And give up irritating people like you into thinking?

So don't post on it, I think its still voluntary

Yes there is a huge difference between a free market court and todays public courts. If you could choose which court to use. Or someone is accusing you of something you did not do, would you rather agree to one of todays public courts or a privately owned one? In the market place of courts, they must be objective and just, once a court builds a reputation for being partial, it fails. people stop using it. in any true dispute, both parties always feel they are correct, they will both want a reputable court to try their case. only someone with known guilt's wants a corrupt court. most cases have perceived legitimacy on both sides so impartial courts would become the market.
Todays courts are filled with agenda ridden judges and corruption. The state has the monopoly on force so cases are rarely tried in front of jury due to threats made by the state.
2/3 of all citizens locked up in our jails commited no crime. there is no victim. The supposedly free states of America lock up more of its own citizens per capita than any other nation on Earth. and most of those people are 100% innocent. They sold, bought or used drugs. something they have every right to do once you can remove the brain washing

Will,
your locked into the current paradigm and seem to think because today the state has a monopoly on force, that no matter what, its the only way force can be used is by the state. You don't see free market dispute resolution services using force and instead relying on the states force because the state has a monopoly on legitimate force (its not really legitimate but people like yourself view it as such so that's what we'll write here). You mistake a true capitalist society being absent of force. Force would indeed be needed and force would indeed be used when needed. You have a brainwashing that you need to remove (this is not a personal attack, we all have it to different extents), that is the idea the state has some higher altruistic means of doing anything. That the states force would be more legitimate than the markets force because there is some hidden altruism and mechanisms of justice built into it (there are not)
It is in reality the opposite.
It is the hardest thing in the world to get people to see the state as it really is. A gang, A mafia. The uniforms, elections and history removes the correct image in our minds and replaces it with something else with a brand of legitimacy.
It makes you say "absorb" instead of "steal" even though in objective reality, you can see it is theft. Your brain does not process it as such. Try some thought excercises to help brake free of the brainwashing. Take for example the police man and the speeding ticket.

Today you currently see things subjectively not objectively.

You see the actions of a speeding ticket and think - The person was driving too fast, the police are just keeping the roads safe. We cant have everyone driving 100mph.

Pretend you are an alien from another planet and hover above a police car and watch his activity. You know nothing of the subjective and only understand objectively what is happening.

A man with blue costume on and carrying a loaded gun. puts on flashing lights as a signal to another person. the other person pulls over, he must know these lights mean something. The man with the gun walks up to the other mans car, he gives him a piece of paper. that paper says you must pay the gun mans boss money. If you do not, many more men with blue costumes and guns will come for him.

If the man refuses to pull over for the gunman, he will call others in his organization and many men all armed will hunt him down. He either submits to the theft, or be run down or gun down.

obviously objectively this is gang theft. Everything I just said is 100% objective, they are just facts.

You will counter with subjective arguments.

Such as:
These men are justified, they are not criminals, they are keeping us safe. people should not drive over 55mph (or 65 or 75 or whatever arbitrary and subjective number you choose). We must have someone keeping us safe from speeders. we cant just have everyone driving whatever speed they wish. Everyone would just drive so fast they would kill each other.

Any argument you make is a subjective one.

I gave up living in subjective reality

I only go by the objective.

A man with a blue costume on that signifies he is part of a larger organization and carrying a loaded gun pulls me over by threat of force and violence. He then STEALS my money by threat of force and violence, and then drives away.

You and I view the same exact events completely differently.

You with subjective values, and I will objective reality

If I were stuck on an island for good, depending on the island, I think I'd rather have a suitcase full of survival equipment.

Anything is worth what people will give you for it, including bits of pretty paper and chunks of metal. Things are as precious as the situation allows. Ever seen the Twilight Zone episode called "The Rip Van Winkle Caper"? It's about criminals who steal the gold from Fort Knox and put themselves into suspended animation. When they wake up 100 years in the future the joke is on them, they find out gold no longer has any value.

This discussion isn't about fiat money, it's about Rand's mind slips. Even she was trapped in her time.

I agree unbacked paper money is a huge problem. We will all pay for that problem soon enough when the dollar collapses. Even gold has some intrinsic value though. Take a suitecase of gold with you and 99 others stuck on an island for good and see if your still rich. Gold and Silver have always been the standard throughout time because they have a combination of real value and intrinsic value. They will always stand the test of time as long as there is some resemblance of a society. but they are still not perfect money, nothing is. They are just the best there is for money.

Carl,
Just as if you asked me - What will communication technology be 10 years from now, I could make guess's but would likely be incorrect. it is impossible to know how the market will form any particular service in the future. This is depended on inventions and resources and many factors. Saying I know how the market will provide a particular service that is currently a monopoly by force would make me as ignorant as any central planner.
But I can certainly make guess's and give possible scenarios to help others see that it is certainly not only possible the market could and would provide this service. Because every state since the dawn of time has filled this role with a monopoly by force, it is difficult to imagine. but economically speaking, security is just a service like any other. the one thing that makes it somewhat unique is that it has an effect that if one person were to purchase it, then it would have an effect that would cover other persons that are not paying for it. This is a common argument as to why we need to al be forced at the barrel of a gun to pay for it. If you really want to examine the subject there is some good info on it. I would start with Robert Murphy

https://www.libertariannews.org/2011/...

Hes a good speaker if you prefer You Tube

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V0_Jd...

MOFs are also capable of high volume adsorption of CH4.

Will,
Explain how the state is different than the mafia? The drug gangs you speak of point guns and make no disguise of their capacity for violence.
"I cannot argue the state is absorbing far more resources than required to support its valid functions"
Why do you change the words to attempt to change the meanings of things? Absorbing resources? You mean theft! They don't absorb anything, they threaten you by force. If you refuse to pay, men with guns will cometo your come, kidnap you, and lock you in a metal cage. This is not rhetoric, this is literal!
supporting valid functions? So if I want to offer you a valid function such as protection of your resources, then I have the right to use force to make you pay for that function?
This is called a mafia. The fact the they let you vote for either Vinny or Tony to run the mafia, makes it no less so.
Just so we use proper words with proper definitions, please define what a mafia is, and the tell me what makes the state outside this definition.
"Some mutually accepted organization"? I don't accept it! yet you think I should be forced at gun point to accept it. Or you would argue I should have to leave my own home and property and move somewhere on some island somewhere if I don't want to be part of it. As if some group of people have a right to my property and as long as I want to live on my property, I should be forced to pay their racket.

AR was a brilliant philosopher, very insightful. Weaving a parable to convey her ideas, was adequate and sometimes drowsily long-winded. That said, she wrote AS to convey her philosophy and it did that very well to grow and stand the test of time.

My intention stating that you had no idea who I was wasn't a matter of ego. I've just been around a good while (nearly as long as you) and have said those very things myself (and more) many many times. I gather you no more remember me than I remember you.

I agree about her writing style and some of her choices; it was a laborious read. Her presentation of gold's value by comparing it to money did nothing to weaken her message or take me out of the narrative.

"Much of what she wrote was
Utterly terrible prose" That is your opinion
and you have a right to it. I thought that her writing
Was outstanding. Particularly impressive because she wrote in a second or third language.

Not only do I not know, I don't care.

Ideas are right or wrong, true or false in and of themselves, Their rectitude has nothing to do with their origins.

And, authors are indeed, free to do with their creations whatever they want. The world is packed with millions of would be authors right now, doing with their creations what they want and, most of what they do will be wrong.

Rand's mistake pulled me out of the narrative. Whom else did it pull out? How many other times did people lay the book down and groan at her pedantic style?

No one is beyond criticism. No one is beyond being less than perfect, less than good, sometimes utterly terrible. Much of what she wrote was utterly terrible prose. Had her ideas no value the book, which has no literary value, would have sunk of its own weight.

Obviously you have no idea who I am to be telling me Rand is not God and thinking that likely consider what you said sacrilege.

Her use of known monetary value was simply a vehicle to show worth that people can understand. I still contend that metals would have made more sense...but as the author its her creative liberty to choose any method as an example. I do think she had her focus on presenting other things.

With what specifically do you disagree?

She named dollar amounts for transactions between individuals in the Gulch that were carried out in gold. Buying and selling food and clothing. It had nothing to do with the outside world, nothing to do with supplies for the Gulch, just internal transactions. Complete logical bull.

Rand wasn't god. She made mistakes. She wasn't a great novelist and Atlas Shrugged isn't a great novel, it's just a big novel about important ideas.

Oh, oh, sacrilege. I'll have to "ignore" everyone now.

I recall. I just disagree with the assertion.

To an extent you are correct. At first the yield from gold trading will be substantial. As supply dwindles it will lessen or even disappear. Even so, by that time the Gulch would have what it needs to be self-reliant or at least in an adaptable position to satisfy its needs. Over time, as things recover (or adapt) in the outside world, the value of Gulch gold will be at a premium again.

It is all speculation, but fun to ponder.

The problem with a free market resolution services is that they work because there is a government system which will enforce their decisions. Without that, they are often only as good as the willingness of the participants to honor them.

An exception to this is an escrow system where both parties put the property into the hands of a third party who insures the deal.

Even then, if the seller goes home and locks the door, the buyer has to rely on the force of the government to get possession of the property he has purchased. Usually, of course, it doesn't come to this but that is because the threat is viable. Without that, how do you enforce your property rights.

CO2 stimulation isn't applicable for me. However, if you can build nanostructures that allow for high volume adsorption of methane, we might make some money!

Not perpetual, but still usable for nanocircuitry. If interested in well stimulation, you ought to learn about reversible storage of CO2 in metalorganic frameworks (MOFs).

So how would we organize such services...in today's world...it would be almost impossible to organize and orchestrate big projects and national defense individually. What structure would you suggest?
Don't get me wrong here...it's an interesting question you ask.

Going to make perpetual electric nano circuits?

I actually do have questions to ask about possible applications of nano technology for well stimulation but, don't know enough about nano to ask smart questions yet.

I just told the last guy he didn't need to read AS again but, he needed to read my posts again.

In your case, you need to reread AS. The members of the Gulch community exchanged pieces of gold for each other's products and services. Dagny made a big deal of it. However, Rand made the logical error of each time telling us how many dollars worth of gold they exchanged.

It wouldn't have happened. Rand's error.

Read again, not AS but, my posts. They exchanged pieces of gold with each other but, denominated them in dollars.

This, they would not have done. They'd have measure their gold exchange not in currency but, by weight, as people do now.

It's a logical lapse but, a distracting one.

" Society outside the gulch would value the gold and their desire to obtain something of substance (value) because of the worthless dollar would give it supreme worth. That supreme worth would set the value for those within the Gulch who still had dealings with the outside world.A penny size piece of gold would be worth a lot of seeds, medicine, etc..."
At first this rang true, but when I thought further it occurs to me that mismanagement was causing there to be fewer goods and services in the world. But the amount of gold in the world remained constant. So I say gold would have actually bought less goods and services at the end of AS than as the beginning.