Anarchy!!!

[Yarra]

4 minutes ago, #00Buck said:

My IQ is super high. 

Weed is for people who can't cope with reality. 

Like this guy?

 

i

 

 

 

[Rassah]

2 hours ago, jcstinks said:

IQ is a spurious way of measuring someone's overall intellectual ability. It ... has not been proven to have a causal link with life outcomes.

Agreed. High IQ does not correlate with accomplishments or success in life. It just means you can process concepts faster, and grasp more complex larger concepts.

8 hours ago, FlynnCoyote said:

So how does healthcare and such work in an environment like this? Who regulates and commissions research for medical and other technological advances? How do these then be made available to those that need them? Are we just supposed to let the physically infirm die because they're physically infirm? What kind of education is available in an anarchist state? How is it regulated? What incentive is there for people to work as a society if the lucky few can hoard resources and leave everyone else out to dry?

That question is kind of like asking how will global internet network be managed and provided to everyone? Or who commissions for research and development of new smartphones and makes those available to those who need them? Pretty much everyone has access to those now, and the short answer is: if people need those things, someone will figure out how to sell it to them, for whatever they can afford. And these questions also preclude another more important one: Is it OK for us all to be exploited for the benefit of a few at the top, just so we can get a few scraps like the things you mentioned?

But, while I actually don't know exactly how for these, I can provide some guesses. Insurance as we know now will go back to the much cheaper Health Share programs that we used to have (works about the same. Example at https://www.libertyhealthshare.org/3-program-options), and just generally private companies who provide all this stuff already anyway (keep in mind that everyone who works in US today, even minimum wage, pays a minimun of 15% tax, and medical costs are high mostly due to restrictive regulations and artificial limits on supply of doctors and devices to keep their profits up, so without those you'd both have more money and lower costs). Private investors who provide funding for R&D and technological advancement, who provide most of this stuff already. They will be sold to those who need them, and if those people can't afford it, they will figure out how to make them cheaper until they can afford them. If people don't want physically infirm to die, then they won't let them die, just like now. Education will be very cheap or free, since it could be mass produced and distributed already (Khan Academy is a good example, and video game based education will be much more prevalent). It will be regulated based on what is best and most effective, like all products we buy, where we usually research reviews and only buy the best. Hoarding resources doesn't make you better off. Selling your resources, and investing them in things that lead to new innovations does. No one is regulating oil, sugar, aluminum, and other such resource companies to force them to sell instead of hoard their stuff.

2 hours ago, Khaki said:

No thank you, I'd be more concerned that you would consider doing such things.

I'd imagine this scenario would result in a quick purge of unwanted trouble makers from the gene pool.

Blood feuds and Lynch mobs anyone?

Woah, yeah, I missed that part in Alex's post. There would very much be massive consequences for even trying to smash someone's face in an anarchist society. There are no laws against owning guns, or vigilantism, or collecting money to hire assassins, or to force you to sell things to someone. Even if that face smasher isn't killed, he'll probably find that no one is willing to deal with him, offer him shelter, or even sell him food.

Edited February 20, 2016 by Rassah

[I Did It For The Cat Girls]

I don't know why Rassah basically champions an ethical version of laissez-faire capitalism but then goes on to posit that a winner-take-all system with no formal regulatory mechanisms in place to at least blunt the overarching will of a bunch of corporations will somehow not result in a tiny elite ruling tyrannically over what amounts to a massive horde of livid, disenfranchised peasants.

This thread reeks of the ramblings of an ideologue.

Rassah, you'd be better off waiting for the advent of the Singularity. You're going to need a newfangled breed of human to pull this piece of utter insanity off.

Quote

Agreed. High IQ does not correlate with accomplishments or success in life.

Edited February 20, 2016 by I Did It For The Cat Girls

[Rassah]

1 hour ago, I Did It For The Cat Girls said:

I don't know why Rassah basically champions an ethical version of laissez-faire capitalism but then goes on to posit that a winner-take-all system with no formal regulatory mechanisms in place to at least blunt the overarching will of a bunch of corporations will somehow not result in a tiny elite ruling tyrannically over what amounts to a massive horde of livid, disenfranchised peasants.

Um, that's what we have now. Your idea is that, because people are bad and need to be regulated, we should give extra rights and powers to a tiny elite ruling class, comprised of the same bad people, to regulate other people, otherwise bad people will form a tiny elite ruling class to regulate other people.

Nah, we're proposing a system where a tiny elite group has no means of ruling tyrannically. We recognize our current system as being just that, a tiny group of elite with tyrannical powers, and are designing tools to make their power impotent. If those tools work on the most powerful and tyrannical of all, the current governments, they should work on the hypothetical groups you're worried about.

1 hour ago, I Did It For The Cat Girls said:

Rassah, you'd be better off waiting for the advent of the Singularity. You're going to need a newfangled breed of human to pull this piece of utter insanity off.

You think we need a new breed of humans to convince people to use cheaper and better services??? We didn't need that to convince people to start downloading software around the world with BitTorrent.

Plus like I said, we're not trying to change the whole world's population. If people want to subjugate themselves to a tiny elite ruling class and have half of their entire lives and labor get taken away for the service of that ruling class, that's fine with us. We're just creating services for those who want to opt out. Preferably from wherever they live, in a sort of separate independent system on top of the current system. And if they want to congregate and move into a small area to live together, that's fine too. There's no limit on the minimum or maximum, or any, size.

[Clove Darkwave]

5 hours ago, I Did It For The Cat Girls said:

I don't know why Rassah basically champions an ethical version of laissez-faire capitalism but then goes on to posit that a winner-take-all system with no formal regulatory mechanisms in place to at least blunt the overarching will of a bunch of corporations will somehow not result in a tiny elite ruling tyrannically over what amounts to a massive horde of livid, disenfranchised peasants.

This thread reeks of the ramblings of an ideologue.

Rassah, you'd be better off waiting for the advent of the Singularity. You're going to need a newfangled breed of human to pull this piece of utter insanity off.

This is because no matter what he calls himself, the simple truth is that he's just another banker/investment/finances guy in a different color suit. All of this rhetoric and ideology amounts to him and a bunch of guys who decided they don't want to play the game. Instead they want to change the game to how they think it should be played while installing themselves in the exact positions of the people they claim to dislike.

[Rassah]

31 minutes ago, Clove Darkwave said:

This is because no matter what he calls himself, the simple truth is that he's just another banker/investment/finances guy in a different color suit. All of this rhetoric and ideology amounts to him and a bunch of guys who decided they don't want to play the game. Instead they want to change the game to how they think it should be played while installing themselves in the exact positions of the people they claim to dislike.

Is that kind of like how BitTorrent developers are just another record label lawyers who simply put themselves into the exact same positions as the RIAA?

 

Forgot to add a meme to the last one, so here's two

Edited February 21, 2016 by Rassah

[AlexInsane]

10 hours ago, Khaki said:

No thank you, I'd be more concerned that you would consider doing such things.

I'd imagine this scenario would result in a quick purge of unwanted trouble makers from the gene pool.

Blood feuds and Lynch mobs anyone?

 

Nah, not really; psychopaths and murderers would probably rule much of the known world, such as they do now. Because fear is a language EVERYONE speaks, and one which everyone listens to. 

[Naesaki]

Rassah I feel like you are really overestimating humanities potential, ability and willingness to adapt to such a world.

[Rassah]

2 minutes ago, AlexInsane said:

Nah, not really; psychopaths and murderers would probably rule much of the known world, such as they do now. Because fear is a language EVERYONE speaks, and one which everyone listens to. 

I agree with this. Lots of people will fall for scare tactics, and happily submit to psychopaths and murderers who promise to protect them from made up threats, or themselves. Look at the terrorism threats in US, Jews in Germany, or "your bourgeoisie neighbor" in USSR. Heck, look at the people here supporting their own ruling psychopaths and murderers, because they're afraid of some hypothetical "tiny elite ruling tyrannically over what amounts to a massive horde of livid, disenfranchised peasants," or afraid of losing some basic services.

But for those who don't aren't afraid and don't fall for the scare tactics, there's going to be a way to get out and protect themselves from those psychopaths.

[MalletFace]

3 minutes ago, Rassah said:

Is that kind of like how BitTorrent developers are just another record label lawyers who simply put themselves into the exact same positions as the RIAA?

BitTorrent is a method of distributing files. The RIAA is a trade organization. That is like comparing guys that invent new processors to a radio manufacturer.

A more proper analogy would have been, "Is that kind of like how the main players in the scene are just another organization that simply put themselves into the exact same position as the RIAA?"

 

[Rassah]

7 hours ago, MalletFace said:

A more proper analogy would have been, "Is that kind of like how the main players in the scene are just another organization that simply put themselves into the exact same position as the RIAA?"

I don't get that one I was trying to say that BitTorrent is an open source technology that no one can control, which made copyright extremely difficult to enforce by the likes of RIAA (who went on a binge fining and trying to arrest people for illegal downloading on Napster). But the creators of BitTorrent can not possibly use their technology to put themselves into a position of power over enforcing copyright, because that same technology completely undermines that power.

In the exact same way, bitcoin is an open source technology that makes banking regulations/currency restrictions extremely difficult to enforce by big banks and regulators (or dictators), and the creators and promoters of bitcoin can not possibly "install themselves in the exact positions of the people they claim to dislike," because the same technology completely undermines that power. Likewise for trying to use 3D printers to become a powerful centralized manufacturer, using decentralized unregulatable markets to try to become a large centralized online store, etc.

7 hours ago, Naesaki said:

Rassah I feel like you are really overestimating humanities potential, ability and willingness to adapt to such a world.

The conference I'm in is apparently full of tech futurists, and the things I heard about today, that are already possible or just on the horizon, has made me even more optimistic! I'm going to try to find and share a video, but it's basically the level of "being a kid when we first walked on the moon" level of wow and exciting! Flying cars, flying houses, cure for cancer, cup/copy/paste for your own DNA, very cheap and abundant energy, etc. We are really really lucky to be living in the time we live in, cause the technologies we're about to be flooded with are incredible! So at least the potential is definitely there. As for adapt, it'll have to, if it wants to, but humanity had always been able to adapt. That's the main reason we're the dominant species.

Unrelated:

Edited February 21, 2016 by Rassah

[ZorroValdez]

[Zaraphayx]

These sure are some dank memes itt.

Also I am very smart. :^)

[kazooie]

13 hours ago, Clove Darkwave said:

This is because no matter what he calls himself, the simple truth is that he's just another banker/investment/finances guy in a different color suit. 

he isn't any of those things

all of the websites and companies he's claimed to be working for have been empty shells. i am fairly certain he does no real work, apart from making up titles and being the "ideas guy"

at best he's an individual who's slowly bleeding a large sack of cash he scored off a pozi and/or his parents

Edited February 21, 2016 by kazooie

[PastryOfApathy]

9 minutes ago, kazooie said:

he isn't any of those things

all of the websites and companies he's claimed to be working for have been empty shells. i am fairly certain he does no real work, apart from making up titles and being the "ideas guy"

at best he's an individual who's slowly bleeding a large sack of cash he scored off a pozi and/or his parents

Rassah is a dumbass rich kid who was thrown into college and earned a business degree, which on paper isn't anything to write home about. But in this case our little Rassy somehow found out what bitcoin was, presumably got suckered into the faux-libertarian ideals of a bunch of ineffectual stoners on a bitcoin forum (presumably the one he got banned from), and decided that he had discovered the secret to fixing fucking everything that nobody else in the history of economics has because he's like a year out of business school and is already a genius who knows everything.

How spending over a year of his life shitposting on a furry forum plays into this I have no fucking clue, but I can only assume we're God's chosen people in the upcoming bitcoin apocalypse that's totes gonna happen, and we just haven't realized it. It's like an infinitely more retarded version of The Stand or something.

[Rassah]

So, you two are SO terrified of losing your corporate banker and Wall Street overlords, being given the option to use services that can already save you tons of money, being allowed to do things you already want to without having to ask permission from daddy government, and most importantly having the system that is oppressing you and keeping you where you are get destroyed, that your only option is to hide behind adhominems? I mean, I guess I can understand why it's hard to argue against "give services that are exclusive only to the wealthiest elite, to everyone in the world," but why does the idea of being free terrifies you so much?

Also, thanks guys for making @AlexInsane's point: "Because fear is a language EVERYONE speaks, and one which everyone listens to."

2 hours ago, kazooie said:

all of the websites and companies he's claimed to be working for have been empty shells. i am fairly certain he does no real work, apart from making up titles and being the "ideas guy"

You found an empty shell website for McDonald's Corp (where I worked as IT manager)? Where? And a better queston, where did you find the companies I claimed to work for? I'm generally somewhat secretive about where I work at. As for ideas, those are important. They're what drive innovation and improve the world. Things like "let's vote!" or "let's implement the same policies we had before, but more of!" aren't ideas.

But that's off topic. We're talking about why your government, corporations, and the overall system sucks, and what we can do about that.

Edited February 21, 2016 by Rassah

[Rassah]

By the way, in case you guys missed it, this is happening in our stupid US government: http://thefreethoughtproject.com/watch-ny-govt-forcing-vendors-throw-good-food-improperly-displaying/ Same state that regulates the size of cola you are allowed to buy 😑

 

EDIT: Oh, hey, on a brighter note, this just came out: A 19-year-old made a free robot lawyer that has appealed $3 million in parking tickets

Basically first early example of automated digital legal services. Lawyers lose money (yay!), everyone gets free access to what used to be only available to rich people (yay!), and people got to keep $3million of their own money (yay!)

Edited February 21, 2016 by Rassah

[Rassah]

5 hours ago, Saxon said:

I doubt that bureaucratic behaviour or coercion would actually abate without government; I think those are traits of the human condition.

That's true. There's just as much drama among people in cryptoanarchy as in furry, but since these systems are effectively algorithm-based governance (e.g. rate of currency issuance), that drama is conflated with plenty of bureaucracy. It's just distributed to scientists, economists, and software developers, instead of lawyer politicians, and I hope will be kept to a level where any decisions won't be enforceable (e.g. like creation of bitcoin isn't forcing anyone to use it). Most of us actually want a system where being good is profitable and being bad is costly.

[LazerMaster5]

Say, aren't anarchists usually just edgy teenagers that have no understanding of how people behave?

Because I certainly was there once.

[Rassah]

1 hour ago, LazerMaster5 said:

Say, aren't anarchists usually just edgy teenagers that have no understanding of how people behave?

Because I certainly was there once.

Anarchocommunists are, yeah. They think if everyone just shared, and cared for each other, we could take care of each other's needs, and won't need things like money, and fuck capitalism and stuff. They typically also smoke a lot of weed and stay unemployed.

That's notAnarchoCapitalists though. Those anarchists are usually older, and not only understand how people behave, but try to figure out how to build systems to steer that behavior in specific directions, generally for mutual benefit. Basically, instead of hoping to change or fight human nature, they direct human nature into mutually beneficial relationships (such as making greedy satisfaction of profit only possible if it benefits others).

[WileyWarWeasel]

So basically @Rassah wants a user pays system?

[LazerMaster5]

And here I simply wanted free shit and the ability to become a vigilante. Again, teenage edge.

[#00Buck]

He can't possible know anything about anarchy.

Anarchy is never this boring. 

[Dr. Doggo]

8 hours ago, Rassah said:

That's notAnarchoCapitalists though. Those anarchists are usually older, and not only understand how people behave, but try to figure out how to build systems to steer that behavior in specific directions, generally for mutual benefit. Basically, instead of hoping to change or fight human nature, they direct human nature into mutually beneficial relationships (such as making greedy satisfaction of profit only possible if it benefits others).

so its another form of authority

get a real ideology

[Rassah]

5 hours ago, WileyWarWeasel said:

So basically @Rassah wants a user pays system?

As opposed to?

27 minutes ago, Sir Gibby said:

so its another form of authority

Maybe techno-authority... But not exactly. It's basically authority through incentives by appealing to people's wants and needs. Instead of how authority typically works, where a politician decides what is moral (e.g. don't steal money if you run a bank) and force that on everyone by using his armed goons (military, police), we create a tool that has that morality built in (stores of money can be audited digitally at any time by anyone for free, and it's impossible to steal unless the customers consent to being stolen from), and simply present it to the public. Instead of this being forced on people through an authoritarian figure, it's simply in people's own best interest to use a system where morality is an unchangeable default, and businesses would be forced to adopt it to stay competitive, as people start moving their money to the better system. And if people don't find value in something like that and don't adopt it, then it won't be used.

[Rassah]

38 minutes ago, #00Buck said:

Anarchy is never this boring. 

The politics and mechanics of any political system is boring. But the more fun stuff in anarchy may be things like rapid development of weapons and defense systems through 3D printing (lack of gun control), rapid development of space travel and subsequent abundance of materials from asteroid mining (no restrictions of launches and exploration by NASA and other governments), rapid development of advanced housing construction methods making houses much cheaper and more futuristic (no need to wait for building codes to catch up to new methods), experimentation of different social structures (groups of people can form communes with different values and see what works best, instead of being forced into democratic republic or dictatorship no matter where they go on the world), and rapid development of new places to live, such as cities on water in seasteading, or even in the air with things like Aeroscraft yachts.

The internal mechanics of the political and economic structure interest me a lot, just because of the intricate complexity they can involve, but there's plenty of exciting innovation that's already being talked about that anarchy would enable too.

[WileyWarWeasel]

19 minutes ago, Rassah said:

5 hours ago, WileyWarWeasel said:

So basically @Rassah wants a user pays system?

As opposed to?

As opposed to a system with some regulations and social services in place.

 

A user pays system means that:

-you're forced to watch your house burn down if you can't afford to hire the fire brigade

-you can never send your kids to school if you cannot afford all the associated costs

-if someone cannot get a job or becomes unemployed (say for example because their parents couldn't afford to put them through school and can barely make ends meet themselves) then without a social security net such people would resort to increasingly desperate (and likely criminal) ways to stay alive

-you're either forced to take the law into your own hands or have to pay exorbitant "protection fees" to get help

 

A "system" of anarchy that you trumpet would inevitable lead to total chaos followed by gangs forming as people band together for protection and suppress/kill other gang members threatening their spheres of influence. This would then ironically lead to some gangs banding together to overcome isolated gangs with city-states then actual states forming once again (resources/communication/transport/etc permitting).

If our globalized civilization ever does collapse though you'll get your wish of having anarchy, though it might not be the utopia you would imagine.

10 minutes ago, Rassah said:

rapid development of space travel and subsequent abundance of materials from asteroid mining (no restrictions of launches and exploration by NASA and other governments)

I can't be bothered writing a wall of text for your other stuff but for this statement I must ask: are you saying that the reason we do not have commercial asteroid mining is because of regulations/restrictions?.

Edited February 22, 2016 by WileyWarWeasel
But wait there's more!

[LazerMaster5]

Anarchy may be a nice thing to think about, but it is not feasible. There are always going to be people who take advantage of others, and rioting and killing would be at an all-time high. Simply put, people can't handle themselves.

[PastryOfApathy]

11 hours ago, LazerMaster5 said:

Say, aren't anarchists usually just edgy teenagers that have no understanding of how people behave?

That's exactly what they are.

But Rassah isn't an anarchist, he's like some bizarre wannabe libertarian.

[Rassah]

13 minutes ago, LazerMaster5 said:

Anarchy may be a nice thing to think about, but it is not feasible. There are always going to be people who take advantage of others, and rioting and killing would be at an all-time high. Simply put, people can't handle themselves.

Why do you say that? Do you believe biblical threat of hell, or fear of police is the only thing keeping people from killing each other, and that morals only come from the bible or laws?

[PastryOfApathy]

6 minutes ago, Rassah said:

Why do you say that? Do you believe biblical threat of hell, or fear of police is the only thing keeping people from killing each other, and that morals only come from the bible or laws?

[kazooie]

On 2/21/2016 at 10:31 AM, PastryOfApathy said:

How spending over a year of his life shitposting on a furry forum plays into this I have no fucking clue

its because the forum pays attention to him.

 

1 hour ago, Saxon said:

I don't think it's possible to contrive such a world. The statement itself is an oxymoron, to be honest. 

wait, wait

what if - what if we let companies run large profits... BUT they give a portion of that profit to an organization that builds infrastructure and maintains the necessities of society? that way they can experience the "satisfaction of greed" while also helping contribute!

Edited February 22, 2016 by kazooie

[LazerMaster5]

56 minutes ago, Rassah said:

Why do you say that? Do you believe biblical threat of hell, or fear of police is the only thing keeping people from killing each other, and that morals only come from the bible or laws?

I'm not saying everyone is inherently evil, but not everyone is inherently good either.

[Rassah]

 

9 hours ago, LazerMaster5 said:

I'm not saying everyone is inherently evil, but not everyone is inherently good either.

That is the society we work with the assumption of. Anarcho-communists believe that we can change everyone's minds and make everyone good and care for each other, sharing equally, but we anarcho-capitalists believe that it's bunk, and that there will always be people who are bad. So the idea is to how to automatically restrain them or channel their inherent evil into good.

9 hours ago, Saxon said:

I don't think it's possible to contrive such a world. The statement itself is an oxymoron, to be honest. 

Well, for example, what if you are greedy and wanted to be very wealthy, owning ridiculous mansions and yachts, but the only way for you to get money for those things was to convince people to give it to you by offering something to them in return? As opposed to now where you can get people's tax money through government grants, or force people to pay you because you are the only one providing the necessary product. Say, the only thing you know how to produce are smartphones. Without you being able to force people to give you their money, or restricting competitors from selling their phones too, the ONLY way you can satisfy your greed and get money is to sell the best phones for the cheapest price. If you don't, others in the market will outsell you and you'll get nowhere.

In a similar way, if we restrict controls on other bad behavior, such as corporate theft through third party escrow for transactions, or place costs on bad actions, people will have no choice but to behave in a way that only benefits others, if they wish to benefit themselves too.

 

[Rassah]

9 hours ago, kazooie said:

wait, wait

what if - what if we let companies run large profits... BUT they give a portion of that profit to an organization that builds infrastructure and maintains the necessities of society?

Or, and let me know if I'm going to fast here, what if we let companies build infrastructure and provide necessities of society?

[WileyWarWeasel]

1 hour ago, Rassah said:

Well, for example, what if you are greedy and wanted to be very wealthy, owning ridiculous mansions and yachts, but the only way for you to get money for those things was to convince people to give it to you by offering something to them in return?

You mean how fast food companies market to people from a very young age, convince most of them that they want to eat ground up garbage meat then offer it to them? We've already got plenty of examples like fast food and media companies injecting the mindless consumer mindset into people from a young age in a "self-regulating" environment, and you expect us to believe it will somehow get better under total anarchy?

1 hour ago, Rassah said:

In a similar way, if we restrict controls on other bad behavior, such as corporate theft through third party escrow for transactions, or place costs on bad actions, people will have no choice but to behave in a way that only benefits others, if they wish to benefit themselves too.

These are known as regulations, and restrictions of any kind are contrary to total anarchy.

1 hour ago, Rassah said:

Or, and let me know if I'm going to fast here, what if we let companies build infrastructure and provide necessities of society?

Here in Australia (and in USA from what I've read) we've already seen the effects of privatization and lazier-fare capitalism where companies take over critical functions: oligopolies/monopolies where infrastructure is allowed to crumble, prices are raised and the vast majority of the proceeds goes to executives and shareholders.

 

You do have a point in that government tends to blow some taxes on overpriced projects and military hardware; however the solution for that is an overhaul of government functions rather than total anarchy which would quickly be exploited by criminals looking to carve out their own little empires.

[Rassah]

13 hours ago, WileyWarWeasel said:

As opposed to a system with some regulations and social services in place.

But we're not proposing a system without regulations. We just want to take those regulations out of the hands of people, since people are corruptible and will ALWAYS use regulations for personal gains, exactly as most of them are used now. Don't really care about social services though. Charities provided plenty of services before they were gotten rid of by social services, and besides, we have enough "spare" resources to cover those at the bottom too.

13 hours ago, WileyWarWeasel said:

A user pays system means that:

-you're forced to watch your house burn down if you can't afford to hire the fire brigade

-you can never send your kids to school if you cannot afford all the associated costs

- don't be an idiot and do things at home that can cause a fire hazard, or an idiot who doesn't pay his fire insurance. And if you are, you'll be a good lesson to other idiots. People seem to enjoy "Darwin Awards." That's just another one of those.

- What associated costs? Education doesn't actually cost that much. There's plenty of free available, parents are somehow able to provide it at home with results similar to that of public schools, and most importantly, one of the main rules of the market is, "If someone needs something, someone else will find a way to sell it to them." So if these people can't afford the costs of the school, the school will have to lower its costs until they can.

13 hours ago, WileyWarWeasel said:

-if someone cannot get a job or becomes unemployed then without a social security net such people would resort to increasingly desperate (and likely criminal) ways to stay alive

- Why would someone not be able to get a job? The only reason people can't get jobs now is because no one is willing to hire anyone for the high minimum amount required to hire people. Take away the hundreds to thousands needed to file with government, and then pay to the government, for every employee (employer's half of Social Security, worker's comp, background checks, tax IDs, tax accounting, etc) and get rid of restrictions on how much can be paid, and anyone who wants a job will be able to get one. There are MANY things we need done that are being neglected, from cleaning up streets and rivers, to walking our dogs and organizing our stuff, but we can't pay anyone for that. Moreso, plenty of companies are willing to pay to train and educate people who are willing to work for them, as long as they commit to that job for some short period of time.

13 hours ago, WileyWarWeasel said:

- you're either forced to take the law into your own hands or have to pay exorbitant "protection fees" to get help

You probably want to pay protection fees anyway, which you do now to your police, but at least whoever you pay will be concerned with providing you with a good service and actually keeping you safe so as not to lose your business. The current people we pay protection fees generally don't give a crap. And if you are wronged by someone and can't afford to pay, why not sell your claim to someone else with more money and resources to go after them?

13 hours ago, WileyWarWeasel said:

A "system" of anarchy that you trumpet would inevitable lead to total chaos followed by gangs forming as people band together for protection and suppress/kill other gang members threatening their spheres of influence. This would then ironically lead to some gangs banding together to overcome isolated gangs with city-states then actual states forming once again (resources/communication/transport/etc permitting).

So in other words you're saying we need government, because without government we'll end up with government. You'll need to explain why and how the system I trumpet would lead to chaos. I just spent almost a week in a city where a year ago all police quit and went on strike for a while. Then, when they tried to get their jobs back, the people protested and refused. So, no police, but I didn't even notice or know that until half my time there has passed.

13 hours ago, WileyWarWeasel said:

If our globalized civilization ever does collapse though you'll get your wish of having anarchy, though it might not be the utopia you would imagine.

I can't be bothered writing a wall of text for your other stuff but for this statement I must ask: are you saying that the reason we do not have commercial asteroid mining is because of regulations/restrictions?.

Not if, but when, because the money that everyone thinks is out there is not, and debts are now at an unsustainable level. Expect Europe to go first. And that's why we're building alternatives, so that when the government services fail, instead of being totally screwed, people will still have some alternatives. No, we don't imagine it to be a utopia of any sort. We're not communists or Venus Project types.

Yes, space travel was practically banned until just about a decade ago, and is still heavily regulated and restricted.

Edited February 23, 2016 by Rassah

[evan]

14 minutes ago, Rassah said:

- don't be an idiot and do things at home that can cause a fire hazard, or an idiot who doesn't pay his fire insurance. And if you are, you'll be a good lesson to other idiots. People seem to enjoy "Darwin Awards." That's just another one of those.

- What associated costs? Education doesn't actually cost that much. There's plenty of free available, parents are somehow able to provide it at home with results similar to that of public schools, and most importantly, one of the main rules of the market is, "If someone needs something, someone else will find a way to sell it to them." So if these people can't afford the costs of the school, the school will have to lower its costs until they can.

"accidental fires don't exist in the world of smart people" and "the margin of finance necessary to have the educational equivalency of a school district is accessible to those in poverty"

 

WELL I'M SOLD

[kazooie]

also, just as a side note to those who may not have experienced the joys of working in a corporation:

corporations are just as susceptible to bureaucracy as government (or any other human system, for that matter). 

 

when my friend got a management-position job at IBM, it took them one and a half months for an employee in France to click a tickbox that allowed her digital credentials to actually do her job, aha.

 

my housemate in the power industry (engineering position) has rapidly become disillusioned with how little engineering he actually manages to accomplish vs how much paperwork has to be pushed.

 

life's complicated, people make mistakes; there's always going to be a certain amount of inefficiency in reality

[ZorroValdez]

[WileyWarWeasel]

3 hours ago, Rassah said:

But we're not proposing a system without regulations. We just want to take those regulations out of the hands of people, since people are corruptible and will ALWAYS use regulations for personal gains, exactly as most of them are used now. Don't really care about social services though. Charities provided plenty of services before they were gotten rid of by social services, and besides, we have enough "spare" resources to cover those at the bottom too.

In that case what you're advocating is not anarchy but a system controlled by non-humans. Perhaps you should clarify to the forum about whether you're advocating actual anarchy or some sort of computer-controlled utopia?

In the olden days charities barely provided a pittance to the poor (you certainly couldn't get everyone even a high school graduation just on charity), and charities still exist today you know.

As for spare resources, there's no real incentive in a "self-regulated" system let alone an anarchic one for those rich in resources to give them to the bottom except perhaps a pittance for marketing purposes.

The fire and education stuff was addressed by someone else already.

3 hours ago, Rassah said:

- Why would someone not be able to get a job? The only reason people can't get jobs now is because no one is willing to hire anyone for the high minimum amount required to hire people. Take away the hundreds to thousands needed to file with government, and then pay to the government, for every employee (employer's half of Social Security, worker's comp, background checks, tax IDs, tax accounting, etc) and get rid of restrictions on how much can be paid, and anyone who wants a job will be able to get one. There are MANY things we need done that are being neglected, from cleaning up streets and rivers, to walking our dogs and organizing our stuff, but we can't pay anyone for that.

Get rid of minimum wages and a framework that enforces workplace standards and you end up with third-world conditions. Sweatshops in Bangladesh are a good example of employment with little to no oversight.

3 hours ago, Rassah said:

Moreso, plenty of companies are willing to pay to train and educate people who are willing to work for them, as long as they commit to that job for some short period of time.

That already exists in western countries at least, it's called internship. It's been abused by many companies looking for free/cheap labor who don't care about staff turnover.

3 hours ago, Rassah said:

You probably want to pay protection fees anyway, which you do now to your police, but at least whoever you pay will be concerned with providing you with a good service and actually keeping you safe so as not to lose your business. The current people we pay protection fees generally don't give a crap. And if you are wronged by someone and can't afford to pay, why not sell your claim to someone else with more money and resources to go after them?

People who are able to pay taxes for police and other social services pay these taxes, so that those who cannot afford protection get some measure of protection.

In your case you get zero protection unless you fork out money and hope that your hired thugs are better than the other person's thugs. That sounds like a third-world hell to be honest.

3 hours ago, Rassah said:

So in other words you're saying we need government, because without government we'll end up with government. You'll need to explain why and how the system I trumpet would lead to chaos. I just spent almost a week in a city where a year ago all police quit and went on strike for a while. Then, when they tried to get their jobs back, the people protested and refused. So, no police, but I didn't even notice or know that until half my time there has passed.

I would be interested to know what city that happened in. If you dislike the police so much then perhaps you should spend time in African countries that have very little to no law enforcement.

If you're talking about anarchy then that would clearly lead temporarily to chaos as there would be no order. If you're talking about some regulated-by-computer system or some libertarian system then that's different. Again you should clarify whether you want real anarchy or something else?

As for government I'm saying it's necessary to have some form of governance to provide a system of laws and social services for a society to work. If we have anarchy then people would inevitably organize into groups, with bigger groups conquering and assimilating smaller groups until you get some form of governance once again (even if just on the local level).

3 hours ago, Rassah said:

Not if, but when, because the money that everyone thinks is out there is not, and debts are now at an unsustainable level. Expect Europe to go first. And that's why we're building alternatives, so that when the government services fail, instead of being totally screwed, people will still have some alternatives. No, we don't imagine it to be a utopia of any sort. We're not communists or Venus Project types.

Yes, space travel was practically banned until just about a decade ago, and is still heavily regulated and restricted.

The current system is indeed not sustainable, however how would your system facilitate global trade and finance that is required for modern civilization for function?

If space travel was practically banned then how do you explain the following:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Satellite

"The world's first artificial satellite, the Sputnik 1, was launched by the Soviet Union in 1957. Since then, thousands of satellites have been launched into orbit around the Earth. Some satellites, notably space stations, have been launched in parts and assembled in orbit. Artificial satellites originate from more than 40 countries and have used the satellite launching capabilities of ten nations. About a thousand satellites are currently operational, whereas thousands of unused satellites and satellite fragments orbit the Earth as space debris. A few space probes have been placed into orbit around other bodies and become artificial satellites to the Moon, Mercury, Venus, Mars, Jupiter, Saturn, Vesta, Eros, Ceres,[1] and the Sun."

Given the fact that we've also put man on the moon multiple times and have landed rovers on Mars this is rather impressive as "space travel was practically banned until just about a decade ago". Perhaps we also haven't utilized faster-than-light travel because it was banned? ;V

3 hours ago, kazooie said:

corporations are just as susceptible to bureaucracy as government (or any other human system, for that matter). 

You can say that again. I've worked for big business and government and in some cases big business was even more bureaucratic. Something as simple as changing DPI settings on the PC would require opening a case and going through a whole procedure with an overseas department for example.

[FlynnCoyote]

I wonder how many people would die under Rassah's system.

[Kinharia]

Abandon your Anarchistic society and join me in Kinnyland. 100% Authoritarian, never have to think again!

[Zaraphayx]

Tbh the most problematic underlying assumption that is foundational to Rassah's position is the idea that large, bureaucratic governments aren't an emergent solution to the problems that plagued more primitive societies throughout most of human history.

I agree that there is usually a terminal point of power consolidation where the system starts cannibalizing itself and collapses into relative disorder, but I disagree that the solution to that problem is in an attempt to directly manipulate the system into something he deems ideal for reasons that depend on a lot of unfalsifiable predictions about the future. He and the rest of the anarcho-capitalist/minarchist/anti-government crowd always bear a profound resemblance to the communist revolutionaries of the 20th century (the rich "elite" function only to oppress the poor) and they seem oblivious to the parallels while appearing frustrated that people dismiss them seemingly out of hand.

Also Rassah has demonstrated a profound lack of historical literacy in the past, combined with his dependence on soundbites and memes as rhetorical devises I am disinclined to engage him directly in a serious capacity and would encourage others not to either.

Thank you for posting everyone, godbless.

[PastryOfApathy]

Uses poland ball comics and memes to communicate his points.

Intellectual mastermind we got here guys.

[Rassah]

16 hours ago, WileyWarWeasel said:

You mean how fast food companies market to people from a very young age, convince most of them that they want to eat ground up garbage meat then offer it to them? 

There are no regulations on that now. So at worst it will be the same as now.

Which is pretty good, cause every time a company is busted using shitty ingredients, there's a huge outcry and they're forced to change.

11 hours ago, WileyWarWeasel said:

In the olden days charities barely provided a pittance to the poor, and charities still exist today you know.

In the old days charities provided plenty to the poor, and there were many more of them. Once social services came on the market, and 15% to 50% of everyone's income was confiscated, people felt they have no money to spare, and started thinking the government will take care of those who need it, so the charities dried up. And then to remind everyone why we need them, some government idiots came up when the idea that charities used to suck.

As for spare services, notice how even the poorest have access to smart phones (can buy one for >$20 now) and internet (almost any restaurant/cafe/business). When things exist in a completely free and unrestricted market, they get so cheap that there's plenty of surplus available to give away for almost or actually free.

For an example my friend is involved with (which I'm gonna help with), check out Unsung app. Billions of dollars worth of food gets thrown away by wealthy countries every year, because there are restrictions on what you're allowed to do with it, and no good way to disperse it to those who need it. Unsung is hoping to fix it (and hopefully you guys can help too).

16 hours ago, WileyWarWeasel said:

Here in Australia (and in USA from what I've read) we've already seen the effects of privatization and lazier-fare capitalism where companies take over critical functions: oligopolies/monopolies where infrastructure is allowed to crumble, prices are raised and the vast majority of the proceeds goes to executives and shareholders.

If they're oligopolies or monopolies, then they're not really privatised. They're just government contractors operating with an exclusive right granted by government. We've had lots of issues with those in US too, with things like military services and prisons getting contracted out through no bid contracts to some political cronies. Those "companies" are not in any way capitalist or lazier-fare, since they are shielded from any sort of competition, and make their money from confiscated tax dollars regardless of performance. It's oligarchy and corporatism, basically. Exactly what ALL anarchists are against.

On the other hand, privatized toll roads have done very well, and countries like Denmark, Sweden, and Norway privatized and deregulated a whole lot of their industries (actual privatization, where they sold them off), to the point that they're actually way way more capitalist than US now (and the resultant market boom is how they can pay for their social services), and Poland pretty much privatized everything after USSR, selling all their industries to foreign investors, and as a result is on par in quality of life with the rest of Europe, while Russia kept things nationalized, and Venezuela nationalized more and more, and as a result both are terrible shitholes.

I don't think there really have been any examples of countries privatizing their services (selling them to private investors, not hiring contractors) where the results turned out bad. Maybe I'm wrong?

And good luck overhauling government functions. I assume your plan for that isn't just voting to give it more regulatory power that it will use to create more oligopolies?

16 hours ago, WileyWarWeasel said:

These are known as regulations, and restrictions of any kind are contrary to total anarchy.

You can have regulations and restrictions without government or rulers. Markets regulate just fine (look at prices and quality control). The ship building industry is the most strictly regulated industry on the planet (where the term "ship shape" comes from), but it's not regulated by any governments, since ships are on international waters. They're regulated by private agencies that ship builders actually insist on paying hundreds of thousands to just to get their certificates of inspection, because that's what buyers and users of those ships want. Airliners similarly regulate the safety of their planes way above the government (FAA) requirements. And Bitcoin is regulated on the amount of inflation, and how it can be transfered.

15 hours ago, evan said:

"accidental fires don't exist in the world of smart people" and "the margin of finance necessary to have the educational equivalency of a school district is accessible to those in poverty"

Smart people have fire extinguishers and pay their fire department fees. Also, fire departments is the stupidest example against anarchy. Fire services aren't provided by federal government. They're provided by local community taxes, or private fee services, or voluntary fire brigades. In anarchy, they would be provided by local required fees (such as if you live in a gated community and have required payments), private fee services, or voluntary fire brigades. There would be no difference!

As for education, a reminder

 

15 hours ago, kazooie said:

corporations are just as susceptible to bureaucracy as government (or any other human system, for that matter). 

That's true! But the difference is that when corporations succumb to bureaucracy or corruption, they lose market share and fail (IBM already lost to Intel and AMD). When governments do, they persist unchanged. This is why monopolies generally don't exist in the market: companies get too big and too bureaucratic, and get killed off by smaller more agile companies. The monopoly of government or government subsidized businesses are the exception.

Anarchocapitalists are against monopolies. We want options and competition in all things, so that if one company becomes too slow, inefficient, and corrupt, we'll have others to choose from. But this includes government monopolies too. The Flint water utility is a perfect example of why. Their only source of water is poisoned, and they're forced to keep buying it.

[Rassah]

12 hours ago, WileyWarWeasel said:

In that case what you're advocating is not anarchy but a system controlled by non-humans. Perhaps you should clarify to the forum about whether you're advocating actual anarchy or some sort of computer-controlled utopia?

I would love to say "For the last time!..." but I'm sure it won't be... But I'm NOT advocating a Utopia. There's no such thing.

And yes, I am advocating a free market anarchy. No one is forced to use any services we are making. They just happen to be cheaper, more efficient, and fairer than alternative services, which isn't really that difficult to pull off. The only reason it hasn't been done before is because any time someone tried, government put their boot down and killed it so it can keep control and the oligarchs can keep exploiting for money. That's why these services are being designed to be fully decentralized and impossible to shut down.

Basically, if I offer you a better product that guarantees you won't be ripped off, I'm not forcing or controlling you. I'm just competing in a free market with a better product.

12 hours ago, WileyWarWeasel said:

Get rid of minimum wages and a framework that enforces workplace standards and you end up with third-world conditions. Sweatshops in Bangladesh are a good example of employment with little to no oversight.

They're not, actually, and it won't. The advent of quality and income in Chinese factories is a better example, and 30%+ unemployment among minorities is an example of why minimum wage is terrible. But it's a huge complicated topic I'd rather discuss in a separate thread, maybe.

12 hours ago, WileyWarWeasel said:

That already exists in western countries at least, it's called internship.

It does exist, but it's called apprenticeship. I'm not talking about internship. And even with internship you still get work experience and education that you don't waiting for a minimum wage job to open up.

12 hours ago, WileyWarWeasel said:

People who are able to pay taxes for police and other social services pay these taxes, so that those who cannot afford protection get some measure of protection.

Why would this be any different? People who pay for protection will want to make sure there's no crime in areas next to them that can't afford it too. And again, don't forget the law of the market: If someone needs something, someone else will figure out how to sell it to them. You can't compare the costs of our bloated expensive police service to what could be available. Especially when most of the money is wasted on victimless crimes and drug wars.

12 hours ago, WileyWarWeasel said:

In your case you get zero protection unless you fork out money and hope that your hired thugs are better than the other person's thugs.

Huh? Why would you need to worry that your thugs are better than the other guy's thugs?

12 hours ago, WileyWarWeasel said:

I would be interested to know what city that happened in. If you dislike the police so much then perhaps you should spend time in African countries that have very little to no law enforcement.

If you're talking about anarchy then that would clearly lead temporarily to chaos as there would be no order. 

Acapulco, Mexico. A year or two ago police went on strike and quit. When they came back, wanting their jobs back, no one wanted them, because everyone realized they didn't need them (just like when New York City cops went on strike, and nothing happened). They have since come back, sort of, but wery weak, and NO ONE likes them. And this past week or two they, along with police from other cities, were pulled out to Mexico City for the Pope's visit. No cops except for one or two passing by on scooters on the way there.

And no, Anarchy is NOT chaos. That's just what media and government tries to convince people of make themselves relevant. That, and revolutionaries who try to institute their own government who can themselves "anarchists." Anarchy just means without a ruler. No one to impose absolute control.

People are perfectly capable of organizing themselves without anyone enforcing laws. Look at the entire global economic system, with its voluntary hierarchy systems.

And can you come up with an argument better than "we need government, because without government we'll have government?" We're building systems that make it impossible for a group of people calling itself government to control people. I'm sure if that causes government to fail, there won't be a new group of people who somehow still manage to control people.

12 hours ago, WileyWarWeasel said:

The current system is indeed not sustainable, however how would your system facilitate global trade and finance that is required for modern civilization for function?

The exact same way it's done done. Global trade and finance don't function with government's help, they function in spite of it.

12 hours ago, WileyWarWeasel said:

If space travel was practically banned then how do you explain the following:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Satellite

Same way vigilantism is banned. It's only allowed to special people who have extralegal rights to launch things into space (government agencies). That's why we had the Space Shuttle as our most advanced technology for, what, 4 decades?

11 hours ago, FlynnCoyote said:

I wonder how many people would die under Rassah's system.

I would guess LESS than 250+ million that have been killed by governments in just the last century alonealone? That's not even including deaths from fighting in wars, but governments killing their own citizenss. Hell, how many people die each year from preventable road accidents caused by shitty quality roads? How many die in the drug war and from police brutality? How many die because they're waiting for approval on medicine they need?

If my system kills less then most of the population of USA, it will be a major improvement.

[ZorroValdez]

[Rassah]

9 hours ago, Zaraphayx said:

Tbh the most problematic underlying assumption that is foundational to Rassah's position is the idea that large, bureaucratic governments aren't an emergent solution to the problems that plagued more primitive societies throughout most of human history.

Thanks, that's actually a very good point, and I guess bares reminding about the first set of posts. Why do governments have power? Because they have guns (weapons, people, organizations) that allow them to implement force. Why do they have guns? Because they have money to pay for them. Why do they have money? Because they have the monopoly power to create it (print money) and/or claimed "moral" authority to confiscate it (taxation). That's where Bitcoin comes in. It takes the power of creating and controlling money out of government's power, and makes it extremely difficult to confiscate, where the costs to do that may easily outweigh the amount actually gained. In such a system, for the first time in history a government attempting to emerge out if a vacuum has little to no profit inventive to. You can't invade and pillage people for profit, since you'll have nothing to pilage. And you can't take over an area of tax payers, because you can't force the people to pay taxes. I know exactly why governments have been the emergent "solution" throughout most of human history, and that's EXACTLY what we're trying to solve. Not by taking down government by force and hoping for the best, but by taking government in a way that makes government unnecessary. If we fail, government persists. If we don't, no new government will emerge, because it has been made unnecessary.

9 hours ago, Zaraphayx said:

He and the rest of the anarcho-capitalist/minarchist/anti-government crowd always bear a profound resemblance to the communist revolutionaries of the 20th century

Actually not in the slightest. For one, the communist revolutionaries always fought for the ideal that goes directly contrary to human nature. They're system is very weak and unstable, because it requires everyone to change their minds and think a certain way, there are always assholes who don't (e.g. don't share their property), and their systems end up always requiring even worse assholes to FORCE their idea on everyone. We do no such thing, instead recognizing human nature and working within it, even promoting it.

And second, communist revolutionaries have based their ideas and revolutions on completely new and never tried concepts (communist societies, no concept of private property, no hierarchy, everyone equal), which always fail miserably. We base our ideas on examples of capitalism (mutual trade, respect for property, division of labor, incentives for good performance) that have existed for over a century, and have massively improved all our lives. We just want to take that system one step further by replacing the easily corruptable governance with something more fair.

As for the memes, that's just for people who don't care about reading the text. I have a ton of them.

Edited February 23, 2016 by Rassah

[MalletFace]

1 hour ago, Rassah said:

Actually not in the slightest.

Let's play a fun little game called "Rassah, Lenin, Engels, or Marx?"

Here's Part 1:

1. "The state is nothing but an instrument of oppression"
2. "While the state exists there can be no freedom"
3. "Some laws of state aimed at curbing crime are even more criminal"
4. "There are no morals in politics"
5. “The free development of each is the condition for the free development of all.”
6. "Can a nation be free if it oppresses other nations? It cannot."
7. "Workers of the world, unite!"

I'll give you a hint; number seven was two people with first names starting with E and M.

Edited February 23, 2016 by MalletFace