Gyroscopic Investing

Xan wrote: Kshartle, if you agree that people have the right to use force defensively, and you have no mechanism for them to agree on ownership, then people will get shot, defensively, when a disagreement about ownership (especially, the nature of ownership) pops up.  I'm not sure why you can't see that.

I'm not kshartle, but I know the answer to this. It would be extremely inconvenient to go around shooting people or being shot, so anyone even remotely sensible would subscribe to a dispute resolution organization. Note that this is NOT a government because it would not have a monopoly. In particular, if you had a dispute with such an organization, it would not be a judge in its own case, but would have to subject itself to outside jurisdiction. This eliminates an inherent conflict of interest in governmental systems.

moda0306 wrote: The powerful are going to laugh their asses off at those who "disagree" with them.  Not "cooperate" with them.

Ummm......and your solution is we need an organization for them to jump into and/or buy off?

Good one.....doooahhhh!

Kshartle wrote:

moda0306 wrote:

Kshartle wrote: How about every law must require 100% voter agreement and it expires every single day?

Ohhh wait that would be freedom.

How many votes and by whom do I need to shoot someone who won't leave the woods that I've claimed as "my property?"

NM

Good thing we have the government. Othewise moda would be running about the nearest wooded area shooting people. We could turn our backs on violence except we can't solve the riddle of Moda shooting everyone stepping into his woodland lair.

If government is simply "an entity of illegitimate force," then the person with the "wrong" view on what property consists of, or anyone they choose to "hire" as a defensive insurance contractor, is essentially "government" of one.

We'll still have governments, just really small ones, and since we've had more centuries with slaves than without them, I don't trust that individual governments are any more fair than ones that consist of multiple people.

Libertarian666 wrote:

Xan wrote: Kshartle, if you agree that people have the right to use force defensively, and you have no mechanism for them to agree on ownership, then people will get shot, defensively, when a disagreement about ownership (especially, the nature of ownership) pops up.  I'm not sure why you can't see that.

I'm not kshartle, but I know the answer to this. It would be extremely inconvenient to go around shooting people or being shot, so anyone even remotely sensible would subscribe to a dispute resolution organization. Note that this is NOT a government because it would not have a monopoly. In particular, if you had a dispute with such an organization, it would not be a judge in its own case, but would have to subject itself to outside jurisdiction. This eliminates an inherent conflict of interest in governmental systems.

We have been over all these subjects in previous threads at great length, with the same participants. I'm not going to sit here and re-invent the wheel.

Libertarian666 wrote:

Xan wrote: Kshartle, if you agree that people have the right to use force defensively, and you have no mechanism for them to agree on ownership, then people will get shot, defensively, when a disagreement about ownership (especially, the nature of ownership) pops up.  I'm not sure why you can't see that.

I'm not kshartle, but I know the answer to this. It would be extremely inconvenient to go around shooting people or being shot, so anyone even remotely sensible would subscribe to a dispute resolution organization. Note that this is NOT a government because it would not have a monopoly. In particular, if you had a dispute with such an organization, it would not be a judge in its own case, but would have to subject itself to outside jurisdiction. This eliminates an inherent conflict of interest in governmental systems.

Which party gets to choose the organization that resolves the dispute?  Do they have to "cooperate" to figure that out too?  What if the organization rules and I deem it to be under shady influence of the other party?  Do I then take them to another organization to resolve disputes?

Kshartle wrote:

moda0306 wrote: Most people have opinions on what government should or should not do, and this has LED to democratic revolutions.

People had opinions that the gods needed to be appeased, and this has LED to child sacrifice.

Your argument was of who was leading who.  Stick to the issue.  I'm not saying people were perfect... but that they led the charge against existing governments.

moda0306 wrote:

Kshartle wrote:

moda0306 wrote: Most people have opinions on what government should or should not do, and this has LED to democratic revolutions.

People had opinions that the gods needed to be appeased, and this has LED to child sacrifice.

Your argument was of who was leading who.  Stick to the issue.  I'm not saying people were perfect... but that they led the charge against existing governments.

I don't understand your point then. Sincerly, not deliberatly.

Kshartle wrote:

Xan wrote: Kshartle, if you agree that people have the right to use force defensively, and you have no mechanism for them to agree on ownership, then people will get shot, defensively, when a disagreement about ownership (especially, the nature of ownership) pops up.  I'm not sure why you can't see that.

Please go back to the reams of discussions we've had on ownership man. We have covered this subject at such length it's ridiculous. 

And no, two people disagreeing on ownership does not need to ever, ever result in someone being shot. That is a choice. Giving certain humans the authority to use guns against everyone who does not submit does not solve any of these problems. But we've been over that topic about 100 times also.

Can you tell me why it's bad for people to shoot at each other? Why is that not a good solution to a problem? If it's not....then why is a good solution when only one party (government humans) have overwhelming force? Why is the latter a solution to the problem of the former (if you think it's a problem)?

People don't "cooperate" unless they think it's in their best interests to... at least most don't.  What will factor heavily in someone's decision to "cooperate" is how difficult the other party is likely to make their life if they don't.  This makes both parties' ability to engage in force material to negotiations of "cooperation."  Since only one side can truly be correct, then it stands to reason that the force that the incorrect party has behind them is implicitly guiding the decision to cooperate.

This force is essentially "government," and will be present in almost every negotiation of disagreements.

moda0306 wrote: People don't "cooperate" unless they think it's in their best interests to... at least most don't.  What will factor heavily in someone's decision to "cooperate" is how difficult the other party is likely to make their life if they don't.  This makes both parties' ability to engage in force material to negotiations of "cooperation."  Since only one side can truly be correct, then it stands to reason that the force that the incorrect party has behind them is implicitly guiding the decision to cooperate.

This force is essentially "government," and will be present in almost every negotiation of disagreements.

This is what I'm talking about when I say democracy breeds immorality. It's almost an alien concept to think of truly voluntary negotiation solving problems. The belief and support of violence is so ingrained, everything else actually sounds impossible to people.

Yes, non-violent dispute resolution does require the disputing parties to not engage in violence or threats of violence.

Simonjester wrote:

moda0306 wrote:

Arbitrary claims on property are the opposite of cooperation.  It's making a very implicitly violent claim on something I had no hand in making. It means if you come onto "my land," I can shoot you.  Your ability to "cooperate" your way out of that situation lies only in my willingness to see an upside in not shooting you down.




Simon,

How great a place would the U.S. be if millions of Indians weren't displaced from what was apparently NOT "their property?"  Great if you like camping.  Not so much if you like the internet.

 
  human history is (hopefully) a progression from bad to better, we learn from our mistakes... but since we screwed over the Indians property should be what? taken from everybody and given to the government ... sounds more like a repeat of what happened to the Indians than a enlightened step toward peace and nonviolence.

a rocky start, a rough history, a slow long learning curve does not change the fact that property and liberty are the best bets we have and the only system with any history of working...  this is the point on the merry go round i usually ask for the example/description of your better system that doesn't involve property and liberty....  don't worry i wont hold my breath 

You were talking about "why things were so good."  I'm not talking about reparations here... just (politely) please answer the question.  If the majority of the entirety of the US hadn't been settled due to prior nomadic occupation, or some very limited settlement terms were engaged in, how "great" would things be for us today?

As ugly as it is, more advanced societies stealing resources from less advanced ones probably resulted in a lot more wealth over time being created.  Of course, most of that ended up in the hands of the owners of the means of production, but I digress...

Simonjester wrote: i wasn't talking about reparations either, you keep stating that "limited" resources belong to everyone (stuck on the same rock) and should be given to the government to distribute in a manner that is "fair" compared to letting property ownership and free-markets decide.

if we had treated the Indians as human and property owners, settlement would have been slowed some and depending on how they valued land and how their values changed over time. at some point they would sell, trade and buy land and other things and the US would end up as or very close to as developed as it is now..... and Indians would be prosperous... the unlikely other choice is they would remain hunter gatherers preferring tribal warfare, hunger, hard short lives, etc over the benefits integration and trade brought, and things would end in the undeveloped America you seem to envision....

Kshartle wrote:

moda0306 wrote: People don't "cooperate" unless they think it's in their best interests to... at least most don't.  What will factor heavily in someone's decision to "cooperate" is how difficult the other party is likely to make their life if they don't.  This makes both parties' ability to engage in force material to negotiations of "cooperation."  Since only one side can truly be correct, then it stands to reason that the force that the incorrect party has behind them is implicitly guiding the decision to cooperate.

This force is essentially "government," and will be present in almost every negotiation of disagreements.

This is what I'm talking about when I say democracy breeds immorality. It's almost an alien concept to think of truly voluntary negotiation solving problems. The belief and support of violence is so ingrained, everything else actually sounds impossible to people.

Yes, non-violent dispute resolution does require the disputing parties to not engage in violence or threats of violence.

There is always an implicit threat of violence.  There has to be.  Hell, there is in small claims court.  There is in a bubble-gum machine.

Kshartle wrote:

moda0306 wrote:

Kshartle wrote: People had opinions that the gods needed to be appeased, and this has LED to child sacrifice.

Your argument was of who was leading who.  Stick to the issue.  I'm not saying people were perfect... but that they led the charge against existing governments.

I don't understand your point then. Sincerly, not deliberatly.

You were saying that government was essentially brainwashing people with democracy, when the truth is, for all its problems, democracy is a result of PEOPLE rising up against government... whether that' right/wrong/indifferent.

Kshartle wrote:

Benko wrote: How about just making all new laws (except e.g. ethics ones) automatically expire in e.g. 10 years (not my idea, and there is even a TED talk on it). This has the advantage that laws would have to be justified again to see if they were still needed.

How about every law must require 100% voter agreement and it expires every single day?

Ohhh wait that would be freedom.

That's not freedom. That's anarchism. This is why I have become increasingly disenchanted with libertarianism. In the end, most of the really committed libertarians are really just anarchists. Anarchism and Marxism both belong in the same wing of the political science museum, the one labeled "Fantasy."

Ad Orientem wrote: That's not freedom. That's anarchism. This is why I have become increasingly disenchanted with libertarianism. In the end, most of the really committed libertarians are really just anarchists. Anarchism and Marxism both belong in the same wing of the political science museum, the one labeled "Fantasy."

I can respect this point of view. At least we have thousands of years of civilizational monarchist history to look at. It takes quite a leap of faith to embrace the idea of a type of society that's never really existed. It just means we have to be more persuasive.

Ad Orientem wrote:

Kshartle wrote:

Benko wrote: How about just making all new laws (except e.g. ethics ones) automatically expire in e.g. 10 years (not my idea, and there is even a TED talk on it). This has the advantage that laws would have to be justified again to see if they were still needed.

How about every law must require 100% voter agreement and it expires every single day?

Ohhh wait that would be freedom.

That's not freedom. That's anarchism. This is why I have become increasingly disenchanted with libertarianism. In the end, most of the really committed libertarians are really just anarchists. Anarchism and Marxism both belong in the same wing of the political science museum, the one labeled "Fantasy."

No, that wing is filled with all the fantastic displays called "Limited government" and "Marxism". There's no room there for anarchism, but that's okay because its wing is outside. 

Kshartle wrote:two people disagreeing on ownership does not need to ever, ever result in someone being shot. That is a choice.

Um...  Okay, except that you've repeatedly said that defensive force is okay.  There can easily be a situation where two people both believe they own a given plot of land, and each is defending it against the other guy.

If you don't believe this situation should "ever, ever" result in someone being shot, then you don't believe that even defensive force is okay.  Which means that you're okay with forcing people to not use force.  :-)

Kshartle wrote:

Gumby wrote:This is probably a dumb question, but if you don't believe in dictatorships, and you don't believe in democracy, what exactly do you propose as a realistic alternative?

What do you mean by don't believe in? I believe in them.

I just meant that you don't believe that we should have them.

Kshartle wrote:I propose that humans should deal with their dissagreements peacefully and with negotiation, even if that means agreeing upon a third party to mediate.

And I propose that everyone hold hands and sing Kumbaya.... but it ain't going to happen

I'm honestly not trying to belittle your proposals. They sound like you've put a lot of thought into them. I'm just not sure I understand why you think it's worth spending so much time and energy convincing us of the merits of something that's never going to happen.

Xan wrote:

Kshartle wrote:two people disagreeing on ownership does not need to ever, ever result in someone being shot. That is a choice.

Um...  Okay, except that you've repeatedly said that defensive force is okay.  There can easily be a situation where two people both believe they own a given plot of land, and each is defending it against the other guy.

If you don't believe this situation should "ever, ever" result in someone being shot, then you don't believe that even defensive force is okay.  Which means that you're okay with forcing people to not use force.  :-)

Xan,

As nicely and sincerely as I can, I don't follow the logic here. Two parties can't simultaneously defend. At least one of them has to initiate and be the aggressor, even though they might feel justified in their attack. Regardless, the initiation of force against another is immoral, and undesirable. They are both much better off finding a peaceful resolution. There will be problems in a stateless society there is no doubt, but they won't be because there is no state. The removal of the state from our lives will be a consequence of generations of children being raised in non-violent homes where they learn peaceful negotiation, human rights and the immorality of the initiation of force against people.

I think this is inevitable even though we won't see it, but there will be entire industries and experts dedicated to helping humans resolve disputes. Regardless, the people will all be better at dealing with conflict, so problems like property disputes which obviously plague us today will be reduced by so much when the humans understand these concepts much better.

When you say "shouldn't ever result in someone being shot" I think you're still coming from a statist perspective. If I say people "Shouldn't ever steal", that doesn't mean I'm in favor of statist police trying to solve the problem. The same principle applies to your scenario. They shouldn't shoot each other because it requires at least one to disregard peaceful negotiation and embrace violence but that certainly does not preclude self-defense. And I most certainly do not support forcing anyone to do anything or to not defend their rights. 

moda0306 wrote:

Kshartle wrote: non-violent dispute resolution does require the disputing parties to not engage in violence or threats of violence.

There is always an implicit threat of violence.  There has to be. 

So this belief is a big part of the problem. There is no support for it when you really think about it. Listen, I really do sympathize with this position and understand it. It is the dominant belief system at work in the world. I've given a lot of thought to how to deconstruct this argument so here goes:

Humans have all kinds of problems, disease, death, heartbreak, scarcity even.....etc.

We have a whole slew of problems that come from the initiation of force, war, murder, theft, kidnapping, poverty, scarcity........Honestly you can look at all the "crisis" the US has and find the government program causing it. Whether it's the war on drugs, war on poverty, war on terror, corn subsidies, interest-rate manipulation, student loans, min wage, my God the list of programs that cause human misery is endless. You've said that Government action is force....so there it is. The problems created by these programs is a problem caused by the initiation of force.

There is no law of nature or physics that says humans must choose violence to solve their problems. With the exception of the mentally compromised.....humans "choose" violence. They are not forced by the universe to engage in it.

The only solution to the problem of humans using the initiation of force to achieve their goals is for humans to "not choose" it.

You said quite correctly earlier that people will act in their best interests and if they think they are better off using force they will do it.

I agree.

Therefore, what is needed for people to not choose violence is for them to see that it's not in their best interests to do it. This does not mean that everyone needs to be convinced of it's immorality. That's a pipe dream. I know because I think I had it once after a few hits on a pipe. What is possible is for enough people to understand it that it becomes the moral standard. That means companies who specialize in peaceful dispute resolution cropping up. That means that if you initiate force....even if you win you lose, because people won't deal with you, the consequences will be worse than if you had stayed within the dominant morality.

Even sociopaths and psychopaths can seem like functioning members of society when they see it's in their best interests. Everyone doesn't have to be perfect for this to be reality.

How do we get there? How do we get to a point where people see the choice of violence as a bad one? Can we pass a law? Can we "force" people to not use "force"? It should be obvious why this can never work. You cannot solve the problem of force with force anymore than you can solve the problem of theft with theft.

The only solution is peaceful and voluntary acceptance of the non-aggression principle. Persuade others of it's validity and teach it to the children. This dragon will take a long time to slay. The state can never ever ever solve these problems. It is the absolute personification of the problem. The state is the perfection of force. It's so overwhelming that people automatically submit and they don't even understand what is happening.

The only way to persuade others and teach the kids is to accept it yourself first. Since you can't "force" it on anyone, everyone has to choose it. The only person you can control or have a right to control is yourself. So it starts with you. It starts with you saying, "The initiation of force doesn't solve any of my problems. It doesn't solve anyone else's either. It's a choice for me, so it must be a choice for everyone else to. I'm going to choose the non-aggression principle to live by. I'm going to talk to others about it, and teach it to my kids. I can't force it on anyone, and I'm not worried if everyone doesn't agree, because I can't control that. I'm going to stop supporting government "solutions" to problems because they are the initiation of force and therefore can't solve problems."

The only person you can control is yourself. You can choose to be part of the solution to all these problems, or you can continue being part of the problem. At this point probably 99% of the people are part of the problem. Even libertarians are part of the problem because they have compromised their principles. Their compromising has made them a huge failure. The most successful political movement of the 20th century in America is the socialist party. They may have never elected anyone.....but have they not achieved almost all their goals? Who do the repukes and dems look more like, socialists or libertarians? The socialists won because they never compromised. You can't say "well force is good here but bad here". Practically everyone does this and the rank hypocrisy makes me ill.

Anyway this has gone longer than I wanted and most probably won't get through it.

What do you think about my solution and the practical action you can start taking today?

"There is no law of nature or physics that says humans must choose violence to solve their problems.[/b] With the exception of the mentally compromised.....humans "choose" violence. They are not forced by the universe to engage in it."

Violence often comes out of anger.  What do you think the odds are of getting rid of anger?

To think you can live in a "society" without violence, however rare it may or may not be, is idealistic, but I don't think realistic.

Back to your regularly scheduled debate.

TennPaGa wrote:Let me say that differently... I think the elimination of violence between people is a worthy goal.  Focusing on elimination of the state is a distraction toward that goal.

+1

I don't really think "the state" has a monopoly on force.  We've had this debate before but it probably pays to have it again as we've got some new people participating. First off, I'm free to defend myself or hire a security company to do so. Further, I have various levels of "states" around me.  My city, county, state and federal government (all of which I can leave the jurisdiction of) all have certain forces they can emply, and are often a check on each other in certain circumstances.

Now if we are trying to say that the state has a monopoly on "illegitimate" force, then I'd say again that they're wrong because illegitimate force happens all around us via crime or pollution.

Ah, but if we are saying that gubmint has a monopoly on widely accepted illegitimate force, then maybe we're onto something... But we've probably hyper-defined things at this point... And if an entity is engaging in widely accepted illegitimate force, our concern shouldn't be that it's a monopoly, but that it's activity is wrong in the first place.

Gumby wrote:

TennPaGa wrote:Let me say that differently... I think the elimination of violence between people is a worthy goal.  Focusing on elimination of the state is a distraction toward that goal.

+1

Yes I completely agree.

moda0306 wrote: Now if we are trying to say that the state has a monopoly on "illegitimate" force, then I'd say again that they're wrong because illegitimate force happens all around us via crime or pollution.

Ah, but if we are saying that gubmint has a monopoly on widely accepted illegitimate force, then maybe we're onto something... But we've probably hyper-defined things at this point... And if an entity is engaging in widely accepted illegitimate force, our concern shouldn't be that it's a monopoly, but that it's activity is wrong in the first place.

I think you've just about nailed it, with the exception that we have a slighty different meaning when we use the word force. What you would refer to as legitimate force I would not call force. But other than that.......agreed.

I don't really care about the government, just the use of force by some humans AGAINST others....

The state is a symptom not the cause.

Kshartle wrote:

moda0306 wrote: Now if we are trying to say that the state has a monopoly on "illegitimate" force, then I'd say again that they're wrong because illegitimate force happens all around us via crime or pollution.

Ah, but if we are saying that gubmint has a monopoly on widely accepted illegitimate force, then maybe we're onto something... But we've probably hyper-defined things at this point... And if an entity is engaging in widely accepted illegitimate force, our concern shouldn't be that it's a monopoly, but that it's activity is wrong in the first place.

I think you've just about nailed it, with the exception that we have a slighty different meaning when we use the word force. What you would refer to as legitimate force I would not call force. But other than that.......agreed.

I don't really care about the government, just the use of force by some humans AGAINST others....

The state is a symptom not the cause.

So.... how would you propose that we reverse such commonplace behaviors?