accepted before entry is granted.

While it's theoretically possible that a COLA could be built without the requirement, you have not offered any compelling reason why anyone ever would, since it would go both ways

This has been answered many times.
Absolutely. My own. Why would other people? Necessity. It's simple. Your inability to understand this illustrates you naive you are.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Anenome
It's an epistemological problem more than anything, Venom. If they don't tell someone they've been enslaved, how can anyone help them. Only they know.

This would make a lot of sense in your system of allowing for pedophilia.


Quote:

Originally Posted by Anenome
Simply stepping on another's property is not consent. Quit acting as if it is. It's trespassing. You would not have permission to enter until you've sign an entry agreement. The remedy is removal from the premises until becoming a signee.

Sweet, then I'm able to go onto anyone's property without their consent. What legal basis do they have to remove me from premises in which I didn't recognize as sovereign? Are they enforcing their COLA - which I didn't "sign" - on me?

Quote:

Originally Posted by Anenome
Unless the victim thinks so too, it's a non-point.

People enforcing their own ethical standards are "allowed" to punish those not convicted of crimes. You've openly stated this. Therefore, it's not a non-point. It's a crusade.


Quote:

Originally Posted by Anenome
It doesn't now perhaps; it would in a COLA.

Weird, the COLA says that if you complain death is your punishment. Thanks, COLA.


Quote:

Originally Posted by Anenome
Don't you realize that in a COLA system, those with extremist views would automatically be separated from those without them. They wouldn't even have opportunity for an acid attack.

This is amazingly ignorant. Boko was separated from the schools girls. Welcome to reality. There is no such thing as "automatic". Invoking some false belief that automatically - CONVENIENTLY - extremists views are separated is outright stupidity.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Anenome
It is hawkish. We plan to one day liberate entire people groups from nation states if we gather that kind of power.

Welcome to the crusades. Make sure to start a reality show: "When Fedoras attack!".

Quote:

Originally Posted by Anenome
ust ebcause you think it likely doesn't mean I have to think it likely. Considering that I actually understand my proposal and you both don't understand it fully and haven't taken the time to ask me questions about it, 95% of your challenges are due to ignorance about what I'm proposing, and not thinking critically about your own challenges. Classic example: your acid attacks scenario--people would separate into COLAs of either extremist Islam or moderate Islam and never the twain would meet.

Soon the people radical enough to do acid attacks would find they don't have any women to attack in the first place. Then that culture would finally die its natural death.

You start with what amounts to a rebuttal to yourself. Bring your massive ego, you charge anyone that opposes you as "not understanding it" and "not asking questions". This is, of course, false and idiotic. How long have I been engaging you on this topic?

Look at what you view as examples of ignorance. If you're ignorant enough to understand that people -both born and bought into these areas - Sharia Law cannot be expected to escape by simply renouncing a COLA, you're simply ignoring reality. Has this Sharia Law culture died in reality? No.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Anenome
You're presuming things. If you had asked me under what circumstances I would support invasion, it would be after evidence presented in a public hearing and a court issuing an invasion reasonable based on the evidence. Only excepting cases of obvious imminent harm would that be avoidable in my preferred scenario.

Hilarious. The king of presumption charges others with presumption. You have stated what circumstances you support invasion. Per your ancap system, who cares what circumstances you support invasion? People are supposed to create their own rules to live by in your dystopia. However, what you really mean is "I want people to live by what I, Anenome, believe is right".

Trying you argue that there are "legal" circumstances for someone to invade another person's private property - where they make all the laws - is hilarious with you simultaneously arguing there are no umbrella laws.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Anenome
A COLA that doesn't publish its laws is also unvisitable.

Again, what law declares this? Answer: None. You keep invoking these umbrella laws that do not exist.


Quote:

Originally Posted by Anenome
What you also don't understand is that entrants to any COLA can also demand certain provisions be included, including tings against child molestation--I'm sure that would be a standard clause everywhere for obvious reasons. Thus if the owner hid it, didn't declare a law about child molestation, then they'd be convicted of child molestation based on agreeing to the visitor's visitation agreement.

First, there is no legal requirement to display a private property's COLA since there are no umbrella laws - this has been covered. "I'm sure" = presumption. Why not just go onto private property, not "sign" a COLA, and invoke your own when they try to remove you from their property? Just declare it your own!

Quote:

Originally Posted by Anenome
If you'd bothered to ask instead of assuming you wouldn't look like a moron right now.

I would agree that you are the resident expert, certainly deserving of an honorary PhD, in being a moron. You declared - clearly, may I add - that a person is the Congress, President, and Chief Justice of their private property. Welcome to Kangaroo court, have a seat.


Quote:

Originally Posted by Anenome
Define "demand" in this context, and provide an example.

Here's what I know: government is just a group of people. And if you're trying to tell me that government can do things that other people cannot do, then you're saying that people can do what people cannot do, and that's obviously wrong.

Anything one group of people can do another group of people can do, quite obviously.

Anything government can do, the market can do--both are just groups of people acting.

Isn't the entire premise of a truly free market that it will meet all the demands of the consumer, cheap and efficiently?

VenomUSMC 05-15-2014 06:51 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by SpectralThundr (Post 2303102)
Says the guy who's society will indeed force personal laws on people. This comedy almost writes itself at this point. :rolleyes:

True. I'm not sure if he's accounted for the size of his ego when planning his seasteed in his parent's garage.

"There are no standard laws.... well unless I need to invoke some for an argument..it's a free ancap society, assuming you completely agree with my rules"

Coming to a seasteed near you:
http://ts2.mm.bing.net/th?id=HN.6080...830365&pid=1.7

Anenome 05-15-2014 10:42 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by VenomUSMC (Post 2303105)
Yes, child, you must have the courage (never mind understanding) that you are being abused.

You're changing the goalposts. Children are a special case.

Quote:

Originally Posted by VenomUSMC (Post 2303105)
This has been answered many times.
Absolutely. My own. Why would other people? Necessity. It's simple. Your inability to understand this illustrates you naive you are.

This makes no sense.

Let's say you built a COLA saying you don't have to display. Fine. You can do it. Only you're the loniest man alive now, since everyone else will be freaked out that you expect to not tell them the law yet still hold them accountable to it. Every judge would similarly laugh in your face if you actually tried to bring suit on that basis. But you're free to try. It wouldn't work because it's not reasonable nor just.

Quote:

Originally Posted by VenomUSMC (Post 2303105)
Quote:

It's an epistemological problem more than anything, Venom. If they don't tell someone they've been enslaved, how can anyone help them. Only they know.
This would make a lot of sense in your system of allowing for pedophilia.

Again, children require a different approach. The good thing about children is they come with built-in guardians. It's their parents who watch over them.

Quote:

Originally Posted by VenomUSMC (Post 2303105)
Sweet, then I'm able to go onto anyone's property without their consent.

No, property respect is part of the initial COLA buy-in agreement.

Quote:

Originally Posted by VenomUSMC (Post 2303105)
What legal basis do they have to remove me from premises in which I didn't recognize as sovereign?

That's as silly as asking why you aren't allowed to murder someone you pass on the street even though you never agreed not to murder them. It's basic respect of another's property.

Quote:

Originally Posted by VenomUSMC (Post 2303105)
Are they enforcing their COLA - which I didn't "sign" - on me?

Nope. The right to defend property always exists, it is a premise of the COLA system, not a consequence of it.

Quote:

Originally Posted by VenomUSMC (Post 2303105)
People enforcing their own ethical standards are "allowed" to punish those not convicted of crimes. You've openly stated this. Therefore, it's not a non-point. It's a crusade.

No idea what you mean.

Quote:

Originally Posted by VenomUSMC (Post 2303105)
Weird, the COLA says that if you complain death is your punishment. Thanks, COLA.

That wouldn't be just, that would be unjust, and you'd be held for murder.

Quote:

Originally Posted by VenomUSMC (Post 2303105)
This is amazingly ignorant. Boko was separated from the schools girls. Welcome to reality. There is no such thing as "automatic". Invoking some false belief that automatically - CONVENIENTLY - extremists views are separated is outright stupidity.

Armed gunman are one thing. But if extremists and non-extremists separate themselves, there's much less opportunity for such attacks. It's not to say they're impossible, they're just less likely. Similarly if you keep all known child molesters out of a COLA you minimize the chance of children becoming victims.

Quote:

Originally Posted by VenomUSMC (Post 2303105)
Look at what you view as examples of ignorance. If you're ignorant enough to understand that people -both born and bought into these areas - Sharia Law cannot be expected to escape by simply renouncing a COLA, you're simply ignoring reality. Has this Sharia Law culture died in reality? No.

We shall see. People leave Islamic countries and cities all the time, why wouldn't they be able to leave a COLA, since it amounts to the same thing?

Quote:

Originally Posted by VenomUSMC (Post 2303105)
You have stated what circumstances you support invasion.

Yeah, I'm such a bastard for supporting invasion to stop child molestors from molesting childre, to stop sex slavers from enslaving children into sex work. Yes, I feel so ashamed that I support freeing innocent people from those awful situations. Oh my god, help me, Venom, help me see your powerful truth where allowing children to continue living in sex slavery is the right thing to do!

You. are. a. joke.

Quote:

Originally Posted by VenomUSMC (Post 2303105)
Per your ancap system, who cares what circumstances you support invasion?

Everyone. Because if my invasion is not justified, then I am charged with a crime.

Quote:

Originally Posted by VenomUSMC (Post 2303105)
People are supposed to create their own rules

Only on their own property.

Quote:

Originally Posted by VenomUSMC (Post 2303105)
However, what you really mean is "I want people to live by what I, Anenome, believe is right".

Not true at all. I said before people could build socialist communities, islamic communities, whatever--all places I would never even visit.

Quote:

Originally Posted by VenomUSMC (Post 2303105)
Trying you argue that there are "legal" circumstances for someone to invade another person's private property - where they make all the laws - is hilarious with you simultaneously arguing there are no umbrella laws.

Again, you're conflating justice with law. I've told you this at least 5 times. You've ignored it 5 times.

Quote:

Originally Posted by VenomUSMC (Post 2303105)
Again, what law declares this? Answer: None.

The initial COLA formation agreement by which you become part of the COLA system.

Quote:

Originally Posted by VenomUSMC (Post 2303105)
You keep invoking these umbrella laws that do not exist.

Would you be part of a COLA that didn't have that law? No one I know would. Thus, it will exist. It's inevitable. You'd have to be a moron to think otherwise.

Quote:

Originally Posted by VenomUSMC (Post 2303105)
First, there is no legal requirement to display a private property's COLA since there are no umbrella laws

You keep saying there's no umbrella laws. But who is the authority on COLAs in this discussion, me or you? I have told you several times now that there are umbrella laws: the COLA system itself is the very first law you adopt for yourself, and it includes basic rules that make the COLA system work, and in these are rules of law display and contract. Meta-laws.

Quote:

Originally Posted by VenomUSMC (Post 2303105)
this has been covered.

Apparently not enough times since you refuse to learn.

Quote:

Originally Posted by VenomUSMC (Post 2303105)
"I'm sure" = presumption.

No, "I'm sure" equals a declaration of inductive likelihood. Unless you can provide supporting rationale for why you think it unlikely to be the case, it stands. Let's see, do people like knowing the laws that govern a place they're in, yes or no. Hard question.

Quote:

Originally Posted by VenomUSMC (Post 2303105)
Why not just go onto private property, not "sign" a COLA

That's where it stops. You don't get any further at that point.

Quote:

Originally Posted by VenomUSMC (Post 2303105)
and invoke your own when they try to remove you from their property? Just declare it your own!

Without proof of ownership you'd be laughed off the lot. Are you really this dense?

Quote:

Originally Posted by VenomUSMC (Post 2303105)
You declared - clearly, may I add - that a person is the Congress, President, and Chief Justice of their private property.

In terms of deciding their own law, yes. This was not to imply they get to try their own cases, as you're trying to make it out to be. They do get to make law for themselves and their property, and veto laws they don't like. But dispute resolution probably won't be up to them, since their visitors are unlikely to agree to let them judge their own case.

Quote:

Originally Posted by VenomUSMC (Post 2303105)
Isn't the entire premise of a truly free market that it will meet all the demands of the consumer, cheap and efficiently?

Not necessarily. Quit trying to weasel out of defining your terms. There are a lot of demands consumers have for which there exists no supply. There are also a large supply of things for which there exists little or no demand.

Anenome 05-15-2014 10:44 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by SpectralThundr (Post 2303102)
Says the guy who's society will indeed force personal laws on people. This comedy almost writes itself at this point. :rolleyes:

Let's say you're being attacked in a back alley. You really want to claim that the police officer who runs in to save you is 'forcing his laws' on your attacker? You may not like me or my idea, but you shouldn't say such a stupid thing.

Anenome 05-15-2014 10:45 PM

What's your end-game in all this attack, attack, attack, Venom?

You're not going to change my mind. You're not going to run me off EvAv. You obviously have no actual interest in my idea.

Is this just pure trolling for you?

VenomUSMC 05-15-2014 11:21 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Anenome (Post 2303142)
You're changing the goalposts. Children are a special case.

Says king of the changing the goal posts.... What umbrella law covers children under ancap? None.


Quote:

Originally Posted by Anenome
This makes no sense.

Let's say you built a COLA saying you don't have to display. Fine. You can do it. Only you're the loniest man alive now, since everyone else will be freaked out that you expect to not tell them the law yet still hold them accountable to it. Every judge would similarly laugh in your face if you actually tried to bring suit on that basis. But you're free to try. It wouldn't work because it's not reasonable nor just.

How does it make no sense? If I was the complete ruler of my own private property - as you propose - I'd make my own rules. Saying I'd be the lonely is an assumption. Everyone freaked out? Assumption. Every judge? Who cares what a judge thinks - I'm the law.

Reasonable and just are nothing more than an opinion. Looks at politics in the United States. Look at your own position.


Quote:

Originally Posted by Anenome
Again, children require a different approach. The good thing about children is they come with built-in guardians. It's their parents who watch over them.

Show me the law.


Quote:

Originally Posted by Anenome
No, property respect is part of the initial COLA buy-in agreement.

Per the usual, you want it both ways. If I wander onto someone's property - for whatever reason - that is consent. If I'm able to give myself some magical bubble of my own laws, no private property truly exists. Pick one.


Quote:

Originally Posted by Anenome
That's as silly as asking why you aren't allowed to murder someone you pass on the street even though you never agreed not to murder them. It's basic respect of another's property.

No, it's not. There are laws in the United States. Umbrella laws. No such laws exist in your ancap dream. Well, until it's convenient for you. Then these umbrella laws both exists and don't at the same time. Paradox.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Anenome
Nope. The right to defend property always exists, it is a premise of the COLA system, not a consequence of it.

If an individual stumbles onto my property they are now subject to my laws. It's really simple. Legalized murder.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Anenome
No idea what you mean.

That's because you live on REDDIT.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Anenome
That wouldn't be just, that would be unjust, and you'd be held for murder.

Just and unjust are in the eye of the beholder. This is basic stuff. They'd be held for murder despite their own laws, on their own land, and someone coming onto them? So much for making your own laws.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Anenome
Armed gunman are one thing. But if extremists and non-extremists separate themselves, there's much less opportunity for such attacks. It's not to say they're impossible, they're just less likely. Similarly if you keep all known child molesters out of a COLA you minimize the chance of children becoming victims.

Look to the reality we live in today. You've already stated that "known" isn't an issue. If people believe - without conviction - you're guilty, you're guilty. This is per you.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Anenome
We shall see. People leave Islamic countries and cities all the time, why wouldn't they be able to leave a COLA, since it amounts to the same thing?

The same reason you haven't left the United States... you can't be this blind, can you?

Quote:

Originally Posted by Anenome
Yeah, I'm such a bastard for supporting invasion to stop child molestors from molesting childre, to stop sex slavers from enslaving children into sex work. Yes, I feel so ashamed that I support freeing innocent people from those awful situations. Oh my god, help me, Venom, help me see your powerful truth where allowing children to continue living in sex slavery is the right thing to do!

You. are. a. joke.

Ironically says a guy who advocates ancap, while living in commmie California. haha.

You are such a bastard for legalizing the molesting of children. Another irony, you accused Terran of supporting child molester (children selling sex) because you believed banning child labor led to that. You can't even live by your own standard. Seeing as you believe that ancap meets consumer demands... try to fill in the blanks.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Anenome
Only on their own property.

As long as they meet your, Anenome's, ethical standards. Otherwise you support removing their property rights via invasion. Show me the umbrella law for this?

Quote:

Originally Posted by Anenome
Not true at all. I said before people could build socialist communities, islamic communities, whatever--all places I would never even visit.

You refusing to visit them is different from them refusing to visit you. Your inability to see beyond yourself continues to be a major theme. Guy fawkes masks aren't known to stop Sharia Law.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Anenome
Again, you're conflating justice with law. I've told you this at least 5 times. You've ignored it 5 times.

I'm not conflating justice with law. At this point I question if you have a mental handicap. Justice is not uniform. Invoking "people" will seek justice is nothing more than a sign of your ignorance, unless you have justice spelled-out. You do not. You're basing justice off of your own personal views. This isn't uniform. In fact, you seeking justice can lead to someone seeking justice against you. A circular act.... like the reality we live in.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Anenome
The initial COLA formation agreement by which you become part of the COLA system.

There is a law requiring COLAs to do this? Nope. Here you conflate reality with what you hope is common practice.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Anenome
Apparently not enough times since you refuse to learn.

Says the ancap living in California of all states. haha

Quote:

Originally Posted by Anenome
No, "I'm sure" equals a declaration of inductive likelihood. Unless you can provide supporting rationale for why you think it unlikely to be the case, it stands. Let's see, do people like knowing the laws that govern a place they're in, yes or no. Hard question.

Show me an example? Oh, right. Ancap societies do not exist... well outside of Somalia not too long ago, which despite no government wasn't an ancap society, magically.

You're the one making the claim that people will magically make this happen - the burden of proof is on you.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Anenome
That's where it stops. You don't get any further at that point.

It stops there? Show me the law.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Anenome
Without proof of ownership you'd be laughed off the lot. Are you really this dense?

haha. Wow, "you'd be laughed off the lot". Riiiiiiiight. This is a perfect example of ignorance being bliss. What proof of ownership do I need? The deed I printed? What's the legal requirement for proof of ownership? Oh wait, there isn't one.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Anenome
Would you be part of a COLA that didn't have that law? No one I know would. Thus, it will exist. It's inevitable. You'd have to be a moron to think otherwise.

No, because I'd be part of a COLA that lets me do whatever I want :)

You're a moron if you think people won't play games with your silly system.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Anenome
In terms of deciding their own law, yes. This was not to imply they get to try their own cases, as you're trying to make it out to be. They do get to make law for themselves and their property, and veto laws they don't like. But dispute resolution probably won't be up to them, since their visitors are unlikely to agree to let them judge their own case.

You can either completely decide your own law or not. If you don't get to try your own cases, your not chief justice.

Dispute resolution isn't up to them? Hilarious. I just broke into your seastead and stole a lot of your "valuables." Lets get a third part, requiring my agreement, to judicate the case. I'll just refuse. Your answer? You'll judicate the case without my approval, violating my sovereignty, enabling someone to supposedly "legally" enter my property and take my stuff. Which means, an outside group can overrule your sovereignty. Goodbye private sovereignty, hello mob rule. Combine this with your idea of guilt by mere accusation, sounds like a real dream.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Anenome
Not necessarily. Quit trying to weasel out of defining your terms. There are a lot of demands consumers have for which there exists no supply. There are also a large supply of things for which there exists little or no demand.

We're not using convenience? Why do I have to define something when you're allowed to use incredibly ambiguous terms like "justice" and "ethical"?

Shouldn't a completely free capitalist market be expect to meet all consumer demand? What's so difficult about that question?

VenomUSMC 05-15-2014 11:27 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Anenome
What's your end-game in all this attack, attack, attack, Venom?

You're not going to change my mind. You're not going to run me off EvAv. You obviously have no actual interest in my idea.

Is this just pure trolling for you?

My interest? Not supporting pedophiles, Sharia Law, etc.

Why would I want to change your mind or run you off Evil Avatar? You're the most effective way for my to point out the outright insanity of your position.

Should you not welcome critiques on your plan? You're the one planning on going to sea in hopes of starting this ancap society. The fact that you want people to stop their opposition to your views is a weakness. Going back and forth on a message board can possibly produce ideas, best base. Going to sea and having some extremist cutting your head off - there is no coming back from that.

--
I personally believe you have an incredibly poor understanding of the reality we live in. Look no further than stating Bean was a libertarian. This was despite his advocacy of the ACA, draconian gun laws, etc. You simply see what you want to.

Anenome 05-15-2014 11:40 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by VenomUSMC (Post 2303149)
My interest? Not supporting pedophiles, Sharia Law, etc.

All things I don't support either, but that you imagine would necessarily result. Yet when I give reasons for why I don't think they would result, you dismiss them without comment. Apparently anything you think is 'reality' must be objectively true and anyone with another view couldn't possibly be correct?

Quote:

Originally Posted by VenomUSMC (Post 2303149)
Why would I want to change your mind or run you off Evil Avatar? You're the most effective way for my to point out the outright insanity of your position.

Only by misrepresenting my actual proposal and making ridiculous, poorly thought out charges. I don't think it helps your case, tbh.

Quote:

Originally Posted by VenomUSMC (Post 2303149)
Should you not welcome critiques on your plan?

Hah, genuine critiques, yes, but when I reply to your same challenge 5 times and you don't address it it's obvious you're trolling.

Quote:

Originally Posted by VenomUSMC (Post 2303149)
You're the one planning on going to sea in hopes of starting this ancap society.

What does that have to do with you.

Quote:

Originally Posted by VenomUSMC (Post 2303149)
The fact that you want people to stop their opposition to your views is a weakness.

Oppose it all you like, but oppose it earnestly, not as a troll. I don't respect that.

Quote:

Originally Posted by VenomUSMC (Post 2303149)
Going back and forth on a message board can possibly produce ideas, best base. Going to sea and having some extremist cutting your head off - there is no coming back from that.

Pure supposition.

Quote:

Originally Posted by VenomUSMC (Post 2303149)
--
I personally believe you have an incredibly poor understanding of the reality we live in.

And you thereby implictly set yourself up as the objective judge and standard of understanding reality thereby, yet this irony escapes you.

Quote:

Originally Posted by VenomUSMC (Post 2303149)
Look no further than stating Bean was a libertarian.

Dude, you don't learn. I said he took the libertarian position on gays and drugs and the like. There are many self-described "libertarians" who don't yet understand enough about liberty to have abandoned all statist views.

Quote:

Originally Posted by VenomUSMC (Post 2303149)
This was despite his advocacy of the ACA, draconian gun laws, etc. You simply see what you want to.

Or are you just claiming the right to define what a libertarian is.

You say I see what I want to see, but you are demanding the right to determine objective truth. If I say I don't think X challenge is a big deal because of Y mitigating factor, you don't address that factor, as would an honest debate opponent, you say I'm ignoring reality.

In what world is this critique? This is trolling.

If you think you've done anything other than troll me in this entire thread I would be surprised.

Anenome 05-15-2014 11:46 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by VenomUSMC (Post 2303148)
Says king of the changing the goal posts.... What umbrella law covers children under ancap? None.

Children -are- covered under the initial COLA agreement. Once again you have assumed rather than asking. How is this anything but trolling.

Quote:

Originally Posted by VenomUSMC (Post 2303148)
If I was the complete ruler of my own private property - as you propose - I'd make my own rules.

You would, yes, but not every COLA system is compatible with others. If 99% of people choose a COLA structure that demands up-front law presentation and they encounter your COLA that doesn't demand this, they will neither contract nor associate with you.

And people will demand law presentation up-front because of the extreme risk of implied consent to an unknown law-set.

Quote:

Originally Posted by VenomUSMC (Post 2303148)
Saying I'd be the lonely is an assumption.

It is not a baseless assumption; again, people tend to prefer less risk over more risk. It's extremely risky to agree to a law-set you haven't seen. Thus it's extremely unlikely that anyone would agree to a no-presentation rule. If you can find any mitigating reasons why that wouldn't be true, then please offer them now. I won't go any further with you until you admit this is not merely an assumption but is in fact a reasonable inductive likelihood given what we know about human nature and tendency.

Unless you can this answer honestly, cogently, and seriously and thus prove you're an honest debate partner, we cannot continue.

vallor 05-15-2014 11:56 PM

If I'm following correctly if people feel abused for whatever reason they are supposed be allowed to leave or, ethically, others are bound by a global ethical sense of Justice to repatriate that person (personally or through hired agents)?

I think the sticking points I (and some others) have are three fold:
1) This universal sense of ethics isn't universal and changes with cultures. Who are we to take it into our own hands to liberate someone being aggressed against in a cultural norm not ours? It seems like at any time someone could use the excuse of "oh, this is oppression/aggression, save me!" Cry wolf, if you will by appealing to a different set of norms to rescue them from a situation even if they got into the situation themselves.

For example: the Muslim lady who married the Christian in the Sudan KNEW it was against the laws for her to do what she did and she did it anyway, deliberately breaking the law and being unrepentant. Now people with different cultural values are striding in to help her avoid the result of said flagrant lawbreaking. For breaking the law and doing it on purpose. So it now appears she's appealing to a different set of cultural values to avoid the consequences of her actions.

Is it Justice to save her from those consequences? She knew about the law since a very early age yet she still flagrantly broke it. Did she tacitly accept those laws because she stayed in that region in violation of the law rather than move to a place where such things were allowed?

Where does the side of Justice fall here?

2) What about someone who just doesn't like what's going on? A kid calls CPS because their parent banned them from Xbox for a month or something? I know this happens; long ago my sister made a transition of Guardians from my mother to my grandmother (because Grandma spoiled her when she visited) on the back of repeated CPS calls.

They couldn't prove anything but why wait till they have the horrible proof then look back with regret? With the number of reports they removed my sister from my mom's custody and passed it to my Grandmother. With no proof.

Is that Justice in an ancap society? To allow the protections to be manipulated?

3) I don't think I understand how people are supposed to be the masters of their own fate if, when they want to join a community they agree to the charter or whatever. What if there are laws in there they don't want? Like everything is perfect except a bylaw that says you have to Tithe to the local Christian organization whether or not you are of that religion.

I know the flippant answer is "Well, you just don't agree and move on." but the point is eventually a person will have to compromise somewhere to be part of a collective.

This confuses me because a larger collective of this type (with a central authority imposing "taxes") is exactly what you are trying to avoid AND it goes against the idea of an individual set of laws. Most people are using Western World ethical norms in comparison so let's stick with that... western world cultural norms hold freedom of religion as a basic cornerstone of modern civilization. So is this forced worship Just?

Anenome 05-16-2014 12:24 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by vallor (Post 2303153)
If I'm following correctly if people feel abused for whatever reason they are supposed be allowed to leave

Yes, all association and interaction is to be voluntary. People who don't like the circumstances they're living under right now typically stay in place because they have no choice and nowhere to go. In a COLA system you can opt out as easily as sending an email, so people will do so, cast off arbitrary rules over themselves and generally accept only those rules they think conducive to living well with others.

Quote:

Originally Posted by vallor (Post 2303153)
or, ethically, others are bound by a global ethical sense of Justice to repatriate that person (personally or through hired agents)?

Not necessarily, it's entirely optional. For one it's quite risky to the rescuer. I mean only to say it's ethical to invade to stop imminent harm to another. That's as true of imminent murder on private property as of imminent invasion of one country by another.

Quote:

Originally Posted by vallor (Post 2303153)
I think the sticking point I have are three fold:
1) This universal sense of ethics isn't universal and changes with cultures. Who are we to take it into our own hands to liberate someone being aggressed against in a cultural norm not ours?

As I said, what legitimates invasion is a human being in that culture asking for help. If they want out, they are essentially opting out, and if they need help opting out and removing themselves, it's ethical to walk across even hostile sovereign territory to help that person escape.

Private property is the purview only of the ethical actor. The non-ethical actor can have their property rights removed by force or abrogated in the service of justice, meaning to help his victim from being victimized, or to pay them back after the fact.

Sovereignty is not a guarantee that you won't be invaded if you're abusing your property lines to commit aggression against another human being.

In such a case, the initiator of aggression is the property owner, thus invading his territory is defensive coercion, not an aggression in its own right. Venom wants to keep pretending the invasion is a despicable thing, when it cannot be if it's in response to a rights violation by the owner.

Quote:

Originally Posted by vallor (Post 2303153)
It seems like at any time someone could use the excuse of "oh, this is oppression/aggression, save me! Cry wolf, if you will by appealing to a different set of norms to rescue them from a situation even if they got into the situation themselves.

It then becomes a question of what's reasonable. Let's say someone tricked a rescuer into invaded X's home to save them (Y). The rescuers get there and realize they've been tricked. X now sues them for damages incurred in the invasion, etc. They lay out their case to a court, how Y tricked them, giving them the impression Y was in imminent threat of harm.

The judge would determine how much culpability for those damages they have versus how much Y is culpable. In this case it sounds like Y is entirely culpable. But if the rescuers present evidence showing they should have realized something was fishy, it's entirely possible they could be held partly or entirely culpable.

As I said, rescue is very risky, and that's another way it can be risky. It's one of the reasons why we consider rescuers heroes--they sometimes risk more than their lives to save another.

Quote:

Originally Posted by vallor (Post 2303153)
For example: the lady christain in the Sudan KNEW it was against the laws for her to do what she did and she did it anyway, deliberately breaking the law and being unrepentant. Now people with different cultural values are striding in to repatriate her. For breaking the law. And doing it on purpose. So it now appears she's appealing to a different set of cultural values to avoid the consequences of her actions.

And that would mean something if those laws hadn't been forced on her in the first place--legitimacy requires explicit consent. If they had explicit COLA law, she'd have been able to simply form a new COLA where she lives, or w/e, and reject that law. Or live in a COLA that's more friendly to her beliefs.

Quote:

Originally Posted by vallor (Post 2303153)
Is it Justice to save her from those consequences?

Yes, since they were forced on her aggressively. No one in any modern society has chosen the laws we live under. They are prima facie illegitimate. All of them. They cannot be legitimately enforced.

An ancap society would be the first completely legitimate legal society in the world.

Quote:

Originally Posted by vallor (Post 2303153)
She knew about the law since a very early age yet she still flagrantly broke it. Did she tacitly accept those laws because she stayed in that region in violation of the law rather than move to a place where such things were allowed?

Probably not. We do not blame the wife for staying with a wife-beater, do we? We don't say it's her fault. She should leave, yes, but that doesn't excuse his beating, does it.

Quote:

Originally Posted by vallor (Post 2303153)
2) What about someone who just doesn't like what's going on? A kid calls CPS because their parent banned them from Xbox for a month or something? I know this happens; long ago my sister made a transition of Guardians from my mother to my grandmother (because Grandma spoiled her when she visited) on the back of repeated CPS calls.

They couldn't prove anything but isn't an ideal Justice proactive where it can be? Why wait till they have the horrible proof then look back with regret? With the number of reports they removed my sister from my mom's custody.

CPS in our own society is under political pressure to be proactive, because politicians will take it on the chin if something happens. I think a free market CPS would be less evil--certainly they'd have far less ability to simply take your kids away. Being non-governmental it would have to be done by COLA agreement, meaning that when you enter a COLA it would have rules on CPS practices, and you'd be able to choose them rather than have them foisted on you by politicians.

And let's go back even further than that, because Venom might stupidly ask why if parents can choose CPS laws they wouldn't water them down if they intended to be molesters.

Well, there's two mitigating factors there. One, it's likely that marriage contracts would include acceptable CPS rules, since mothers would want to protect their kids from potential future abuse.

And two, a purposefully weak and yet public CPS rule is a flag that something fishy is going on there. Unless you have mother/father collusion it would be quite difficult to hide abuse long-term.

There's no perfect solution to abuse, but I think an ancap society gives people more tools to prevent abuse in the first place than our current society does, and thus there should be less abuse overall, which is positive.

Quote:

Originally Posted by vallor (Post 2303153)
3) I don't think I understand how people are supposed to be the masters of their own fate if, when they want to join a community they agree to the charter or whatever. What if there are laws in there they don't want?

Then they can veto that specific law, adopt everything else, and setup a COLA next door. Laws can be chosen entirely freeform like that, no one can stop you.

Quote:

Originally Posted by vallor (Post 2303153)
Like everything is perfect except a bylaw that says you have to Tithe to the local Christian organization whether or not you are of that religion. I know the flippant answer is "Well, you just don't agree and move on." but the point is eventually a person will have to compromise somewhere to be part of a collective.

Nope, they can literally start their own if they desire.

I expect in actual practice that COLAs will be split as future decisions need to be made, making them smaller and smaller over time, more and more customized.

Since COLA law is public, just copy+paste and take that law out. You might even be able to convert many people from that other society to your COLA by doing so.

Quote:

Originally Posted by vallor (Post 2303153)
This confuses me because a larger collective of this type (with a central authority imposing "taxes") is exactly what you are trying to avoid AND it goes against the idea of an individual set of laws. Most people are using Western World ethical norms in comparison so let's stick with that... western world cultural norms hold freedom of religion as a basic cornerstone of modern civilization. So is this forced worship Just?

You can always make law for yourself and your property in a polycentric system. The whole point of the COLA is communities of legal agreement, naturally. It's because there's broad agreement on legal norms that such communities are likely to form at all.

But as time goes on people will experiment more and more with them, doing finer and finer things.

Ie: it's not hard to imagine most places starting out as leftist and rightist COLAs, as a broad start. But then you have internal divisions appear within these groups. You have the paleoconservatives, the libertarians, the ancaps--when they realize they don't need to work together to pass laws anymore, that political striving is over, they will just walk away and build COLAs and try to attract adherents.

The same will happen to leftists, there will be the enviro-leftists, the mutualists and socialists, the leftarchs, the vegans won't want to live with anyone non-vegan, etc.

You can't be subject to any law you don't agree to. A tax is never prima facie just without consent (unlike justice).

VenomUSMC 05-16-2014 09:10 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Anenome (Post 2303152)
Children -are- covered under the initial COLA agreement. Once again you have assumed rather than asking. How is this anything but trolling.

What law requires children to be covered under every initial COLA agreement?

I love you how can claim that children are covered under the initial COLA - an assumption - while complaining that I'm assuming. I see you'll write "Do as I say, not as I do" into your COLA.

You've stated that you get to pick your own laws. Now you're citing that everyone must put protective child laws in their own COLAs - removes their freedom to pick their own laws. Or, at best, you're assuming people will do so - which is ignorant of reality.

Per the usual, everyone will just magically do this.

A large part of your entire ancap dream is built upon assumptions of what people will do. Never mind the huge amount of evidence to the contrary found in reality.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Anenome
It is not a baseless assumption; again, people tend to prefer less risk over more risk

Haha. Sure, which is why all those links I posted about show that people will literally walk over a dead body, ignore people bleeding to death, etc. Look to the Holocaust... you brought up the trials, but ignored the communities which ignore what was going on and subsequently claimed they "didn't know."


You like to invoke this terms:
Justice - What is justice in say a case of steeling a seadoo. Is it cutting someone's hand off for stealing? Is it merely replacing the item? Is it death? You'll find people who invoke their version of justice.

Your hope is that they'll hire a private court, both agree to it, and have some proportional punishment. Unfortunately, the world is not that orderly.

Ethical - Yet another term you throw around. What is ethical is one person's eyes is not ethical in another. An example, income tax in the United States. You believe it's outright stealing and unethical. Most people don't agree - even if they think they're paying too much.

Law - Your entire dream world is built upon the idea of individually tailored law. However, when the subject of child protections is brought up, you assume that will be in the COLA... when there are no legal requirements for anything to be in the COLA because there is no state.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Anenome
are you just claiming the right to define what a libertarian is.

You say I see what I want to see, but you are demanding the right to determine objective truth. If I say I don't think X challenge is a big deal because of Y mitigating factor, you don't address that factor, as would an honest debate opponent, you say I'm ignoring reality.

Aren't you the one constantly preaching about "this is what libertarians believe." Once again, hypocrite.

In fact, when you started an entire thread claiming Bean was a libertarian you linked to a definition to support your claim.... Of course when looking at the definition provided by you, Bean certainly did not meet that criteria. So no, I was not claiming the right to define what a libertarian was - you were. Even while you issued a link to the definition.... you were way off. Including arguing Bean was a libertarian in a thread Bean created about being a liberal on Evil Avatar... yes, you see only what you want to.

Or we can look at how you declared it morally and ethically okay for Bean to hide his intentions of teaching children at a church - he openly told us, not the church, he was going to teach things that he wasn't supposed to. This is despite parents sending their children there with an expectation of what was going to be taught. You supported this subversion because you didn't like the teachings of that Church, Anenome. Now you're going to tell us about respecting other people's choices? About ethics and moral actions? How people will respect COLAs? About protecting children? This church was, of course, something in which the parents voluntarily went to - there was nothing legally forcing them there. So much for allowing parents to teach their kids what they want... it's only okay to do so if it's Anenome approved teachings.

Once again, all your talk is based around your own personal ethical beliefs and hopes. It has nothing to do with reality, and it certainly is not agreed upon by many - if not most.


Now on the subject of trolling:
You stated if someone was merely suspected of a crime they could be run out of town without any conviction. Sounds like your water world is taking trolling to a whole new level.

Anemone 05-16-2014 11:58 AM

Let's talk about the no-presentation rule, would you not demand a presentation rule for yourself if you were about to enter someone else's COLA? This is about the supply and demand of law, and you still haven't caught that.

Such is not a baseless assumption; again, people tend to prefer less risk over more risk. It's extremely risky to agree to a law-set you haven't seen. Thus it's extremely unlikely that anyone would agree to a no-presentation rule. If you can find any mitigating reasons why that wouldn't be true, then please offer them now. I won't go any further with you until you admit this is not merely an assumption but is in fact a reasonable inductive likelihood given what we know about human nature and tendency.

Unless you can this answer honestly, cogently, and seriously and thus prove you're an honest debate partner, we cannot continue.

VenomUSMC 05-16-2014 12:16 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Anemone (Post 2303280)
Let's talk about the no-presentation rule, would you not demand a presentation rule for yourself if you were about to enter someone else's COLA? This is about the supply and demand of law, and you still haven't caught that.

Actually, I have caught that... supply and demand... meeting the demand of pedophiles, rapists, etc. Your rebuttal? "Omagerd ethics... uhhh children receive special protections from a non-existent umbrella law..." You're trying to occupy two opposing positions simultaneously.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Anenome
Such is not a baseless assumption; again, people tend to prefer less risk over more risk. It's extremely risky to agree to a law-set you haven't seen. Thus it's extremely unlikely that anyone would agree to a no-presentation rule. If you can find any mitigating reasons why that wouldn't be true, then please offer them now. I won't go any further with you until you admit this is not merely an assumption but is in fact a reasonable inductive likelihood given what we know about human nature and tendency.

It's also not baseless to recognize people will exploit the law and create laws in order to exploit other people. We see this today, but you want to ignore that. Once again, you're simply being a hypocrite. If you think it's "extremely unlikely that anyone would agree to a no-presentation rule" then you're living in a dream world. Children, the mentally handicapped, elderly, etc would certainly be targeted by this.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Anenome
Unless you can this answer honestly, cogently, and seriously and thus prove you're an honest debate partner, we cannot continue.

haha. This from the guy who just skips over problems with his dystopia? You're a joke.

You say the only laws that apply to you are those that you accept - then you say everyone must include child safety laws in their COLA.

You say you're the Congress, President, and Chief Justice of your private property - then you say you've got to bring in a 3rd party to administer justice to someone has come onto your property despite any laws you've created, thus nullifying your laws on your own property. So much for living by your own rules, just go onto someone's land and refuse to sign their COLA.

You speak of the administering of justice - justice isn't uniform

You speak of ethics - ethics aren't uniform

You talk about legitimate invasion for people being unethically treated - fail to understand that makes a wide variety of "ethical" lead invasions legitimate per that person or groups specific ethical views

You merely want whatever is beneficial to your opinion, but when it is not beneficial you simply try to ignore it.

Anemone 05-16-2014 03:10 PM

For Safer Streets, Use Fairer Courts
Quote:

It started in the early hours of New Year’s Day, 2012, with a woman’s scream. Buehler had been serving as designated driver for his friends, driving them home from a party, when he stopped for gas at a 7-Eleven in Austin, Texas. Hearing a woman cry out in pain, Buehler turned to see two police officers pulling a female passenger from a nearby vehicle and throwing her to the ground. Buehler asked why they were using such violent tactics and began taking photos.

Finished with the woman, the officers confronted Buehler. They accused him of interfering with police procedures, wrestled him to the ground, and arrested him, too. Their report claimed that Buehler had spat on one of the officers, a felony punishable by up to 10 years in prison. Buehler countered that the officer had threatened him, had said he had “f***d with the wrong cop this time and now you’re going to f***ng pay,” and had lied to manufacture the felony spitting charge.

So matters might have remained: another case of alleged police brutality that bounces between conflicting stories and ends up going nowhere. In this case, however, a bystander had videotaped the incident. The video supported Buehler’s account, as did eyewitness testimony. (If the police have better proof, they aren’t saying; the Austin Police Department refused to release the dashcam video of Buehler’s arrest.)

That volunteer video gave Buehler a powerful defense; a grand jury recently refused to indict him on any felony charges arising out of his arrest. But the law gives Buehler and people like him few offensive tools for combating police brutality and corruption. Buehler complained about his treatment to the Austin Public Safety Commission, the city department charged with policing the city’s police, but that predictably went nowhere. And people in Buehler’s position face long odds if they try filing civil suits against abusive police, hindered by sovereign immunity and the difficulties of prevailing against government agents in government courts.

Therein lies the crux of the problem: Government employees should not have exclusive power to decide claims against the government or its employees. The cure? Set up truly independent bodies to hear claims of police brutality and other abuses of office.


Citizen Courts

It stands as a fundamental principle of justice that no man can judge his own cause. John Locke cited the threat of self-judgment as a fundamental reason for the State, describing it as a way to “remedy those inconveniences of the State of Nature, which necessarily follow from every Man's being Judge in his own Case." Government courts cannot claim independence, however, when they hear claims against the government itself. Even giving judges life tenure cannot ensure their impartiality when they have been preselected by politicians and depend on government paychecks.

Apologists for the State may reply that there is no better way to resolve the private claims brought against it. Wrong. Private dispute resolution services have already solved that problem. They had to. Unlike government courts, private dispute resolution services cannot afford to treat their customers unfairly.

The American Arbitration Association, among others, follows this elegant procedure: Each of the parties to a dispute chooses a judge, those two judges agree on a third, and together the panel of three resolves the case. This system offers a model for what I’ve elsewhere labeled “citizen courts”: Adjudicative bodies designed to resolve disputes between the government and other parties under the same arbitration procedures that private parties customarily use in resolving civil litigation.

Would the government give up its own courts for citizen courts? Not readily. Imagine, though, if someone like Antonio Buehler were to call out the police, challenging them to a judicial contest on level ground.

How would it work? Buehler would publicly challenge the Austin Police Department to appear before a citizen court. Assuming the police accept, Buehler would pick an arbitrator, the Austin Police Department would pick an arbitrator, and those two arbitrators would in turn pick a third. Together, the three arbitrators would hear evidence from the parties and decide Buehler’s complaint against the police (and the police’s complaint against him, if they liked). A simple procedure, yes—but one that would set a new standard for fairness when it comes to resolving complaints of government abuse.

Even if the police chickened out, as they probably would, Buehler and his fellow activists would have won an important victory. It is not enough to simply criticize traditional methods of correcting police brutality and corruption. Reformers have to offer a better alternative. Simply raising public awareness about the possibility of citizen courts would strike a blow against the unjust status quo.

Buehler and other victims of police abuse should not stop at educating the public, however. If officials won't cooperate with citizen court proceedings, courts should proceed without them. Reformers could appoint advocates for otherwise unrepresented police and otherwise try to provide for as complete, fair, and open a process as circumstances allow. Judgments against the police would of course not be legally enforceable, but that won’t stop them from carrying a lot of political weight.

It probably won’t happen the first time, and it might not happen for many more, but if enough people resort to citizen courts, officials will eventually have to take notice and take action. Reforming police practices and improving traditional remedies for victims of police abuse would in itself represent a significant achievement. If governments were to go further, though—if they would give up the inherently unfair practice of judging the claims brought against them and instead rely on truly independent dispute resolution procedures—we would win both fairer courts and safer streets.

Anemone 05-16-2014 04:37 PM

Venom, look, I don't know what's going on in your life that you feel the need to do nothing but attack and make-up accusations you know aren't fair. I suggest you seek professional help from a therapist and figure out your issues rather than taking them out on others anonymously.

VenomUSMC 05-16-2014 06:54 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Anemone (Post 2303357)
Venom, look, I don't know what's going on in your life that you feel the need to do nothing but attack and make-up accusations you know aren't fair. I suggest you seek professional help from a therapist and figure out your issues rather than taking them out on others anonymously.

Nothing I've stated is unfair per your own actions. You want to complain about made-up accusations - weren't you the guy with a made-up quote from Terran? Yes, you were. Aren't you the guy who said "don't put words in my mouth" and did exactly that? Yup.

You're saying all I do is attack and make-up accusations... as you do exactly that.

What's going on in your life that you literally are trying to float away and isolate yourself from the U.S.? The saddest part about your posts is the person getting trolled by you the most is yourself. :eek:

And honestly. if you cannot handle the critiquing of your plan that you believe will change the world then you're already doomed. That alone is a chink in your armor. Remember, making a plan on paper is easy - implementing it into reality is the tricky part. It's impossible to think of all the ways people will work to exploit your system as they have done every other system since history has been recorded.

Anenome 05-16-2014 08:10 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by VenomUSMC (Post 2303377)
Nothing I've stated is unfair per your own actions. You want to complain about made-up accusations - weren't you the guy with a made-up quote from Terran? Yes, you were. Aren't you the guy who said "don't put words in my mouth" and did exactly that? Yup.

So I trolled a troller, big deal. I didn't do that to you.

And yes, saying that I support child-molestation or slavery when I've told you over and over both that I do not, and that the system I support would not either.

You know, come to think of it, there's no reason why you couldn't write anti-slavery and anti-pedophilia laws into the foundational COLA meta-law and deal with it on that basis.

Quote:

Originally Posted by VenomUSMC (Post 2303377)
What's going on in your life that you literally are trying to float away and isolate yourself from the U.S.?

I woke up to what's actually going on. Maybe you should too.

Quote:

Originally Posted by VenomUSMC (Post 2303377)
And honestly. if you cannot handle the critiquing

What you're doing is not critiquing and you know it. For you this is less about the idea and more about attacking me. I've fielded PMs from people telling me to just ignore your trolling. I thought I'd give you a bit more time to prove yourself honorable and fair, but obviously you're just trolling.

Quote:

Originally Posted by VenomUSMC (Post 2303377)
It's impossible to think of all the ways people will work to exploit your system as they have done every other system since history has been recorded.

Good thing the legal system I propose allows for rapid evolution then. I don't claim to have all the answers on legal forms--the number of legal forms a COLA could be built with is literally unlimited. And for every problem you cite there is a solution, because we've implemented it in our own society. What one law can do another law can do.

That you don't realize this is sad.

Again, you've chosen to focus solely on the ways COLA law is similar to US law, and none of the ways it's both different and better.

Genuinely name three ways COLA law is better than current US law and I'll give you another shot.

VenomUSMC 05-16-2014 08:50 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Anenome (Post 2303391)
So I trolled a troller, big deal. I didn't do that to you.

And yes, saying that I support child-molestation or slavery when I've told you over and over both that I do not, and that the system I support would not either.

You know, come to think of it, there's no reason why you couldn't write anti-slavery and anti-pedophilia laws into the foundational COLA meta-law and deal with it on that basis.

You've accused me of supporting things that I've stated I didn't many times. Now you're upset the same happens to you.

Putting anti=slavery/pedophilia laws still require a person to implement them into their own COLA.


Quote:

Originally Posted by Anenome
I woke up to what's actually going on. Maybe you should too.

You live in commie California.... Regardless, I consistently advocate for a smaller government. Just because someone doesn't subscribe to ancap does not mean they're for the direction the United States has been heading for a long time.


Quote:

Originally Posted by Anenome
What you're doing is not critiquing and you know it. For you this is less about the idea and more about attacking me. I've fielded PMs from people telling me to just ignore your trolling. I thought I'd give you a bit more time to prove yourself honorable and fair, but obviously you're just trolling.

Again, you're complaining about being "honorable and fair" while purposely misquoting people and putting it into your signature... It's like you're throwing rocks from your glass house.

It's not about attacking you, it's about illustrating how you simply gloss over realities that aren't helpful to what you're advocating. Your ideas about military protections cross the border from wishful to absurd. Even then, they're based around assumptions of future tech. You advocate a truly free market, but you ignore the dark side of that - a dark side we see today.


Quote:

Originally Posted by Anenome
Good thing the legal system I propose allows for rapid evolution then. I don't claim to have all the answers on legal forms--the number of legal forms a COLA could be built with is literally unlimited. And for every problem you cite there is a solution, because we've implemented it in our own society. What one law can do another law can do.

I agree, but that isn't always a strength. For every solution you cite, there is an additional problem. The biggest problem for your laws is you've stated that they require people to accept them for them to apply. People are unfortunately brutal creatures.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Anenome
That you don't realize this is sad.

Funny, I was thinking the same thing about you. You believe yourself to be some sort of hero, but you're a guy mixing cement in his parent's garage. What will be truly tragic is if your seastead ever makes it to water and you're forced to confront reality.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Anenome
Again, you've chosen to focus solely on the ways COLA law is similar to US law, and none of the ways it's both different and better.

Because you want to roll a one-sided commercial - often based on inaccurate assumptions - to advocate your way of life. The collapse of a society does not require a large percentage of people to act unethically to occur - in fact, it's often a incredibly small percentage the leads to this.

The system you're advocating provides a legal means for people to do horrific things - some of which they view as entirely ethical.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Anenome
Genuinely name three ways COLA law is better than current US law and I'll give you another shot.

Uhhh, I'm here to provide the opposing view. You didn't pick that up? Here is three ways COLA law is worse than current US law:

1) Enables the rise of Sharia Law - if you're unfamiliar with this, it often invoked to declare honor killings ethical. It also often results in women being treated as basically slaves.

2) COLA Laws will enable sex traders to legalize their actions within their own communities. Given a completely free, unregulated market, demand will be met with supply. This is true today, even where it is expressly against the law regardless of signing a contract to consent to that law or not.

3) COLA laws will assist companies in obtaining de facto monopolies. This is seen in the United States where it is illegal. Making it legal certainly cannot be expected to do anything more than to increase this sort of activity. In recent years we've seen companies agree not to hire works from each other, e-book vendors practice price fixing, and other issues.

Bonus ) COLA laws enable the groups that many people to view as "the worst" to gain legitimacy. Moving past the Sharia groups (whom aren't all bad), groups like NAMBLA can create their own communities legalizing pedophilia. Even discounting the import of children - which exists today, in reality - there is the group's own kids. Creating a disgusting cycle of pedophilia, and a the creation of a legal "pedophile resort." The idea of a pedophile resort already exists today where it is illegal. Making it legal certainly isn't likely to result in the end of the practice - it's surely expected to increase.

vallor 05-16-2014 09:30 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Anenome (Post 2303391)
Good thing the legal system I propose allows for rapid evolution then. I don't claim to have all the answers on legal forms--the number of legal forms a COLA could be built with is literally unlimited.

What system or safety valve will be in place if all of these laws start crumbling under the weight of their own bureaucracy? Keep in mind, once someone is established in a community they can't afford to be as cavalier as you suggest to casting off the mooring lines and just floating away on their own.

The system just doesn't seem self correcting, and with limited options (say lack of funds or skills to support themselves to get to another colony, much less survive on their own) you end up with a situation where laws are forced onto a person.

Like a roach motel, once you're in extracting yourself would be virtually impossible. It might even be a law you have to subject yourself to as a member of the community. If you choose not to then later! Oh, you can't live long enough to find another compatible colony? Looks like you're sticking around and accepting this law.

It seems that this would be totally ethical and legal in your system despite this happening to the person under duress after all, didn't they accept this conditions when they moved in? I contend this is force and agression being applied.

Didn't the Muslim lady marrying the Christian man in spite of all laws and traditions of that region agree to abide by those laws by virtue of not contesting them or bettering her circumstances... casting off her rope, as it were? She couldn't afford to leave the region (so my situation isn't hypothetical) which left her at the mercy of these laws, traditions, and conditions. But you'd send the Army in to rescue her. Someone in the similar situation on a seastead doesn't deserve the same relief?

At what point do you draw the line between different degrees of duress and aggression? By forcing a law onto a person with no viable options you could be emotionally damaging that person until they are dust until they feel the only option is to take their own life. Just because the person physically pulled the trigger doesn't exonerate the facilitators of that abuse; murder is still murder. The community engaged in conspiracy and accessory to murder, right? So where's the SWAT team to help these folks out?

vallor 05-16-2014 09:51 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by VenomUSMC (Post 2303394)
The collapse of a society does not require a large percentage of people to act unethically to occur - in fact, it's often a incredibly small percentage the leads to this.

IIRC only 5% of the population have ingrained criminal mindsets. However look how those 5% of the people hold the rest of us hostage.

We fund law enforcement more and more every year and the fear commercials of "We'll have to fire some of our police force" win the day on every ballot.

We buy better locks, put bars on our windows, we spend obscene amounts of money to move to better and safer neighborhoods. We elect people because they have a tough on crime stance despite sucking at everything else.

We house people in grossly expensive but still somehow still sub-human conditions to keep them away from us instead of making meaningful attempts at rehabilitation. We continue punishing people for their past transgressions years and even decades after whatever act was committed and then wonder how they get into a cycle of criminal behavior.

Those 5% terrorize populations all over the world even though the chances you'll ever be seriously victimized (murder/rape/extrodinary theft/home invasion/kidnapping, etc.) rival the odds of winning the Powerball lottery.

For the list of things that might be worse under COLA, I'd argue our current systems run into the same problems so it's probable COLA laws can't protect either. As you point out, people engage in illegal behavior now, COLA isn't going to magically change that.

I do agree there is a global distaste for all those things now, but this will exist in the state or in a seastead. I think one point that you're trying to make is the seastead environment lends itself especially well to allow these distasteful things to exist and persist, and all of it will be ethical and legal within their own communities under their own laws. Not only that but it'll be even harder to isolate these communities for retaliation or repatriation. You have to find them, then you have to wrangle with them legally, blah blah blah.

Universal laws *aren't*, look at what happened in the Middle East when we tried to start imposing our culture over there. Now everyone hates America and citizens with no connection pay the price. Who are we to judge when we don't have the context and aren't seeped in that cultural situation? We apply our western morals to what is right and wrong not even considering right and wrong are perceived differently depending on which community you may be in. WE are right and THEY are wrong.

An Amish father takes a switch to his son as a punishment for burning down their barn. Send in the SWAT team, beating a child is unethical! Even though doling out lessons an punishments in this fashion have been part of being Amish for hundreds of years.

Anenome 05-17-2014 12:26 AM

Quote:

An Amish father takes a switch to his son as a punishment for burning down their barn. Send in the SWAT team, beating a child is unethical! Even though doling out lessons an punishments in this fashion have been part of being Amish for hundreds of years.
If that doesn't happen now, why would you think it would happen in a COLA.


All times are GMT -7. The time now is 06:38 AM.