Anarchy!!!

[Rassah]

10 hours ago, Saxon said:

I think 'placing costs on bad actions' is just another way of saying 'Governance' to be honest, Rassah. 

Not really. For instance, it if costs more to retain employees than to take good care of them, that's not governance, that's just market. Governance would be costing more to make sure that some rule is followed, and then forcing everyone to pitch in to cover that cost. There are plenty of ways in which bad actions cost more than good. Having your airliner crash because you didn't bother checking something, or giving food poisoning to everyone on a cruise ship instead of splurging for better food storage options for instance. We're just looking for ways to keep expanding that.

10 hours ago, Saxon said:

How do you intend to place costs on companies which exploit natural resources in an irresponsible way, to everyone else's detriment? If those costs aren't physically enforcable and are not coercive, then why should anybody pay attention to them? 

I didn't say they would be physically unenforceable. Generally, when it comes to natural resources, they are self regulating: as the resource gets depleted, it costs more (decrease in supply = price up), and people start having a huge incentive to use something else. Not only does this prevent resources from getting used up due to them simply becoming more costly, but owners of resources are aware of this, and are forced to maintain their resources to keep from pricing themselves out of the market. It could lead to innovative management techniques too, such as Chile's tree farms and GMO pine that goes from planting to cutting in just 6 years, which they have done as a way to save money and extend their resources, and as a result are now able to provide all of China with their paper pulp needs for cheaper (and obviously much more sustainable) than cutting down rainforests that neighboring countries use to do.

There are likely many other ways to place costs on bad actors that we haven't thought of yet. But one I'm considering (which I may have mentioned) is anonymous decentralized prediction market betting, which uses bitcoin or other crypto currency, and which isn't controlled by anyone but distributed software, and thus can't be shut down or money sent to anyone but the winner (such as Augur). For instance, if you have a factory that is exploiting resources and causing environmental damage, the people concerned can place an anonymous bet on such a market stating "This factory will continue to function for the next 5 years." As the factory continues to be a bad actor, the betting pool that it will function will continue to grow, until it gets high enough that some enterprising saboteur places a bet that it won't continue to function, blows it up or destroys it somehow, and collects all the money.

But here's the catch: that's not the only possible outcome. As the publicly visible betting pool continues to grow in value (everyone can see the amount, just not who bet and who wins), the factory will be forced to hire more and more security to make sure no one is able to claim that bet. That's an actual cost imposed on the factory simply by its actions displeasing a whole lot of people, which the factory will have to factor in to decide if what it's doing is profitable enough. Or the pool of money may even reach high enough that the factory owner would place an opposing bet and close down the factory himself. Basically, this gives the power over what happens to a community to the people themselves, in a way that is much faster and more impactfull than simply waiting for the next election cycle and hoping the politician you need wins (and does what he promised), or trying to storm the factory as a mob, which puts everyone at risk, and limits such a protest only to those who can be physically present (whereas such a betting pool can be funded by supporters around the world).

 

Unrelated:

Edited February 23, 2016 by Rassah

[Rassah]

@MalletFace I don't care either way about #7, and #6 is irrelevant since I'm not advocating for a nation. But while those guys may have claimed that, theur only way that they saw of implementing it was through force. First you kill a few million to them to fall in line, then you kill a few more million to get them to think right and stop complaining, then some magic, and then communism!

I'm only advocating for setting up better alternatives for when the system collapses on its own. If it doesn't, great, we have the system and better alternatives. If it does, at least we'll have better alternatives to fall back on. Concentration camps will not be necessary (plus they're extremely unprofitable).

 

By the way, I was asked to write an article for an international newspaper about the ideas I talked about here of "hacking" society through technological innovations, like how BitTorrent changed people's views on copyright, and how I hope digital assets will change people's views on property and taxation. So all of this discussion and writing I've been doing here will actually be useful as copy/paste material

Edited February 23, 2016 by Rassah

[Pignog]

On 2016-02-22 at 9:45 AM, LazerMaster5 said:

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

me 2, im a free shit lover!! if theres one thing i hate its working and paying my dues!!! the dictatorship of the proletariat cant cum fast enough

On 2016-02-22 at 0:09 PM, kazooie said:

its because the forum pays attention to him.

 

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!

the public good is my fetish

[Rassah]

Woah woah woah! Holy crap! Just ran across a totally relevant article! There's apparently a privately owned tiny "city" inside of Atlanta, Georgia, complete with its own private roads, private police, and private laws (rules):

http://fee.org/articles/how-policing-works-in-a-privatized-city/

Anyone live near there? I'm definitely stopping by next time I drive through.

[WileyWarWeasel]

12 hours ago, Rassah said:

And can you come up with an argument better than "we need government, because without government we'll have government?"

Dear god we're already getting into massive walls of text and talking past each other. I'll try to address this as succinctly as possible.
I never actually said "we need government because without it we'd have them". What I'm saying is that some form of governance is required to enforce basic regulations and safety protocols, provide services, etc. Some governments do this better than others. If there was anarchy then that would inevitably lead to some form of governance because people forming into groups with leaders would destroy those that are less organized, and bigger and more organized groups would overwhelm smaller and less organized groups.

12 hours ago, Rassah said:

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.

You do realize that it's not against the law in most countries to open your own business and start selling to people if you think you've got a better product right?

12 hours ago, Rassah said:

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.

We'd probably would have to start another thread on that, true. I will say this though: the reason that companies offshore jobs to China, India and elsewhere is because wages and working conditions don't have to be as good as the developed world.

12 hours ago, Rassah said:

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.

And with internship the company can easily replace you with a new sucker (graduate) once your internship ends in order to keep the labor costs low.

12 hours ago, Rassah said:

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.

Rich people would only pay for protection for themselves and those around them. Poorer areas further away would get nothing and it is pure fantasy to think that those who could afford protection would automatically extend it to people they don't care about (you're not a customer or a relative/friend? Away with you, beggar!)

12 hours ago, Rassah said:

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

If police forces are privatized or otherwise only work for those with money then clearly the level of protection afforded would vary depending on how much money you have. Clearly this is already evident to some extent in normal society but anarchy would ramp this up to an extreme.

Serbia is a good example of a country where certain sectors of society/economy have basically no oversight and are enforced "by the people" and disputes are purely handled between people. In real estate for example there is no real protection for either the tenant or landlord, there are no significant real estate agencies and local police mostly don't care about disputes.

What is the result of this anarchic state of affairs? If the tenant doesn't pay then the landlord either has to hope they'll evict themselves or they hire thugs to forcefully evict the tenant and hope there is no retribution (eg the tenant has connections with private enforcers of their own).

13 hours ago, Rassah said:

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.

A good example of godawful cops. Unfortunately not all areas fare as well when decent law enforcement is absent (such as Serbia).

13 hours ago, Rassah said:

And no, Anarchy is NOT chaos.

12 hours ago, Rassah said:

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

The global economic system operates under both national laws and international laws you know.

Our globalized economy is actually a good example of markets organizing themselves to an extent and operating under various laws and regulations.

13 hours ago, Rassah said:

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.

You're selling products and services like any other private enterprise under our current socioeconomic system. Bravo.

If our current system falls you can bet your bottom bitcoin it won't be due to some pissant digital currency that is only used in a tiny fraction of global financial transactions.

In the past when central government has collapsed for extended periods, after the initial looting/anarchy people would generally reorganize themselves into groups. Some people in these groups would naturally direct the group more so than others (with varying levels of group discussion obviously) thus governance.

13 hours ago, Rassah said:

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.

So you're saying global finance/trade would be better if there is no regulation or oversight over things like currency, letters of credit, shipping container sizes, ship dock sizes and so on and no organized government managing their shipping lanes against threats like piracy? Maybe you should move to Somalia to see how great it is to have shipping lanes without any government protection, or perhaps you're advocating that every shipping company has their own private military bought with bitcoins?

13 hours ago, Rassah said:

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?

You do realize that most commercial satellites are launched by private enterprise, right? Also even with various regulations there is still crap loads of space debris orbiting earth. If under your anarchic system you let anyone launch whatever they wanted into space regardless of the quality of the launch vehicle and satellite we would have even more non functioning garbage floating in space.

You want to know the real reason why private businesses didn't land anyone on the moon or haven't started mining asteroids halfway across the solar system? It wasn't because of some grand government conspiracy but because there is no commercial gain to be had from such impractical endeavors, at least with current technology. Do you really think that if a company or government space agency could economically extract resources from space that they wouldn't jump on the opportunity to get a massive leg-up over their competition?

It's not like governments are preventing such research into space travel or other technologies from occurring either. Virgin Galactic for example is developing commercial spacecraft for suborbital flights/launches and other companies are researching things like space solar plants beaming energy back to earth.

 

TLDR / Final thoughts for tonight: you do a good job identifying major problems with the ways things work in the world. However at the end of the day what you really offer as "solutions" are a private currency and a black market system to trade some goods and services.

Private currencies have existed throughout history (eg the scrips during the depression) and so have black markets in different forms. These instruments have indeed been useful in the past and continue to be useful (whether evading oppression, trading illegal items, etc), however you think that what you're doing is significantly better because it utilizes more advanced technology on the exact same principles.

Your anarchy/bitcoin/private-black market systems are not special, they're not revolutionary (apart from some technologies being developed) and like black markets and currencies before them they will not ultimately bring down the system. Your proposed system of global altruism with no inherent structure and pure self-regulation/management is a fantasy that we will never see in our lifetimes if ever.

All you've done on the grand scale of things is add yet another layer of complexity to our trade/financial system. Private currencies/markets certainly are great for some of the reasons you describe however you expect recognition/praise for reinventing the wheel in a digital form. You'll get none from me and neither will your rehashed socioeconomic fantasies of self-regulation and anarchy get any.

PS Don't take this to mean that I think our current system is perfect. It's unsustainable and full of problems, but at least I don't submit to fantasies that don't work on any significant scale. If the lights go out your bitcoins and libertarian fantasies will be replaced by looting and gang rule.

9 hours ago, Rassah said:

Woah woah woah! Holy crap! Just ran across a totally relevant article! There's apparently a privately owned tiny "city" inside of Atlanta, Georgia, complete with its own private roads, private police, and private laws (rules):

http://fee.org/articles/how-policing-works-in-a-privatized-city/

Anyone live near there? I'm definitely stopping by next time I drive through.

As an addendum, some theme park that requires the rest of the system for it to function is not proof of privatization of everything working on a significant scale.

[PastryOfApathy]

lmao why are you people still arguing with someone whose arguments are literally comprised of memes and poland ball comics.

Edited February 24, 2016 by PastryOfApathy

[Hux]

Like, literally, I can't even.

[LazerMaster5]

Dem walls of text tho

[WileyWarWeasel]

I suppose it's because it can be interesting talking about different viewpoints on things, though it's gotten to the point where anarchist dogma based on wildly optimistic assumptions on human nature with no relation to reality are being put forward and I may be losing my patience in creating walls of text ^^

[Onnes]

[PastryOfApathy]

8 minutes ago, Onnes said:

This is my fetish...

[Pignog]

4 hours ago, PastryOfApathy said:

This is my fetish...

epicsame

[Zaraphayx]

9 hours ago, Onnes said:

Me irl

[Rassah]

On 2/24/2016 at 7:07 AM, WileyWarWeasel said:

What I'm saying is that some form of governance is required to enforce basic regulations and safety protocols, provide services, etc. Some governments do this better than others. If there was anarchy then that would inevitably lead to some form of governance because people forming into groups with leaders would destroy those that are less organized, and bigger and more organized groups would overwhelm smaller and less organized groups.

That still sounds like you think we can't have no government because a government will always come up. Because what you described - bigger more organized groups overwhelming smaller ones - is what we got. And these groups would even enforce basic regulations and safety protocols, and provide services, just to keep people happy and give them an excuse for ruling them.

On 2/24/2016 at 7:07 AM, WileyWarWeasel said:

You do realize that it's not against the law in most countries to open your own business and start selling to people if you think you've got a better product right?

Depends on the product. If it's a product that directly competes against things government provides, like money, security, or even utilities in places where government provides those, they may not make it against the law, but they will still take you down. All the centralized digital currencies before Bitcoin were taken down. Anyone providing competing protection services gets taken down. Even people setting up their own solar panels get taken down.

On 2/24/2016 at 7:07 AM, WileyWarWeasel said:

I will say this though: the reason that companies offshore jobs to China, India and elsewhere is because wages and working conditions don't have to be as good as the developed world.

Exactly. And competition driving up those wages, as everyone got hired and companies have had to keep increasing wages to stay competitive, is why it's now no longer as financially beneficial to outsource to India or China, and companies are now looking into other places like Malaysia and Kenya. As these countries are risen up one by one, we'll eventually run out of poor countries to invest in, and then finally everyone will be on level ground, minus whichever countries destroy themselves like Venezuela.

On 2/24/2016 at 7:07 AM, WileyWarWeasel said:

Rich people would only pay for protection for themselves and those around them. Poorer areas further away would get nothing and it is pure fantasy to think that those who could afford protection would automatically extend it to people they don't care about (you're not a customer or a relative/friend? Away with you, beggar!)

In the worst case scenario, those who can't afford protection can protect themselves with their own guns. But it's actually more profitable to provide some level of basic services to the poor than to spend money defending against them. Just as it's cheaper to provide homeless with basic housing than it is to spend on policing them.

Serbia sounds like a state without any governance systems, even anarchic ones, and likely not a place anyone would want to invest. Too much violence and I bet corruption too. That's not what we're doing. We want governance, just not by any politician or warlord. Places like Serbia will continue to exist, and I hope people will continue to exit them, taking all their wealth with them, until only the violent and corrupt exist to destroy each other.

On 2/24/2016 at 7:07 AM, WileyWarWeasel said:

The global economic system operates under both national laws and international laws you know.

Our globalized economy is actually a good example of markets organizing themselves to an extent and operating under various laws and regulations.

Not really. It actually operates under a system of contracts and reputation. Of you run an unscrupulous business and screw other businesses in dealings, no one will want to do business with you, and your business will die. No need for laws or regulations. The only time anything legal enters that is when two businesses have a dispute about their contract, in which case usually private arbitration comes in. The only things laws and regulations deal with is in banning certain goods, requiring taxes, registrations, or restrictions on certain other goods, and other useless bureaucratic stuff like that. They serve no purpose for consumers, and only exist to improve incomes on established local businesses.

For instance, did you know US has a law against using foreign ships to ferry goods betweens US ports? Why the heck? Because of that law, places like Hawaii have had to resort to using 747 jets to fly their livestock out of California, because there are simply no US livestock cargo ships.

On 2/24/2016 at 7:07 AM, WileyWarWeasel said:

If our current system falls you can bet your bottom bitcoin it won't be due to some pissant digital currency that is only used in a tiny fraction of global financial transactions.

In the past when central government has collapsed for extended periods, after the initial looting/anarchy people would generally reorganize themselves into groups. Some people in these groups would naturally direct the group more so than others (with varying levels of group discussion obviously) thus governance.

That's true, it will instead be because of a global, unstoppable, ubiquitous digital currency that is used by everyone to bypass the much more inefficient and expensive pissant government currencies, and which will let everyone have an offshore tax haven in their pockets.

Yes, I totally agree that people will organize into groups. And that those groups will have people in charge. And that members of those groups would even lay dues to the group. In fact, that is actually the planned roadmap for what to work on after governments collapse. There's even a term for those groups - phyles - described in the cyberpunk futuristic scifi book The Diamond Age (you should read it if you're curious where we're going). But those groups will not be mandatory, like governments, they will not have something like a non-existent "social contract," and they will not be geographically defined. Just as I can join a furry forum group which has leaders and rules, or join the anarchy group that has its own leaders, rules, and even currencies and legal systems, from anywhere in the world. The key difference is it's voluntary.

On 2/24/2016 at 7:07 AM, WileyWarWeasel said:

So you're saying global finance/trade would be better if there is no regulation or oversight over things like currency, letters of credit, shipping container sizes, ship dock sizes and so on and no organized government managing their shipping lanes against threats like piracy? Maybe you should move to Somalia to see how great it is to have shipping lanes without any government protection, or perhaps you're advocating that every shipping company has their own private military bought with bitcoins?

Um, global trade depends and uses on shipping container standards, letters if credit, contracts, dock sizes, and other things that they themselves agreed on and themselves enforce. You don't need government for any of that. Government just says "Um, okay..." and writes into law what shipping companies have already established. And now they can use a global nongovernmental currency too.

As for Somalia, the problem with that is the government regulations against armed ships docking at ports. Any arms, even weapons held by soldiers. Get rid of that, and you got rid of the pirate problem. It's already largely gotten rid of, since shipping companies have started hiring private security who carry automatic weapons, and simply dump them overboard before they dock, but that just adds more cost to all our goods.

On 2/24/2016 at 7:07 AM, WileyWarWeasel said:

You do realize that most commercial satellites are launched by private enterprise, right? 

Not really. At least not until very recently. Even private satellites could only be launched by US or Russian government until very recently. NASA literally had a ban on any private launches until something like 2006 or 2010. It's only in the very recent years that private space agencies were allowed, and look how far they've gotten in just that short amount of time, working almost from scratch.

On 2/24/2016 at 7:07 AM, WileyWarWeasel said:

Also even with various regulations there is still crap loads of space debris orbiting earth. 

You want to know the real reason why private businesses didn't land anyone on the moon or haven't started mining asteroids halfway across the solar system? It wasn't because of some grand government conspiracy but because there is no commercial gain to be had from such impractical endeavors, 

Regarding space crap, who cares. Just another problem for the market to solve. Maybe we'll start "mining" it for materials to build space stations out of.

As for your reason, that's speculation. How do you know that there's no commercial gain from that? Virgin Galactic is spending hundreds of millions on just space tourism. How profitable do you think moon tourism would be? There are at least half a dozen companies currently working on asteroid mining initiatives. And another half dozen, including SpaceX, working on cheap launch systems. So companies are definitely putting a ton of money into this. They just weren't even allowed to until recently.

On 2/24/2016 at 7:07 AM, WileyWarWeasel said:

 at the end of the day what you really offer as "solutions" are a private currency and a black market system to trade some goods and services.

Private currency, private trade, private legal system, private asset registry, private reputation system, private insurance and assurance, private communications, private manufacturing, and private protection. There are new ideas and services coming out every year too. For instance, we just came out with private decentralized transportation to fight against Uber (Arcade City) and government restrictions on ridesharing.

On 2/24/2016 at 7:07 AM, WileyWarWeasel said:

Private currencies have existed throughout history (eg the scrips during the depression) and so have black markets in different forms. These instruments have indeed been useful in the past and continue to be useful (whether evading oppression, trading illegal items, etc), however you think that what you're doing is significantly better because it utilizes more advanced technology on the exact same principles.

It's better because it's much easier, much more accessible, and much more difficult to shut down. So in that sense it's competent different from what we had before. Think about it, those currencies you mentioned are still subject to currency and banking restrictions. But those are impossible to impose on bitcoin. How easy is it for someone to get an offshore account, which itself isn't a new idea? Well, now anyone can get one by downloading an app. How difficult was it to buy good quality drugs or black market goods, and how risky was that? Now anyone can do it from the safety and privacy of their own home after researching seller reviews online. Basically, this is as big of a change as going from shoplifting CDs from stores, to torrenting music from home.

Did BitTorrent bring down the copyright industry? In a way, yes. It forced it to change drastically, to give us things like iTunes, Spotify, and Netflix. And now, instead of dictating their terms to us, the copyright industry is forced to accommodate us, because they know if they don't, file sharing will make them completely irrelevant. So, yes, what we are creating IS significantly different and better. And, banks do actually realize that.

On 2/24/2016 at 7:07 AM, WileyWarWeasel said:

 Your proposed system of global altruism with no inherent structure and pure self-regulation/management is a fantasy that we will never see in our lifetimes if ever.

Um, there is inherent structure and self-tegulation. That's the point: the structure and regulations are inherent instead of requiring a trusted third party to implement and enforce them. And that system already exists. You don't have to wait for it, it's already here. It will just take time for it to catch up and become more popular. All we're doing now is working to make the system that already exists be easier to use and more accessible, as well as coming up with more ways we can implement it. But it's already possible to join this anarchist "nation." Anyone can do it, regardless of where they live, though it's just not very convenient at the moment. And, if you understood the BitTorrent comparison, I hope you've raised how big of a change is coming, when the same will be done to global banking, trade, and legal systems.

[Rassah]

On 2/24/2016 at 10:22 AM, Saxon said:

"There are plenty of ways bad actions cost more than good"

...are you unaware of the catalogue of industrial abuses that was generated before regulation was enforced? ._. 

I am, of course. I am also aware of the catalogue of industrial abuses that was generated specifically with the help and protection of regulations too. All that tells me is that regulations aren't a very dependable system for protecting against industrial abuses.

On 2/24/2016 at 10:22 AM, Saxon said:

Even now, people still get away with selling bogus medicines, or practicing dangerous dental procedures, like tooth-whitening, without a dental license. 

Why do we need licensing? Why not have dentists buy assurance contracts that will pay out to the victim should their dangerous procedures harm them, and have a lack of such a policy be a major red flag for everyone to avoid them? After all, such assurance policies would be cheap if the dentist procedure wasn't dangerous and he knew what he was doing. As for people selling bogus stuff, imagine if victims started donating just a few bucks towards a fund that would make those hucksters "go away?" How dangerous would it be to swindle large numbers of people...

On 2/24/2016 at 10:22 AM, Saxon said:

We genuinely do need an authority to enforce certain standards and licenses. 

Not a government authority. Look at the internet and tech standards like W3 and hardware connectors. No laws there, works just fine.

On 2/24/2016 at 10:22 AM, Saxon said:

Natural resources are NOT self regulating, and if they are not extracted responsibly they can poison the surrounding land. 

And if people live on that land, they should be able to sue whoever poisoned their land. The biggest problem here is Tragedy of the Commons. I say get rid of the Commons.

On 2/24/2016 at 10:22 AM, Saxon said:

Your idea, that people will place a 'deadpool' bet on business they don't like, and then BLOW THEM THE FUCK UP is literally retarded. As if blowing up a leaky oil rig would actually be a solution anyway. O_o 

Aww, you're not being creative at all. If the problem is an oil rig, place a wager on the oil company CEO, or rig manager, or all employees, or even just helicopters that fly to and from. Doesn't even have to be against something on or around the rig itself. Put it on the CEOs or manager's house, or car. On refineries that refine that oil, or gas stations that sell it. I'm sure people can come up with plenty of creative ways to ruin other's lives when they get wronged.

On 2/24/2016 at 10:22 AM, Saxon said:

 I think the idea that you have to worry that 'sabotage entrepreneurs' are placing bets on assassinating you is actually worse than governance. 

Why would companies waste money assassinating random citizens? There's no profit in anonymously killing random people. But hiring assassins to kill people in the way of your company would likely permanently damage the company's reputation, and get the whole world donating money to see that company be destroyed.

Seriously, though, doesn't the idea of being able to place bets like that interest you? I would love to place bets against Kony, Kim Jong Un, and a few corps.

[Rassah]

This was just posted: https://medium.com/@PaxDirectory/codex-a-legal-scripting-language-e3723cc76662#.4v2ixa5ju

"We're not just banging rocks together here."

[WileyWarWeasel]

2 hours ago, Rassah said:

That still sounds like you think we can't have no government because a government will always come up. Because what you described - bigger more organized groups overwhelming smaller ones - is what we got. And these groups would even enforce basic regulations and safety protocols, and provide services, just to keep people happy and give them an excuse for ruling them.

Before, you asked "And can you come up with an argument better than "we need government, because without government we'll have government?""

I told you about the functions of government which explained why we need government of some description and about what tends to happen after brief periods of anarchy. You ignored my comments about the reasons behind having governance in the first place and instead focused on what I said about leadership naturally forming.

Also when I refer to governance I don't just mean the political government, I also mean other things that enforce standards and member behavior such as unions and IEEE.

2 hours ago, Rassah said:

Depends on the product. If it's a product that directly competes against things government provides, like money, security, or even utilities in places where government provides those, they may not make it against the law, but they will still take you down. All the centralized digital currencies before Bitcoin were taken down. Anyone providing competing protection services gets taken down. Even people setting up their own solar panels get taken down.

I suppose that depends on the nation, because here in Australia solar panels were heavily subsidized and private security companies do exist (clearly they do not replace the police but provide services such as round-the-clock monitoring of a premises and escorting people off site). Renewable energy was also heavily subsidized in other countries such as Germany.

That being said, some big businesses can twist the laws to work for them however how would letting them operate without any restrictions actually improve things if they can then literally hire thugs to directly take down competition? You could say "the people" will simply look for business elsewhere but if businesses merge into monopolies/duopolies/oligopolies (remember no anti-competitive/mergers laws in your anarchy land) and then maintain their positions purely by force rather than have to (somewhat) behave in a more lawful society.

2 hours ago, Rassah said:

Exactly. And competition driving up those wages, as everyone got hired and companies have had to keep increasing wages to stay competitive, is why it's now no longer as financially beneficial to outsource to India or China, and companies are now looking into other places like Malaysia and Kenya. As these countries are risen up one by one, we'll eventually run out of poor countries to invest in, and then finally everyone will be on level ground, minus whichever countries destroy themselves like Venezuela.

Slight problem there: offshoring jobs means customers back home are poorer and less able to afford the actual products/services produced. The Kenyans/Chinese/etc working in such factories/sewing places/call centers can barely afford the basics themselves and only a tiny minority (eg top brass) could even think about being able to afford much of the stuff being produced from these places.

2 hours ago, Rassah said:

In the worst case scenario, those who can't afford protection can protect themselves with their own guns. But it's actually more profitable to provide some level of basic services to the poor than to spend money defending against them. Just as it's cheaper to provide homeless with basic housing than it is to spend on policing them.

Everyone armed and ready to shoot on sight, those with bigger guns always win any disputes? Sounds like you'll love living in Africa.

It's not profitable to provide basic services to the poor, it's cheaper. African countries that have adopted your austerity measures and completely replaced government services (education, healthcare, etc) with private and/or charities have seen extremely poor standards continue or get even worse across the board compared to countries with halfway decent public services with minimum graft.

The key phrase here is minimum graft. Governments in countries such as USA actually spend more money per person on healthcare than most developed countries yet have poorer health outcomes. This is because most of the money goes to private institutions that then siphon most of the money to share holders and management. Most EU governments spend the taxes directly providing healthcare to their citizens. Yes there is some money lost in the bureaucracy but it's overall more efficient than USA-style "public" healthcare.

Just because one government (USA) does things poorly (for average citizens) does not mean that all other countries govern as poorly.

3 hours ago, Rassah said:

Serbia sounds like a state without any governance systems, even anarchic ones, and likely not a place anyone would want to invest. Too much violence and I bet corruption too. That's not what we're doing. We want governance, just not by any politician or warlord. Places like Serbia will continue to exist, and I hope people will continue to exit them, taking all their wealth with them, until only the violent and corrupt exist to destroy each other.

"noun: anarchy

1.

a state of disorder due to absence or non-recognition of authority or other controlling systems.

2.

absence of government and absolute freedom of the individual, regarded as a political ideal."

 

If you're going to propagate your anarchy nonsense you should at least get it right: anarchy is not a governance system, it is the lack of government and has non-recognition of authority or other controlling systems. That means no recognition of political governments and organizations such as unions, citizens advocacy groups, web standards organizations and so on that would have authority in their respective spheres.

4 hours ago, Rassah said:

Um, global trade depends and uses on shipping container standards, letters if credit, contracts, dock sizes, and other things that they themselves agreed on and themselves enforce. You don't need government for any of that. Government just says "Um, okay..." and writes into law what shipping companies have already established. And now they can use a global nongovernmental currency too.

Enforcement of shipping standards and rules is a form of governance and regulation. Not all regulations and standards are created and enforced by governments.

 

I can't be bothered replying to the rest of your post. The fact that you want a system of rules (whether they are decided by private organizations or governments, they're still a system of standards/laws/etc) while advocating anarchy which is the complete opposite while using ball memes is just getting to be too much at this stage.

PS File sharing did not bring down the "copyright industry". If by this you're referring to major media companies such as Time Warner and Disney they still hold immense market share; some people downloading Frozen instead of watching it in the cinema makes little difference if they weren't going to pay to see it anyway.

[PastryOfApathy]

17 minutes ago, Saxon said:

The notion that an arbitrary set of laws should be enforced by 'vulture' entrepreneurs betting on people's assassinations is a much more frightening prospect than living in a state.

I dunno man. I'd be cool with it if they made a version of that show 'Shark Tank' but instead of just turning you down and not investing in your business venture they just kind of throw you into a comically large aquarium full of literal sharks.

Edited February 26, 2016 by PastryOfApathy

[Rassah]

12 hours ago, WileyWarWeasel said:

When I refer to governance I don't just mean the political government, I also mean other things that enforce standards and member behavior such as unions and IEEE.

We're fine with them. They work better than political government, and that's basically what we're hoping to replace governments with. For one, IEEE won't arrest you and throw you into jail for not following their standards.

12 hours ago, WileyWarWeasel said:

I suppose that depends on the nation, because here in Australia solar panels were heavily subsidized and private security companies do exist (clearly they do not replace the police but provide services such as round-the-clock monitoring of a premises and escorting people off site). Renewable energy was also heavily subsidized in other countries such as Germany.

US doesn't seem to care where the money business is in the world. They've arrested people from other countries  for trying to run alternative money systems. US subsidizes solar panels too. But then we have things like Nevada government banning rooftop solar panels because they compete with local power utilities...

12 hours ago, WileyWarWeasel said:

That being said, some big businesses can twist the laws to work for them however how would letting them operate without any restrictions actually improve things if they can then literally hire thugs to directly take down competition? 

Without a government to twist the laws and enforce them, companies will have to actually pay for such enforcement themselves (a HUGE expense), instead of forcing us to pay for it through taxes. 

As for hiring thugs to take down competition, no one does that. Force is extremely expensive and unprofitable. That's why pretty much only governments engage in it. Companies either buy competitors, or merge with them. And without government protecting IP, there's no reason to buy competition other than to actually develop their stuff. If they buy with intent to keep the technology, someone else will just build it. Plus, don't forget, that only applies to competitors. Companies can't force customers in any way other than offering to sell them stuff.

12 hours ago, WileyWarWeasel said:

Slight problem there: offshoring jobs means customers back home are poorer and less able to afford the actual products/services produced. The Kenyans/Chinese/etc working in such factories/sewing places/call centers can barely afford the basics themselves and only a tiny minority (eg top brass) could even think about being able to afford much of the stuff being produced from these places.

Some customers home are a bit poorer, while everyone is much better off due to cheaper products for everyone. As for the foreign workers, even if they can barely afford the basics (they actually can afford middle class style now, but even if not...), that's still much better than not being able to afford the basics at all. And our people being a bit worse isn't an excuse to deprive them of that. We in the developed world are the 1%, and they're the 99%. If you think wealth should be distributed to improve income equality, I don't see why that should stop at the border.

13 hours ago, WileyWarWeasel said:

It's not profitable to provide basic services to the poor, it's cheaper. African countries that have adopted your austerity measures and completely replaced government services (education, healthcare, etc) with private and/or charities have seen extremely poor standards continue or get even worse across the board compared to countries with halfway decent public services with minimum graft.

More profitable, less costly, thame thing. Basically costs of managing desperate people is higher than keeping them not as desperate. As for Africa and US healthcare, they're pretty bad examples. Africa is basically the equivalent of a country suffering from nuclear fallout, with nuclear being socialist. USSR really did a number on that place, with staged revolutions and dictators. Charities made things worse by giving free aid, preventing any businesses and farmers from being able to compete. It will take A LOT for that place to improve. And the US healthcare system is an over-regulated basically government mandated giveaway to insurances companies and hospitals. And obviously it would cost way more: those companies want much more money out of us, and we have no choice but to pay. That system sucks and isn't anything like an example of free market medicine.

13 hours ago, WileyWarWeasel said:

Just because one government (USA) does things poorly (for average citizens) does not mean that all other countries govern as poorly.

I don't compare governments to other governments. Looking at it that way you'll obviously find good and bad governments to compare to each other. Instead I look at history and trends (despite some accusations that I ignore history). Looking at it that way, you'll notice that ALL governments have thr same trend: they progressively centralize power and erode rights, until they collapse or are taken down through revolution or war. Even US, which started as practically a libertarian utopia. So if you compare good and bad countries in the present, it's just governments in different stages of centralization or collapse. US and Europe included.

13 hours ago, WileyWarWeasel said:

"noun: anarchy

2.

absence of government and absolute freedom of the individual, regarded as a political ideal."

If you're going to propagate your anarchy nonsense you should at least get it right: anarchy is not a governance system, it is the lack of government and has non-recognition of authority or other controlling systems. That means no recognition of political governments and organizations such as unions, citizens advocacy groups, web standards organizations and so on that would have authority in their respective spheres.

Anarchy is the second definition, and government does not mean governance. You can have private governance and rules. Governments spread the idea that anarchy is total absance of rules and is total chaos (I wonder why?). So while anarchists, at least AnarchoCapitalists, don't like political or authoritarian governance, we have no problem with voluntary governance. That means working with authority at work, forming authority groups like unions, etc. As long as it's voluntary association, that's fine.

Otherwise it would be weird for all those anarchists (crypto-anarchists) to have developed so many web and encryption standards...

13 hours ago, WileyWarWeasel said:

Enforcement of shipping standards and rules is a form of governance and regulation. Not all regulations and standards are created and enforced by governments.

Exactly. And the major difference is that these regulations are opt-in (voluntary), not forced, they are designed by people for mutual benefit, not by a few elete for personal benefit, and they are only followed of they are actually better than alternatives, meaning they are forced to be updated and improved instead of being mired in slow political bureaucracy. 

There is a huge misconception about what anarchy is, with the belief that it's total chaos without any rules and an apocalypse like Mad Max, or constant warring among factions like Somalia. Obviously those in power would like you to think that, because they depend on you believing that only those in power can provide you with structure and protect you from "bad people." I'm just describing what anarchy actually is, and what kind of anarchy we (anarcho-capitalists and crypto-anarchists) are actually working on, because I still hear a lot of misconceptions about it.

 

Sorry you don't like the anarchyball comics. As for the copyright industry, even if the large media companies still exist, they have still been forced to change their business models competely. All you can watch movies, or music, for just $8 a month? No company would be sane enough to come up with that business!

[Rassah]

6 hours ago, Saxon said:

The notion that an arbitrary set of laws should be enforced by 'vulture' entrepreneurs betting on people's assassinations is a much more frightening prospect than living in a state.

That is one possibility I guess. Generally entrepreneurs want money through innovation though, so I'd be more worried about established businesses where entrepreneurs are involved. And it's still at least something different than an arbitrary set of laws enforced by vulture corporatists betting on national wars. I wouldn't worry about anyone betting on your assassination though. Most people just aren't that important.

[Rassah]

On 2/26/2016 at 6:07 PM, Saxon said:

What's to stop people place bets on the people who run the betting system being assassinated anyway*? That would be in almost everybody's interest to do. 

I don't follow. People who run the betting system? The actual bets are anonymous, so it's impossible to know who put the money in the betting pool, and the way it works now is that no one runs it. It just runs itself, distributed over the Internet. Like bitcoin. There's no one in control, and no single person or server to go after.

On 2/26/2016 at 6:07 PM, Saxon said:

Your idea of governance is terrifying, disgustingly barbaric and open to abuse. 

Well, the current system is even more terrifying and disgustingly barbaric, and is actually being abused. I could list many things, but I'm curious what it is you find terrifying and barbric.

On 2/26/2016 at 6:07 PM, Saxon said:

*Hell, they wouldn't even need to place a bet...just give an assassin a fat wad of cash. Your system assumes that assassins can't be bribed to do the evil bidding of big companies (who would naturally have the most powerful votes anyway)

No, my system assumes that assassins are ALREADY being bribed to do evil bidding of big companies, who naturally have the most powerful votes anyway. Except replace "assassins" with "military" and make it "government sanctioned" instead of illegal, and that's exactly the system you have now. If that's what you find terrifying and barbaric, you're already living in it and being forced to pay for it. Seriously, is that something you don't even realize or believe happens?

My system assumes what you are afraid of is already happening, takes money away from big companies to do this, and gives that power to everyone, putting everyone on the same power level as those big companies.

[Rassah]

They're Anarchyball comics. Big difference.

I don't know if setting up an 'uncontrolled assassin market' based on anonymous bets is a good idea. But it's already set up. Nothing anyone can do besides use it for good.

If a rival gets taken out, it's fairly easy to guess who made it happen. But, like I said, it's much cheaper to buy or work together with a rival than to take them out. Only States that can print/borrow unlimited money do the warring and taking out thing. Even organized crime in Italy and Japan tries to avoid it as much as possible.

10 hours ago, Saxon said:

The idea that an unaccountable and anonymous system could be used to arbitrarily enforce any whim by any means, including murder, is obviously barbaric.

Well, yeah, the US military, which isn't accountable to anyone, not even voters, giving out anonymous orders by anonymous commanders to anonymous soldiers, to arbitrarily enforce any corporation's whim by any means, including murder of civilians, whole families and friends, and even children, is pretty barbaric. And the military even rewrites its own code of laws to fit it's own agenda, so whatever they do is legal (like adding terms "enemy combatant" to be able to shoot civilians). It's even gotten so bad that the US military is now fighting a proxy war against itself, where the only reason for those arbitrary orders to murder innocent people is so that companies can sell their weapons used to commit murder. It's mass murder for murder's sake, funded solely by taxation. How much more barbaric can you get?

At least in my system murder will be something you have to spend a lot of money on, instead of use it as a means of earning a lot of money, which should at least make people think twice about whether it's worth it. Plus, you forget, the bet doesn't have to be murder, it could be destruction of your property, and the outcome doesn't have to be actual murder or destruction, it's most likely you spending more money on your own protection, or seeking to address whatever it was that got people pissed at you so much that they would be willing to give up their own money for.

And don't forget that rich people hiring assassins is something that already existed for centuries. It's the groups of people who aren't rich being able to pool their money to do it that's new.

10 hours ago, Saxon said:

Law is enforced through courts and police officers, who can be punished themselves if they are proven to treat people unfairly. 

Hah! Maybe in your country. Not so much in US or most of the rest of the world, where they basically run things unopposed.

[LazerMaster5]

@Rassah, your "anarchyball" comics are still polandball comics. And they are incredibly cringeworthy and make it hard for me to take you seriously.

[Rassah]

13 hours ago, Saxon said:

So I'm not actually an American. Maybe the problems you perceive* to exist in your military are endemic to your nation and not an inevitable consequence of the state. Either way I don't think that anonymous assassination or destruction markets are a good solution. 

Furthermore, the ease of the assumption 'their main rival is responsible' in industrial sabotage is easily taken advantage of by third parties who want two other rivals to waste their time fighting one another. 

The anarchy that AnarchoCapitalist are working towards isn't is some specific country. Yes, you are absolutely right, plenty of people live in privileged societies, where they don't have to worry about corruption, lack of access to basic services, and where "if you did nothing wrong, you have nothing to hide" is a privileged position they can enjoy. And since the things we're working on are voluntary, not forced on society with riots and Molotov Cocktails, but things we offer as a voluntary alternative, perhaps people won't want them and won't adopt them where they live (though I'm sure even in UK some people would like the idea of tax shelters, and being able to buy anything they want online, like drugs). But plenty of people in the world are not so well off, and as Ib described, America is headed to that shithole status too. Every month is a new record breaking month of expatriation. And these new technologies are pretty damn exciting just on their own, too!

As for taking people out to start fights, that's definitely an issue to consider. Trolling in general is a possible problem. Imagine a bunch of trolls or bullies raising money to have someone physically harmed or their property destroyed, or someone spreading lies about someone else to create "mob justice." Augur tries to deal with that problem by having people vote on whether the bet is moral or not (destroying polluting factory OK, killing CEO maybe not OK...), but it's just the first of such markets. I guess in the near future we'll have to figure out how to deal with this new reality properly.

 

@LazerMaster5 

Anyway, I think I've said almost everything there is to say on the topic. I'll probably just update if some new anarchy enabling tech comes out. Or start a new topic.

[LazerMaster5]

*groans loudly*

[Rassah]

@WileyWarWeasel You might find this interesting https://bretigne.liberty.me/private-protection-co-puts-govt-police-to-shame/ Private for-profit policing working way better than government policing, and providing service for free to those who can't afford it.

[WileyWarWeasel]

4 hours ago, Rassah said:

@WileyWarWeasel You might find this interesting https://bretigne.liberty.me/private-protection-co-puts-govt-police-to-shame/ Private for-profit policing working way better than government policing, and providing service for free to those who can't afford it.

I'm too tired to make another wall of text, but I will reply to this.

The police force in the article in some ways sounds like a tiny version of regular police:

-Government police are paid by people who can afford it (taxpayers) and provide the service for free to those who can't afford to pay taxes

-The private police mentioned are paid by people who can afford it (customers) and provide the service for free to those who can't afford to pay the fees

 

What it really comes down to is that not all police forces are the same, whether government or "independent". Also for every one of these for-profit police forces that provides genuine protection to those who can't afford it (subsidized by those who can, not really that different from government in that regard) there are plenty of criminal organizations that run "protection" rackets in more lawless areas where you get beaten up and robbed by them if you fail to pay your "protection" money.

I have little faith in government services, however I still think you place too much faith in private policing. An insignificant number of private police forces that act like a smaller, more tightly-knit version of government police are an exception in a world where most "private-policing" is done by protection rackets.

[Rassah]

15 hours ago, WileyWarWeasel said:

Also for every one of these for-profit police forces that provides genuine protection to those who can't afford it there are plenty of criminal organizations that run "protection" rackets in more lawless areas where you get beaten up and robbed by them if you fail to pay your "protection" money.

Just want to address this. While sure, protection rackets do beat or rob you if you fail to pay them in some places, those are usually small and inexperienced rackets. Large, well established ones, like Cosa Nostra in Italy for example, don't do that. All they do is publicly announce that they don't protect your place. It's up to you to provide your own protection if you want. Reasons are, it's more expensive to beat or rob from customers (thugs cost money) and is just cheaper to let someone else do it, and protection rackets do actually care about their reputation, believe it or not, and don't want to scare or piss off their customers. If they start beating people, they risk a revolt, or even just unwanted tension and issues. If they try to keep calm, even if stern, relationship, things just go much smoother. There's as excellent Wiki article on Cosa Nostra that talks about how their business is run.

[WileyWarWeasel]

9 hours ago, Rassah said:

Just want to address this. While sure, protection rackets do beat or rob you if you fail to pay them in some places, those are usually small and inexperienced rackets. Large, well established ones, like Cosa Nostra in Italy for example, don't do that. All they do is publicly announce that they don't protect your place. It's up to you to provide your own protection if you want. Reasons are, it's more expensive to beat or rob from customers (thugs cost money) and is just cheaper to let someone else do it, and protection rackets do actually care about their reputation, believe it or not, and don't want to scare or piss off their customers. If they start beating people, they risk a revolt, or even just unwanted tension and issues. If they try to keep calm, even if stern, relationship, things just go much smoother. There's as excellent Wiki article on Cosa Nostra that talks about how their business is run.

Beatings or public announcements, it's still a racket.

Thanks for the info about the more sophisticated rackets though ;3

[Rassah]

Doesn't stop you from taking care of your own security. I suspect without the "criminal" issue, if they weren't operating under constant threat from police and thus not caring too much about being "illegal" in their actions, changing your protection service may not be any more dramatic than changing your home insurance provider.

 

By the way, to take a step back to the prior topic, mob boss starts beating up businesses and people in the area, people start anonymously putting bets on how long that mob boss will live, without the mob boss knowing who did it, or being able to stop it...

 

Edit: Almost forgot

Edited March 3, 2016 by Rassah

[Rassah]

On 3/4/2016 at 7:07 PM, Rhíulchabán said:

Rassah just really wants to live in the world of Shadowrun I guess, better get the body bags ready chummer.

[I Did It For The Cat Girls]

[Dr. Doggo]

i just dont see the appeal in replacing the current form of government with a caste of robber barons

[Machine]

Anarchy is like Communism: stupid on paper and even more ineffective when put in action.

[Zaraphayx]

50 minutes ago, I Did It For The Cat Girls said:

Outmeme'd Rassah, RIP GG.

[Vitaly]

21 minutes ago, Machine said:

Anarchy is like Communism

Communism is anarchy.

So I wouldn't be surprised if Rassah keeps a small photo of Trotsky next to his bed.

[MalletFace]

Rassah agrees with the likes of Wobblies, Makhnovists, anarcho-communists, and Diggers more than he would like to admit if his statements in this thread are anything to go by. I guess it makes sense, then, that "libertarian" was mainly used to describe various kinds of communists when the word came into fashion.

Really, though, most strict communists and syndicalists share many beliefs with any kind of anarchist. The main disagreement appears to be in individual vs. group morality and how that should impact social and monetary exchanges once anarchy has been achieved.

[Rassah]

15 hours ago, Sir Gibby said:

i just dont see the appeal in replacing the current form of government with a caste of robber barons

The current form of government IS a caste of robber barons. That's what we're hoping to replace.

14 hours ago, Machine said:

Anarchy is like Communism: stupid on paper and even more ineffective when put in action.

How do you figure? Communism goes against human nature, while anarchy is basically how the internet and open source projects are governed.

@I Did It For The Cat Girls Not a Libertarian, so *shrug*

@MalletFace Actually we AnCaps make fun of communists, because they think things like property is theft, wages are slavery, and have no understanding of economics. Plus they're violent shitheads who think anarchy must be brought about by violent revolution and force (communism can only be enforced by force), while ancaps are basically voluntaryist: you want to join us, great. If not, fine too. Our radical philosophy is wanting to be left alone.

Edited March 9, 2016 by Rassah

[Machine]

Just now, Rassah said:

How do you figure?

In a state of anarchy, there will be someone who will need to come into power, otherwise mass chaos ensues. In a state that "operates" on anarchistic principles, some rudimentary form of government will arise to take charge of a situation or to govern a populace easily frightened by aforementioned chaos. Anarchy will fall because humans will always need someone to lead them, if they won't become leaders themselves.

Just now, Rassah said:

Communism goes against human nature, while anarchy is basically how the internet and open source projects are governed.

What?

[Rassah]

9 minutes ago, Machine said:

In a state of anarchy, there will be someone who will need to come into power, otherwise mass chaos ensues.

I don't follow the logic here. Why? Why can't people just make agreements between each other, and have reputations as being good people. My neighbor and I agree where the property line is and we record it in some public record online, we agree to be nice and civil to each other so our lives are easier, we agree to work for someone in exchange for an agreed upon salary signed in a contract, and we buy goods from companies we know provide good quality. Why would chaos ensue?

9 minutes ago, Machine said:

[anarchy is basically how the internet and open source projects are governed.]

What?

Who is the governor of Internet? Which legislative body passes and polices laws of the internet? Who forces you to pay taxes to the Internet in order to build internet infrastructure?

Edited March 9, 2016 by Rassah

[FlynnCoyote]

11 minutes ago, Rassah said:

I don't follow the logic here. Why? Why can't people just make agreements between each other, and have reputations as being good people. My neighbor and I agree where the property line is and we record it in some public record online, we agree to be nice and civil to each other so our lives are easier, we agree to work for someone in exchange for an agreed upon salary signed in a contract, and we buy goods from companies we know provide good quality. Why would chaos ensue?

Because not everybody would behave so civil if there was no obligation to. Ultimately that's all it comes down to. You want everyone, or at least most people, to behave simply because it's the right thing to do. Inevitably Rassah, it's all going to go to hell and someone will need to start taking control. That's why we have governments in the first place. People simply cannot be trusted on a national scale to hold a system like this together.

[Machine]

2 minutes ago, Rassah said:

Who is the governor of Internet? Which legislative body passes and polices laws of the internet? Who forces you to pay taxes to the Internet in order to build internet infrastructure?

Are you insinuating that anarchists would somehow be able to monopolize the Internet? That's not the first thought that strikes me when I think of the Internet in the context of anarchy.

No, I imagine people hijacking each other's Internet connections is more in line with anarchists and their mode of thought. Up until they completely dismantle service provider HQ's and just fuck up the Internet altogether for everybody, that is.

[Rassah]

5 minutes ago, FlynnCoyote said:

Because not everybody would behave so civil if there was no obligation to. Ultimately that's all it comes down to. 

There's no obligation to now. There's just fear of consequences. Why do those consequences have to be enforced by a government? Why not a private legal system, a reputation system, and in worse case scenario, personal defense? We don't even have a reputation system currently, expecting government to protect us from bad people, so bad people can continue to hide among us and do bad things. Without that government protection, reputation would be necessary, and consequently everyone would have to behave even better than now. Imagine if you could find out whether anyone you deal with - employer, grocery owner, accountant - has a record of doing something bad to someone. If everyone had something like an Amazon product rating and review.

11 minutes ago, FlynnCoyote said:

Inevitably Rassah, it's all going to go to hell and someone will need to start taking control. That's why we have governments in the first place. People simply cannot be trusted on a national scale to hold a system like this together.

The people who take control will be the ones causing hell in the first place. That's why we have government. If people can't be trusted to hold things together, then how can people be trusted to hold things together? That's a circular argument.

5 minutes ago, Machine said:

Are you insinuating that anarchists would somehow be able to monopolize the Internet? 

No, I'm saying the Internet, as it exists now, exists in a state of total anarchy. No one (and no government) is in control, yet rules and standards are still developed and agreed upon, private companies develop and expand the infrastructure, etc. It's a perfect example of how people can still organize and build without anyone in charge.

[Machine]

6 minutes ago, Rassah said:

It's a perfect example of how people can still organize and build without anyone in charge.

But there are people in charge.

Websites, like our forums, have moderators and administrators. And without them, well, every website would just be an Anarcho-FurAffinity until they drowned in shitposts and porn spam. Or, at the very worst, people doxxing each other and throwing personal information all around with no end in sight.

Edited March 9, 2016 by Machine

[PastryOfApathy]

Rassah is still going holy shit lol

[Dr. Doggo]

2 hours ago, Rassah said:

The current form of government IS a caste of robber barons. That's what we're hoping to replace.

replace what you think are robber barons with inevitable actual robber barons, sounds fun

i dont like our governments either, but thats a question of the flaws of the representative system and the actions of our government, not the fact it exists

[Endless/Nameless]

15 hours ago, Machine said:

But there are people in charge.

Websites, like our forums, have moderators and administrators. And without them, well, every website would just be an Anarcho-FurAffinity until they drowned in shitposts and porn spam. Or, at the very worst, people doxxing each other and throwing personal information all around with no end in sight.

@Rassah has said several times before that the version of "anarchy" he supports is not a total lack of authorities, but rather a lack of mandatory servitude. A webforum is a group of people who agree to post together and be under a set of rules enforced by mods; whether or not you choose to be part of (or leave) the governed community is up to your free will. The point he was trying to make about the internet was that it as a whole is governed/regulated by no man; there are individual communities with rules, but there's no overarching "internet police" that everybody is forced to be subject to. Thus, everyone is free do whatever they want with the internet, including make governed communities, creativity unbounded; and nobody can stop or control them. (there are exceptions, such as child pornography and drug trade, but that's kinda beside the point)

Seriously all you guys, you don't have to always agree with Rassah, but at least make intelligent arguments...

[PastryOfApathy]

45 minutes ago, Endless/Nameless said:

Seriously all you guys, you don't have to always agree with Rassah, but at least make intelligent arguments...

Him first.

[Rassah]

22 hours ago, Machine said:

But there are people in charge.

Websites, like our forums, have moderators and administrators. 

Yeah, what @Endless/Nameless said. Basically, anarchy doesn't mean no hierarchy or that no one in charge. Anarcho-Communists are anti hirearchy, wanting everyone to be equal and everything equally decided by everyone, but Anarcho-Capitalists have no issues with hierarchy, whether as someone in charge of their property, or a business having different layers of managers and employees.

22 hours ago, Machine said:

Or, at the very worst, people doxxing each other and throwing personal information all around with no end in sight.

Note there are no laws or regulations against shitposts and doxing. There is no country or elected politicians (or unelected dictators) forcing Phoenix forums to follow some laws. Someone started the site, claimed ownership, and people themselves came up with and agreed on rules. No legal bureaucracy required, just spontaneous order. That's how anarchy works. People get together and set up rules they agree to follow for everyone's benefit, and if someone doesn't follow the rules, they are free to leave.

21 hours ago, Sir Gibby said:

replace what you think are robber barons with inevitable actual robber barons, sounds fun

What we have aren't what I "think" are robber barons, they're actual robber barons. Boeing and Northrop Grumman, Verizon and AT&T (at least until fairly recently), Xfinity and whoever else you have as your single cable option, your power utility company, ExxonMobil and Shell, General Motors, ConAgra and Monsanto, etc. All robber barons, receiving massive subsidies and regulatory protections from government to make billions at our collective expense without any recourse from us or fear of competition. At least the "inevitable actual robber barons" that you fear might come up in my proposed society won't have the full force and backing of a national government to subsidize, protect, and enforce their business policies.

21 hours ago, Sir Gibby said:

I dont like our governments either, but thats a question of the flaws of the representative system and the actions of our government, not the fact it exists

I think it's just the culture and the built-in incentives. "Absolute power corrupts absolutely," "ratchet effect" where once something is passed it usually can't be unpassed so we keep getting more and more restrictions from the left and the right with every election, and that kind of thing. Same problem that's plaguing US cops and is manifesting itself with increasing levels of police brutality and corruption.

But in summary your last statement seems to suggest that government is necessary, but we just need different government. Why not something different from government? How is that not like saying kings are necessary, but we just need a different king, which would have been a common sense statement 400 years ago, but is a crazy idea now?

Edited March 10, 2016 by Rassah

[Machine]

3 minutes ago, Rassah said:

Basically, anarchy doesn't mean no hierarchy or no one in charge. Anarcho-Communists are anti hirearchy, wanting everyone to be equal and everything equally decided by everyone, but Anarcho-Capitalists have no issues with hierarchy, whether as someone in charge of their property, or a business having different layers of managers and employees.

Then why even include "anarchy" in the word.

an·ar·chy

ˈanərkē/

noun

a state of disorder due to absence or nonrecognition of authority.

synonyms: lawlessness, nihilism, mobocracy, revolution, insurrection, disorder,chaos, mayhem, tumult, turmoil

• absence of government and absolute freedom of the individual, regarded as a political ideal.