They'll come for you, too
Interesting to note that the bank in question didn't loan out its money but instead made its profits on transaction fees. Also to note, the bank's primarily conservative investors are out their $65 million. Can we say legalized THEFT?
Previous comments... You are currently on page 9.
Well what do you expect, it was a chat bot. Sorry, my history is not too strong. I guess I can remember there was a period of anarchy described in the bible before the kings.
On the other hand, is that true history or one written from someone with an agenda? Rhetorical question.
I did hear the theory that Lenin was an agent or something.
I think the French Revolution should be considered successful because they did overthrow the previous government. If it was decentralized then it did overthrow a centralized one. It doesn't matter that there were bloody executions or that it was socialist.
I don't know if I would be against voluntary centralization. I am against centralization only if the state forces it for control. If there was no state, I probably wouldn't mind it too much if I am allowed to opt out.
I do agree that centralized systems are easier to set up/manage than decentralized ones.
The routing tables in the Internet routers are compiled by a decentralized algorithm, at least on the large scale.
The Internet is TCP/IP and BGP etc.
Still, I would say DNS is somewhat decentralized. The only problem area is the 13 root nameservers.
They are pretty good at bypassing it, or so I hear.
I'm going to have to disagree with that one.
There is no licensing for wifi. It is on the unlicensed bands. Yet, it seems to be working fine. The only limitation is transmit power/antenna gain I believe. There are some crazy algorithms for minimizing interference. With beam forming, interference is even less of an issue.
I haven't given too much of a thought to how radio spectrum allocation would work without a state. However, we have analogous examples in similar spaces. Maybe it can be done similar to how IP address allocation is done now. I believe it is owned by ICANN, which is a non-governmental organization. I believe it was initially founded by US government but luckily they gave up control. There are many examples of standard setting organizations in the IT space that I am aware of. One important thing is that they are not using violence to maintain their power to decree rules.
Air traffic control also doesn't need to be run by the state. It can be done privately. Resist your statist urge to centralize everything with violence!
Actually, I would define a monopoly as a business that maintains total domination of its market via use of violence or fraud. So, a business that looks like a monopoly but isn't forcing it isn't really a monopoly in my view. The reason for that is any other organization can come in and would be allowed to do the same thing. It's just that nobody did it yet, or there is a lack of something. Force isn't being used, so, I'm ok with that.
Fine, I'll give you that one.
What I was trying to say was that an entity is "bad" if it is committing immoral actions.
See, I think those are not really laws and shouldn't exist. They can't be derived by logic so I don't care if you try to push that shit.
A law might be that "a road owner has the right to select which side a road user must drive on, otherwise the user is not allowed to use the road". I can see that one being derived using logic from axiomatic assumptions. The way this would be enforced is not by punishment but by the owner using their self-defense rights to stop you from driving on the wrong side. This might include having you pay for damages (cost of enforcement, for example), or even shooting your tiers out.
I guess if there is only one owner of all roads (the state), then sure, they can force all road users to drive on the right. However, enforcing monopolies (by violence) is wrong, so, there wouldn't be a single owner of all roads.
I've had it with you guys authoritarians. In my view, the universal law doesn't allow you to decree that all roads must be driven on the right.
Not really. I apologize for being confusing. When I said "you cannot simply force somebody to behave how you want," I meant to say "you don't have the right to." I mean, you CAN use force on them, but it wouldn't be right/moral. Also, you don't have the right to punish them for not complying with your wishes.
So, you don't have the right to either degree a law or punish someone for not following it. My view is that laws already exist in reality based on logic. You have the right to uncover laws by doing the derivation and publishing results for everyone to check and accept or disprove.
Who cares if some self-proclaimed warlord decrees a law? Who cares if a majority voted to decree a law? Who cares if decreeing a law was allowed by some kind of constitution written by some people? I'm not going to listen to that, and for good reason. I am a person just like them. Who are they to dictate to me how I must behave. I am not their slave! WTF? I don't know where you people are getting these ideas. These are clearly wrong.
I will only listen to logic and reason to tell me what laws are. If you want a law that I must follow, you show me how this law exists from my axiomatic assumptions.
Law enforcement is a separate thing. You seem to think that laws don't exist without enforcement. I disagree. Someone may fail in enforcing the law, but it is still there. Nobody can cancel logic.
Why wouldn't that work in practice exactly? I'm not seeing it.
I am going to have to read the texts you are referring to. Maybe there is something there that will change my view. However, I doubt it very much. I have seen a lot of argumentation over the course of my life and have made many observations. I am beginning to arrive at a very strong foundational beliefs about humanity. These tell me that people are far from perfect, especially going back in time. As time goes on, humanity seems to be improving its understanding of reality. So, even if the founders were ahead of their time, they are certainly not ahead of our time. Blind belief in their infallibility is not healthy. One must always think critically, even about the work of giants of the past. I am willing to bet that the texts you are referring to contain many ideas that I would consider misconceptions, and yet they were accepted back then and are still accepted now. I always try to question everything and I am finding a lot of wrong stuff people believe in these days and in the past.
When I step back and look at the big picture, I can see that maybe most of the founders were indeed interested in the same things that I am (freedom). However, I can detect that they went about it in an imperfect way. It seems to me that the founders (and current Americans) don't truly understand freedom correctly, or at least in a way that would make sense to me.
Could the founders have been brainwashed by statims? Sure, why not? I see it happening today to an even greater extent.
I would also accuse the founders of not being true to their ideals. They rose up only after they had a big enough grievance. Why didn't they do it earlier? Of course they were statists. Maybe they cared about freedom only when it suited them. Maybe they just wanted a state of their own. When it came time to demonstrate belief in freedom, their ideological descendants started the Civil War instead!
Ah.. Who am I kidding? You guys are all statists.
But I guess it wouldn't hurt to do some research of those texts you mentioned.
I came to the conclusion that monopolies cannot exist without use of violence or fraud. Correct me if I am wrong. So, monopolies must not be allowed.
Border Patrol is a monopoly organization. Nobody else is allowed to perform their task. They receive a no-bid contract.
Therefore, having Border Patrol must not be allowed, at least not as it is now. Same with any other kind of law enforcement. There must be a possibility for competition, otherwise how would a market price be set for that service? You might be overpaying. I would like to see market forces work on 'government' organizations.
Regarding who pays and how is an interesting question. One thing I know for sure based on the universal law that I am thinking of: no coercion. The person paying must be voluntarily giving the money. I don't care how you make that work, but it MUST be voluntary.
Based on my view on borders (there should be none), Border Patrol would not exist. However, other law enforcement should exist. I would even go so far as to say that it would be very cheap because they might be allowed to recoup most of the expenses of enforcement from the criminals. The criminals would not be punished but forced to pay back the damages (justified forced labor if need be), likely including what was spent bringing them to justice. So, the people would only have to pay the "stand by" costs.
I'm not sure yet the details of how all that might work, but I am sure some system that would adhere to the universal law can be designed, given enough time and effort.
Nobody is forcing you to engage with them. If you don't like them, ignore them. If they break the (universal) law engaging with you, I would allow you to defend yourself and have them pay for it.
However, decreeing who can or cannot exist and reside in a particular space is wrong, IMHO. If the space is your property then you are allowed to do it, but if it isn't then you shouldn't have a problem. If they cause you property damage, that should be dealt with in a regular way.
I would agree with you that maybe most of them have a disregard for the (universal) law, but so does most of you guys, as far as I can tell. Maybe you guys are little better, but you still want me dead (by statism). This is my logical conclusion, nothing personal.
The reason why they are a financial burden for you is because of the state. If there was no state giving them things that they take from you by force, then there would be no problem like that.
The problem is with what it is that you are claiming you own exactly. The whole question of what is property is very hard to get one's head around.
I thought about it for a while and only saw one justifiable way to define property:
Property is what results from labor. (or something to that effect)
I don't like the whole idea of claim-based property. If that is true, I claim the entire universe and everything that has not been claimed yet. Now, you have to pay me for my sun's energy. Do you see the problem? It is very easy to engage in rent seeking behavior using claim-based property. Rent seeking is predation, so, I can't allow it.
The 'property from labor' definition goes along nicely with my idea of 'no punishment but repayment of damages'. If someone destroyed my property, they would have to replace it using the equivalent amount of 'labor' that cost me to get it. So, you have the claim on your labor. This makes you a free person, and not a slave. You don't need to claim the atoms in your phone to have a claim to it. The claim is to the labor that was put to arrange the atoms in that way. If someone was to steal the atoms of your phone, that would destroy the labor that was put into arranging them and rob you of its value to you.
Just asserting something is yours is baseless. However, if you can show that you spent your time and effort to get it then you have a claim to it. This wouldn't include stealing though, which I guess does require effort, but you are going to have to give it back because you rob someone else of their labor, so you would end up in the red.
It is possible I am wording this idea in an incorrect way, however, I really like the mathematical consistency that it suggests. It probably means I am getting close to the truth.
If you think about it, time is all we have. If we spend it acquiring things, then those things belong to us because they represent our time.
My view is that there is only one truth, only one correct system of rules. If countries take some basic axiomatic ideas that are most certainly are true (even if they can't be proven true), such as the golden rule we talked about, chances are very high that both countries will end up with the same set of rules after doing the proper derivations (unless someone screwed up). So, if all countries have the same laws, borders are not necessary.
Law enforcement jurisdictions are a different question. I did propose previously that there should be multiple companies providing law enforcement services even in a single country. So, without country borders, you still have the same situation (multiple entities providing law enforcement services). I am not sure yet how that might look like, but I'm sure it would be better than what we have now.
"I think in this context, freedom is not..." (emphasis mine)
It's rather shocking to me that you put so much stock in an idea you have such difficulty explaining. (PS Negative definitions don't count.)
Let me help you. Freedom is the knowledge and will to act in complete accord with the laws of the universe and in so doing to be absolved from any negative consequences of the abrogation of those laws. Freedom means acting in a such a way that we choose the specific outcome of those actions which lies in harmony with the laws of cause and effect within the universe and which in turn benefit us.
"That doesn't mean rules don't necessarily exist, it just means that nobody has the authority to decree them..."
Do we "decree" them or merely recognize what already exists? Can humanity really create ex nihilo the laws of the universe - even moral ones? Certainly not. And as we see with those nations who attempt to adopt and enforce laws contrary to the moral laws of the universe, they ultimately fail and inflict pain and suffering along the way.
Part of being sentient is being able to choose something other than what is dictated by the law. Without the ability to make mistakes, are we really the authors of our own destiny? No. Now that doesn't mean that we can avoid the consequences of our rebellion, but hopefully that correction educates us.
That's because you choose to employ unconventional definitions of commonplace terms. So long as you persist in this, you're going to experience more of the same.
"The problem is with some beings claiming the rights to attributes like those listed above."
You're going to have to be specific here, but let me ask: is it not correct (as pointed out in the Declaration of Independence) that power may only be delegated from that one already possesses, i.e. that government of the People comes as The People delegate to government the expression of controls they themselves originally possess?
"What I am observing in the world are states, not government in your sense..."
A State is a legal entity comprising the conjoined will of the People it represents. A government is merely the apparatus by which the will of the People takes shape. I have never maintained any other definition of either.
"I would support a set of laws derived from something..."
No disagreement.
"The enforcement of these rules should be done commercially, and not by some monopolist organization."
So flesh out your ideas into a full working diagram, etc. It's one thing to have a flash-in-the-pan idea and quite another to think it through to the point of actual implementation. Then feel free to present your entire thesis and defend it.
"It is indeed immoral to use violence... I never agreed to this arrangement..."
You have two choices. One is that you can seclude yourself from EVERYONE else. Then all you have to contend with are the natural laws of the universe. The other choice is to live in a society of people who are flawed, ignorant, temperamental beings - beings who bludgeon their way through this existence as they try to figure it out. Beings who make mistakes and injure each other - sometimes intentionally, sometimes not.
Laws and governance are set in place whenever there are two or more human beings in the same place contending for the same resources, space, etc. There is no avoiding this. Therefore laws and governance - in whatsoever formal structure as is agreed upon - are a natural product of mere existence. Your being born into such an existence puts you right into the middle of it. You can gripe about it all you want. You can invent for yourself a fantasy where it doesn't exist. But the 2x4 of Reality can't really be dodged.
Your biggest confusion and error lies in the mistaken conflation of the tool - government - and the people wielding the tool. Only choices can be moral - not instruments. Choices come from sentient beings and are a product of knowledge, ideology, and will.
I support a moral law of non-coercion. I do not support the immoral acts of those who have perverted our morals and misused government to further their own power. The sooner you understand this key fact, the sooner you will realize that there is a lot more we agree upon than that we disagree upon.
No one questions the tendency of those who seek power and gain to seek control of government to further those ends. Benjamin Franklin warned about it >200 years ago and the Founders enabled the Constitution with the first and ONLY set of checks and balances in government knowing that without those checks the government would degenerate into tyranny. We've gone on in post after post about the long, slow slide of this nation into tyranny and noted various bellweathers and crucial points in history. We've debated Chevron Deference, Woodrow Wilson, John Dewey, and many, many more topics. You overestimate yourself to think you are the first one to bring up these thoughts in this forum.
That's a very different definition of de-centralized than those found in any dictionary. What you're really getting at is the mindset and ideology of the person/people in control of any given system. And that is certainly a cause for concern/debate when they tend towards tyranny.
But if you want to effectively communicate with others, you need to stick with common definitions. It's the reason why Rand's "selfishness" definition never caught on. Language is as much a community standard as anything...
Because you think you want to be the authority. Not to be too adversarial, but this is a very arrogant mindset because it denies one's own ignorance by assuming you know better than anyone else.
"The idea of forcing people to accept something as a repayment of debt is some statist ..."
You really need to read the history of the United States. Commerce on a large scale only works when you have standards not only in weights and measures but in legal tender. That's why Congress was explicitly given the responsibility to identify and establish those standards: the initial lack of standards was a significant impediment to free trade between the States prior to adoption of the Constitution and standard weights and measures in the early 1800's. Also note the chaos caused by the various regional banks who established their own standards of lending/redemption.
"Bitcoin is somewhat workable as it is. ... I see that as something to improve on, not an indictment of the whole idea."
I agree. I'm not opposed to the idea (of Bitcoin). I'm just waiting to adopt it until its acceptance reaches critical mass. I don't have the resources to speculate.
"I have a whole unique theory of money. If you guys are interested I can talk about it."
Please start a new thread. Before you do, you might do a search on this forum, as we've had discussions on money frequently. You can anticipate some of the questions which will be thrown at you.
2. The French Revolution. This one potentially passes the "decentralized" effort test, but as the result was a socialist nation and thousands of bloody executions it hardly qualifies as a success.
3. The Russian Revolution. This was a coup. The Bolsheviks persuaded the Russian Navy to back them. What many don't know was that it was communists who were sent from the Democratic Party in the United States who started it. Not a de-centralized effort and certainly not a moral one.
4. Cuban revolution. This was two political factions duking it out. Castro was very organized and had his own fiefdom which he merely expanded to include an entire country after he seized power. Not a de-centralized effort and certainly not a moral one.
5. Fall of the Berlin Wall. Was this one caused by decentralized forces or simply the natural result of bad policy?
"The Internet is an example of a decentralized communication network."
Uh, you understand what the Domain Name System is, don't you? It is thirteen primary servers which ultimately control all of the routing for the Internet. Completely centralized... The DNS servers, however, are maintained by a private, non-profit rather than the government.
"Internet censorship doesn't work..."
Tell that to the Chinese people. Or the Canadians due to their new laws.
But let's get to the real "boogeyman" as you define it: centralization. Every successful business centralizes its decision-making. Every successful community or nation does the same. Why? Efficiency. De-centralization means a lack of specialization and efficiency. It is literally counter-productive. The real question is not about centralization vs de-centralization but rather the ideology employing it. Tool vs person using tool.
That doesn't mean rules don't necessarily exist, it just means that nobody has the authority to decree them. My view is that social rules exist like scientific rules exist, such as gravity or algebra.
Obviously, no one is exempt from the consequences of their actions. How could they be exempt? It is going to happen to them whether they like it or not. What does that have to do with freedom?
Sometimes shit happens to you not only due to your own actions but also due to someone else's actions, and sometimes due to chaos in the universe. Sometimes you can predict what is going to happen with a reasonable accuracy, but sometimes it is not practical to do so.
My issue is not with "government" in the sense that you refer to (agreement/rules). My issue is with the "state".
A state is an organization with attributes that include the following:
- monopoly on use of violence
- monopoly on law making
- monopoly on statehood in its territory
In other words, you might say a state is a "centralized government." When I said "centralized government" (or just "government") I actually meant to say "a state".
I have nothing against an agreement between two sentient beings. I have nothing against having rules for society. The problem is with some beings claiming the rights to attributes like those listed above.
What I am observing in the world are states, not government in your sense (agreement/rules). I guess there is the golden rule and others that "good" people try to adhere to, but they do it regardless of the existence of the state and its support for it.
You conflate a state with governing/rules. I suspect that is due to statist propaganda.
I would support a set of laws derived from something like the golden rule / etc, but this is not a contradiction. The derivation of these rules should be done publicly and by anyone who wants to invest their time into it. These rules would not be arbitrary, confidence in their correctness would be as high as possible before they are enforced. The enforcement of these rules should be done commercially, and not by some monopolist organization. This can be considered government in your sense of the word.
It is indeed immoral to use violence (except maybe self-defense). By making up a law on a whim (without proofs) and using violence against those who refuse to follow it, you are committing immoral acts. This is wrong. You can't do that. I never agreed to this arrangement. Nobody in their right mind would ever agree to it.
They defend their monopoly with violence. How would you feel if a roofer came to your house and forced you to buy a new roof, and if you refused they would burn down your house? But that is exactly what state is doing. They force you to pay for a new war and if you refuse they put you in jail and take your shit. This is what you are defending.
One more thing remains: the realization that the state is a predator.
Load more comments...