Gyroscopic Investing

doodle wrote: ↑Fri Dec 04, 2020 11:09 pm

Mark Leavy wrote: ↑Fri Dec 04, 2020 11:00 pm

doodle wrote: ↑Fri Dec 04, 2020 10:55 pmI break into a brinks truck and steal money. How is that adjudicated? Does Brinks get to do with me what they please if they catch me?

You’re a funny man, doodle. I suggest you try it.

So they knock on my door and say, we think you may have our money. And I say I don't. What comes next for me? This is getting exciting!

Mark Leavy wrote: ↑Fri Dec 04, 2020 11:47 pm Doodle, you are clearly a man of intellect and provenance.

I think Madagascar is ripe for plundering. The government is corrupt. Nothing but private security protecting private property.

You're my man. I'll back you ten cents on the dollar. Bring home the bacon!

Mark

PrimalToker wrote: ↑Fri Dec 04, 2020 7:38 pm

doodle wrote: ↑Fri Dec 04, 2020 7:13 pm Can one of the hardcore libertarians explain to me simply how ownership and enforcement of property rights would exist in a system absent a single arbiter who held a monopoly on the use of force?

There is always a single arbiter. Each party consents to the arbiter instead of being forced by the government monopoly. Imagine each county having more than one legal system, you belong to one group, and they provide you with the services. If there is a dispute from another group, they wouldn't use your judge because that's biased, you wouldn't use their judge because that's biased. Therefore both parties would have to pick a third group that has no interest in either party, their only interest is maintaining their integrity with the market by being neutral. If the third party failed to be neutral and just, people would leave that group and join another one.

You'd have market judges and jury's, not government judges and jury's. The free market holds the monopoly of force.

Libertarian666 wrote: ↑Sat Dec 05, 2020 7:12 am

Tortoise wrote: ↑Fri Dec 04, 2020 7:57 pm

PrimalToker wrote: ↑Fri Dec 04, 2020 7:38 pm There is always a single arbiter. Each party consents to the arbiter instead of being forced by the government monopoly.

To play devil's advocate, isn't that effectively what we currently have?

Granted, we are all born in a country (government) that we didn't voluntarily choose. But thereafter, if the country allows us to emigrate to another country, we can eventually do so.

Isn't that sort of like voluntarily choosing an arbiter (government)? There aren't an infinite number of choices of arbiter, but there is a choice, right?

I'm not necessarily taking a hard position here. Just asking questions and engaging in discussion.

Practical objections:

What if they don't allow you to emigrate?
What if there's no other country that will allow you to immigrate?
And even if you can do it, why should you have to take such drastic action? You can switch cellphone providers without having to move to a different "cellphone jurisdiction". Why should this not be true of possibly the most important service you could ever buy?

Fundamental objection:

If you believe in "consent of the governed", then the governed should be free to consent or not to consent. Actual consent is what this method accomplishes, in stark contrast to the fraudulent notion that a person's voting means that he is giving consent to be governed, which was demolished by Lysander Spooner over 100 years ago: https://jim.com/treason.htm.

Libertarian666 wrote: ↑Sat Dec 05, 2020 9:47 am
If one of us then decides to "unsign" that agreement for some reason, that person would still be obligated to submit to arbitration for that contract.

doodle wrote: ↑Sat Dec 05, 2020 11:17 am

Libertarian666 wrote: ↑Sat Dec 05, 2020 9:47 am
If one of us then decides to "unsign" that agreement for some reason, that person would still be obligated to submit to arbitration for that contract.

..or what? Who wields the stick?

I mean if all laws are social contracts in essence and I choose not to abide by them what are the repercussions and who enforces those repercussions?

I gotta head out for some activity, I have some questions for you too Tom but my shrink recommends that I get some of my pent up energy out and my dog agrees.

Libertarian666 wrote: ↑Sat Dec 05, 2020 11:33 am Most people with an IQ above room temperature will quickly figure out what that would mean.

Libertarian666 wrote: ↑Sat Dec 05, 2020 3:00 pm

SomeDude wrote: ↑Sat Dec 05, 2020 2:36 pm

Libertarian666 wrote: ↑Sat Dec 05, 2020 11:33 am Most people with an IQ above room temperature will quickly figure out what that would mean.

Some like it hotter than others.

Seriously, getting rid of government for arbitration will make it much cheaper and reduce liability for business by eliminating frivolous lawsuits and worthless regs that are not market driven.

Right, but even more important, it demonstrates that one major justification for government, namely that it is necessary for dispute resolution, is fraudulent.

tomfoolery wrote: ↑Sun Dec 06, 2020 11:22 am

doodle wrote: ↑Sun Dec 06, 2020 10:40 am
Let's say I break a traffic law. You want to charge me with recklessly running a red light and killing your child. I say the child ran out into street and I didn't run the light. I don't agree to submit to arbitration because I'm innocent. Whats the repercussion? A bad Yelp review?

You downplay it as. ‘Bad Yelp review” but historically this meant you’d die alone, hungry as the tribe abandoned you.

How will a person who murdered a child and refused to take any kind of responsibility play out in society?

Will you hire this person to do work for you? You just fired the president for having an abrasive personality, in spite of doing a pretty good job. Would you continue using an accountant or dentist who murdered a child and then denied assuming any kind of responsibility in the form of an impartial inquiry?

Would you date a person like that?

If you owned a grocery store, would you sell them food?

Perhaps if you were the father of the dead kid, would you perhaps round up a bunch of your friends/family and drag this person out of bed in the middle of the night and hang them from a tree in the form of vigilante mob justice?

In your example, the person is guilty, that’s why they refuse any kind of inquiry/arbitration, so you can’t tell me you feel bad about mob justice against a guilty child murderer?

And if you say mob justice is horrible, can you tell me that in the current system of rules of laws with a single arbiter of force in the form of government, that when government fails to provide justice, that mob justice doesn’t sometimes happen?

Perhaps the fear of mob justice in a libertarian society would encourage people to submit to the third party arbitration. And if you don’t want to live in a city where mob justice may exist, then you can always leave for whatever socialist utopia’s exist elsewhere. The whole point of the libertarian society is that you agree to the basic concepts laid out and if you don’t like them, you can leave and we won’t stop you.

tomfoolery wrote: ↑Sun Dec 06, 2020 5:43 pm

doodle wrote: ↑Sun Dec 06, 2020 4:46 pm
Mob justice? That's your answer on how to create a more just and enlightened society? Sounds lovely. I think we have reached the point of absurdity.

Your libertarian land works nice when everyone plays by the rules...but that isn't the world we live in. Sooner or later you are going to have physically enforce things...I'll take a constitutionally bound publically accountable government where I at least have some rights before I go with mob justice.

316350A3-32AF-47FA-8865-00DB453A9DDC.png



Trivia time!

In the photo above, guess which city in a constitutionally bound publicly accountable government resorted to mob justice by looting and arson this year?

Should be easy, because mob justice is rare in a “just and enlightened society”

tomfoolery wrote: ↑Sun Dec 06, 2020 11:22 am

doodle wrote: ↑Sun Dec 06, 2020 10:40 am
Let's say I break a traffic law. You want to charge me with recklessly running a red light and killing your child. I say the child ran out into street and I didn't run the light. I don't agree to submit to arbitration because I'm innocent. Whats the repercussion? A bad Yelp review?

You downplay it as. ‘Bad Yelp review” but historically this meant you’d die alone, hungry as the tribe abandoned you.

How will a person who murdered a child and refused to take any kind of responsibility play out in society?

Will you hire this person to do work for you? You just fired the president for having an abrasive personality, in spite of doing a pretty good job. Would you continue using an accountant or dentist who murdered a child and then denied assuming any kind of responsibility in the form of an impartial inquiry?

Would you date a person like that?

If you owned a grocery store, would you sell them food?

Libertarian666 wrote: ↑Sat Dec 05, 2020 11:33 am

doodle wrote: ↑Sat Dec 05, 2020 11:17 am

Libertarian666 wrote: ↑Sat Dec 05, 2020 9:47 am
If one of us then decides to "unsign" that agreement for some reason, that person would still be obligated to submit to arbitration for that contract.

..or what? Who wields the stick?

I mean if all laws are social contracts in essence and I choose not to abide by them what are the repercussions and who enforces those repercussions?

I gotta head out for some activity, I have some questions for you too Tom but my shrink recommends that I get some of my pent up energy out and my dog agrees.

If there is public visibility for contractual disputes, as I'm envisioning with a society functioning by reference to the General Agreement to Arbitration, people who violate their contracts will be shunned by honest people, who can identify one another as being signatories.

Most people with an IQ above room temperature will quickly figure out what that would mean.

moda0306 wrote: ↑Mon Dec 07, 2020 9:51 am

Libertarian666 wrote: ↑Sat Dec 05, 2020 11:33 am

doodle wrote: ↑Sat Dec 05, 2020 11:17 am

Libertarian666 wrote: ↑Sat Dec 05, 2020 9:47 am
If one of us then decides to "unsign" that agreement for some reason, that person would still be obligated to submit to arbitration for that contract.

..or what? Who wields the stick?

I mean if all laws are social contracts in essence and I choose not to abide by them what are the repercussions and who enforces those repercussions?

I gotta head out for some activity, I have some questions for you too Tom but my shrink recommends that I get some of my pent up energy out and my dog agrees.

If there is public visibility for contractual disputes, as I'm envisioning with a society functioning by reference to the General Agreement to Arbitration, people who violate their contracts will be shunned by honest people, who can identify one another as being signatories.

Most people with an IQ above room temperature will quickly figure out what that would mean.

Funny, cuz if that's true, than the vast majority of Americans would identify as anarcho-capitalist, or have strong leanings towards that philosophy.

But they don't...

glennds wrote: ↑Mon Dec 07, 2020 2:30 pm

moda0306 wrote: ↑Mon Dec 07, 2020 9:51 am

Libertarian666 wrote: ↑Sat Dec 05, 2020 11:33 am

doodle wrote: ↑Sat Dec 05, 2020 11:17 am

Libertarian666 wrote: ↑Sat Dec 05, 2020 9:47 am
If one of us then decides to "unsign" that agreement for some reason, that person would still be obligated to submit to arbitration for that contract.

..or what? Who wields the stick?

I mean if all laws are social contracts in essence and I choose not to abide by them what are the repercussions and who enforces those repercussions?

I gotta head out for some activity, I have some questions for you too Tom but my shrink recommends that I get some of my pent up energy out and my dog agrees.

If there is public visibility for contractual disputes, as I'm envisioning with a society functioning by reference to the General Agreement to Arbitration, people who violate their contracts will be shunned by honest people, who can identify one another as being signatories.

Most people with an IQ above room temperature will quickly figure out what that would mean.

Funny, cuz if that's true, than the vast majority of Americans would identify as anarcho-capitalist, or have strong leanings towards that philosophy.

But they don't...

Where on the political spectrum do you feel the vast majority of Americans identify?

doodle wrote: ↑Tue Dec 08, 2020 4:47 pm I'm just curious what the libertarians do when someone flaunts the law. Is the punishment that you just tell the offender they are a mean nasty person and no one will want to be their friend?

The misdemeanor charges specified below shall be declined or dismissed before arraignment and
without conditions unless “exceptions” or “factors for consideration” exist.

Mark Leavy wrote: ↑Tue Dec 08, 2020 4:55 pm

doodle wrote: ↑Tue Dec 08, 2020 4:47 pm I'm just curious what the libertarians do when someone flaunts the law. Is the punishment that you just tell the offender they are a mean nasty person and no one will want to be their friend?

We'll soon find out how that system works. It's the new rule in Los Angeles as of today.

The misdemeanor charges specified below shall be declined or dismissed before arraignment and
without conditions unless “exceptions” or “factors for consideration” exist.

The list includes:
Trespass, Disturbing the Peace, No Driver's License, Criminal Threats, Drug Possession, Public Intoxication, Prostitution, Resisting Arrest

Libertarian666 wrote: ↑Tue Dec 08, 2020 5:50 pm

Mark Leavy wrote: ↑Tue Dec 08, 2020 4:55 pm

doodle wrote: ↑Tue Dec 08, 2020 4:47 pm I'm just curious what the libertarians do when someone flaunts the law. Is the punishment that you just tell the offender they are a mean nasty person and no one will want to be their friend?

We'll soon find out how that system works. It's the new rule in Los Angeles as of today.

The misdemeanor charges specified below shall be declined or dismissed before arraignment and
without conditions unless “exceptions” or “factors for consideration” exist.

The list includes:
Trespass, Disturbing the Peace, No Driver's License, Criminal Threats, Drug Possession, Public Intoxication, Prostitution, Resisting Arrest

I can't imagine how such a brilliant plan could go wrong!

doodle wrote: ↑Tue Dec 08, 2020 6:25 pm

Libertarian666 wrote: ↑Tue Dec 08, 2020 5:50 pm

Mark Leavy wrote: ↑Tue Dec 08, 2020 4:55 pm

doodle wrote: ↑Tue Dec 08, 2020 4:47 pm I'm just curious what the libertarians do when someone flaunts the law. Is the punishment that you just tell the offender they are a mean nasty person and no one will want to be their friend?

We'll soon find out how that system works. It's the new rule in Los Angeles as of today.

The misdemeanor charges specified below shall be declined or dismissed before arraignment and
without conditions unless “exceptions” or “factors for consideration” exist.

The list includes:
Trespass, Disturbing the Peace, No Driver's License, Criminal Threats, Drug Possession, Public Intoxication, Prostitution, Resisting Arrest

I can't imagine how such a brilliant plan could go wrong!

Tech, you talking out of both sides of mouth...
Seems like most of those would be unenforceable or not even an issue under libertarianism so should be a win for your team's philosophy!...no licenses, prostitution would be legal as well as drugs...public intoxication no problem as long as you aren't hurting anyone...I don't see anything from that list that would be a crime in a world without government.

Libertarian666 wrote: ↑Tue Dec 08, 2020 6:32 pm

doodle wrote: ↑Tue Dec 08, 2020 6:25 pm

Libertarian666 wrote: ↑Tue Dec 08, 2020 5:50 pm

Mark Leavy wrote: ↑Tue Dec 08, 2020 4:55 pm

doodle wrote: ↑Tue Dec 08, 2020 4:47 pm I'm just curious what the libertarians do when someone flaunts the law. Is the punishment that you just tell the offender they are a mean nasty person and no one will want to be their friend?

We'll soon find out how that system works. It's the new rule in Los Angeles as of today.

The misdemeanor charges specified below shall be declined or dismissed before arraignment and
without conditions unless “exceptions” or “factors for consideration” exist.

The list includes:
Trespass, Disturbing the Peace, No Driver's License, Criminal Threats, Drug Possession, Public Intoxication, Prostitution, Resisting Arrest

I can't imagine how such a brilliant plan could go wrong!

Tech, you talking out of both sides of mouth...
Seems like most of those would be unenforceable or not even an issue under libertarianism so should be a win for your team's philosophy!...no licenses, prostitution would be legal as well as drugs...public intoxication no problem as long as you aren't hurting anyone...I don't see anything from that list that would be a crime in a world without government.

I'm in favor of getting rid of victimless crime laws, including drug possession, public intoxication, and prostitution. Of course "resisting arrest" wouldn't exist without government either.
Trespass, disturbing the peace, and criminal threats would still be an issue without government.
There wouldn't be any government licenses, but driving on a road where you haven't paid the toll would still be subject to penalties.

As soon as you find the anarchist utopia I can move to, please let me know. It seems to be missing from my maps, so I have to deal with the fact that I'm going to live under a government. The question is how bad that government will be.

yankees60 wrote: ↑Tue Dec 08, 2020 7:07 pm

Libertarian666 wrote: ↑Tue Dec 08, 2020 6:32 pm

doodle wrote: ↑Tue Dec 08, 2020 6:25 pm

Libertarian666 wrote: ↑Tue Dec 08, 2020 5:50 pm

Mark Leavy wrote: ↑Tue Dec 08, 2020 4:55 pm

doodle wrote: ↑Tue Dec 08, 2020 4:47 pm I'm just curious what the libertarians do when someone flaunts the law. Is the punishment that you just tell the offender they are a mean nasty person and no one will want to be their friend?

We'll soon find out how that system works. It's the new rule in Los Angeles as of today.

The misdemeanor charges specified below shall be declined or dismissed before arraignment and
without conditions unless “exceptions” or “factors for consideration” exist.

The list includes:
Trespass, Disturbing the Peace, No Driver's License, Criminal Threats, Drug Possession, Public Intoxication, Prostitution, Resisting Arrest

I can't imagine how such a brilliant plan could go wrong!

Tech, you talking out of both sides of mouth...
Seems like most of those would be unenforceable or not even an issue under libertarianism so should be a win for your team's philosophy!...no licenses, prostitution would be legal as well as drugs...public intoxication no problem as long as you aren't hurting anyone...I don't see anything from that list that would be a crime in a world without government.

I'm in favor of getting rid of victimless crime laws, including drug possession, public intoxication, and prostitution. Of course "resisting arrest" wouldn't exist without government either.
Trespass, disturbing the peace, and criminal threats would still be an issue without government.
There wouldn't be any government licenses, but driving on a road where you haven't paid the toll would still be subject to penalties.

As soon as you find the anarchist utopia I can move to, please let me know. It seems to be missing from my maps, so I have to deal with the fact that I'm going to live under a government. The question is how bad that government will be.

Wait!!!

My house is on a main road in this rural area. 40 MPH speed limit. And, it is a busy street. I'm annoyed each time I have to stand on either side of the road waiting for cars to go by when dealing with my newspaper / mail boxes that are across the street from my driveway.

What is the mechanism for paying the toll to drive on my street? Who pays for my street to be snow plowed? To be repaved?

Vinny