Voluntarism (Split Thread)
Quote: onenickelmiracleSame MIstake many make who think something simple believed to be fundamental, but don't see the flaws and mischaracterizationS. If this were true as you suggest, not only would such governments exist, they would dominate. However we also know power consolidates and power colludes, and power would corrupt the process of self-regulation. End result would be a takeover destroying the anarchy with a new dichotomy.
I think you think you're saying something but you're not really saying anything.
Your fantasy scenario would topple by it's own weaknesses and overcome by something more stable.Quote: rudeboyoiI think you think you're saying something but you're not really saying anything.
Quote: onenickelmiracleYour fantasy scenario would topple by it's own weaknesses and overcome by something more stable.
Why? Where's your evidence? This very thread provides evidence for me. Even if the members didn't realize they were participating in anarchy they were. What are its weaknesses? What do you mean by stable?
Quote: rudeboyoiWhat are its weaknesses?
I'm the last person to defend the gov, but by doing it this way, despite that dude got shunned, Aye is left without recourse. And as much as it makes me sick to defend our litigious society, at least with it, one has recourse against those who fail to meet their contract requirements.
Bleh. Now I feel dirty...
Quote: FaceI'm the last person to defend the gov, but by doing it this way, despite that dude got shunned, Aye is left without recourse. And as much as it makes me sick to defend our litigious society, at least with it, one has recourse against those who fail to meet their contract requirements.
Bleh. Now I feel dirty...
But at what costs? How much does it cost to have a court system in place in the first place? Idk what the figure is but I can't see it being more cost effective than individuals taking hits and warning the rest of society. And the individual isn't entirely without recourse. Other members of the society may voluntarily offer the individual charity for his loss. Or members of society could pool their money together like an insurance pool in case one of them happens to be defrauded. The interesting thing about fraud is that it tends to be a consensual act so it isn't an act of violence so it isn't okay to defend with violence. Which makes shunning probably the most effective tool to defend against fraud without violating the non-aggression principle.
I believe the idea to be naive. power tends to concentrate and when this happens, your utopia will be corrupted. People aren't good and are selfish to the point they're willing to destroy society to make a buck and others to get by. Anarchy has always existed momentarily as a precursor to rule. It's just natural and it gives way easily.Quote: rudeboyoiWhy? Where's your evidence? This very thread provides evidence for me. Even if the members didn't realize they were participating in anarchy they were. What are its weaknesses? What do you mean by stable?
Quote: onenickelmiracleI believe the idea to be naive. power tends to concentrate and when this happens, your utopia will be corrupted. People aren't good and are selfish to the point they're willing to destroy society to make a buck and others to get by. Anarchy has always existed momentarily as a precursor to rule. It's just natural and it gives way easily.
So your argument for not abolishing the state is That it might be replaced by another state? Let's keep following a flawed strategy because a new strategy might not work so we might end up following our flawed strategy again? Government has always failed and will always continue to fail. The problem with a revolution is that the goal is to replace the government with a new government. The goal is to get rid of the belief that government is necessary. Get rid of the idea that anyone has the right to rule over anyone else. Think about what you're saying when you support government in this country, that a few hundred people in washington know how best hundreds of millions of people in this country should Lead Their lives? It may be difficult to grasp that government isn't necessary since government holds a monopoly on some services it provides so it's hard to imagine there could be an alternative to those services. I'm sure the south was having a difficult time grasping who will pick the cotton if there are no slaves? And yet somehow the cotton got picked after slavery was abolished.
Quote: rudeboyoiSo your argument for not abolishing the state is That it might be replaced by another state? Let's keep following a flawed strategy because a new strategy might not work so we might end up following our flawed strategy again? Government has always failed and will always continue to fail. The problem with a revolution is that the goal is to replace the government with a new government. The goal is to get rid of the belief that government is necessary. Get rid of the idea that anyone has the right to rule over anyone else. Think about what you're saying when you support government in this country, that a few hundred people in washington know how best hundreds of millions of people in this country should Lead Their lives? It may be difficult to grasp that government isn't necessary since government holds a monopoly on some services it provides so it's hard to imagine there could be an alternative to those services. I'm sure the south was having a difficult time grasping who will pick the cotton if there are no slaves? And yet somehow the cotton got picked after slavery was abolished.
Most people are either followers or leaders. It is natural to give power to someone else. Ever been assigned a group project in high school or college? Typically, one person takes charge OR many people put one person in charge.
I've never quite understood how in a stateless society, justice is served if someone commits a crime. If someone stole something of mine, do I seek justice myself? Do I hire someone else to "take him out"? What if I think Joe stole from me but it was really Suzy? Now Joe is laying in a pool of his own blood. Mob rule, if you ask me.
Just because "the state" isn't perfect doesn't mean the exact opposite is a good solution.
When you boil it down, there is a form of government in every community. National, statewide, city, even HOA's in neighborhoods, and the parents in a family. People like rules (some don't). In a stateless society, the first thing people would do is start setting up governments. Neighborhoods would elect the people they want to rule their neighborhood how they want it. You want to live around people with common beliefs as you. I don't want to live in a neighborhood where my neighbor is blasting music all hours of the night, revving their truck engines, and their front yard looking like sh*t.
A stateless society can not and will not work.
Quote: RSMost people are either followers or leaders. It is natural to give power to someone else. Ever been assigned a group project in high school or college? Typically, one person takes charge OR many people put one person in charge.
I've never quite understood how in a stateless society, justice is served if someone commits a crime. If someone stole something of mine, do I seek justice myself? Do I hire someone else to "take him out"? What if I think Joe stole from me but it was really Suzy? Now Joe is laying in a pool of his own blood. Mob rule, if you ask me.
Just because "the state" isn't perfect doesn't mean the exact opposite is a good solution.
When you boil it down, there is a form of government in every community. National, statewide, city, even HOA's in neighborhoods, and the parents in a family. People like rules (some don't). In a stateless society, the first thing people would do is start setting up governments. Neighborhoods would elect the people they want to rule their neighborhood how they want it. You want to live around people with common beliefs as you. I don't want to live in a neighborhood where my neighbor is blasting music all hours of the night, revving their truck engines, and their front yard looking like sh*t.
A stateless society can not and will not work.
A stateless society doesn't mean there won't be rules just that there won't be rulers. An employer/employee relationship is leader/follower relationship but you can withdraw your consent at any time by quitting. You're not forced to work there. There are very few actual crimes and they make up such a small percent of what is considered criminal by law these days. Assault, rape, murder, kidnapping, and theft are crimes. All a crime is is initiating violence against another person or their property. The most effective way to defend against crime is defending yourself. The next most effective way is those in close proximity to you, those also living in your household and your neighbors. The next way is to hire private security to defend against crime for you. What makes crime effective these days is that criminals know that people believe they can depend on the police to protect them and know they will never be there in time even if they do decide to protect you. There's been supreme court decisions that police have no obligation to protect you. The problem is that they have a monopoly on defense so don't have to perform well since they have no competition. With private security they have to perform their services or people will stop hiring them and they will go out of business.
Quote: rudeboyoiFraud isn't a crime because it's consensual. Theft is a crime because it's non-consensual.
"Fraud," or more specifically obtaining property fraudulently, most certainly IS a crime, a subcategory of theft.
See: "NRS 205.0832 Actions which constitute theft.
1. Except as otherwise provided in subsection 2, a person commits theft if, without lawful authority, the person knowingly:
(c) Obtains real, personal or intangible property or the services of another person by a material misrepresentation with intent to deprive that person of the property or services. As used in this paragraph, “material misrepresentation” means the use of any pretense, or the making of any promise, representation or statement of present, past or future fact which is fraudulent and which, when used or made, is instrumental in causing the wrongful control or transfer of property or services. The pretense may be verbal or it may be a physical act."
"Consent" has nothing to do with it, just as consent is not a defense to statutory rape.
Quote: MrV"Fraud," or more specifically obtaining property fraudulently, most certainly IS a crime, a subcategory of theft.
See: "NRS 205.0832 Actions which constitute theft.
1. Except as otherwise provided in subsection 2, a person commits theft if, without lawful authority, the person knowingly:
(c) Obtains real, personal or intangible property or the services of another person by a material misrepresentation with intent to deprive that person of the property or services. As used in this paragraph, “material misrepresentation” means the use of any pretense, or the making of any promise, representation or statement of present, past or future fact which is fraudulent and which, when used or made, is instrumental in causing the wrongful control or transfer of property or services. The pretense may be verbal or it may be a physical act."
"Consent" has nothing to do with it, just as consent is not a defense to statutory rape.
Sigh... I don't care what the law says. By law slavery wasn't considered a crime. Use logic not some scribbles on a piece of paper to form an argument.
Fraud involves trickery and deceit.
Where "logically" is the "consent" in a fraud case?
Oh sure, there is overt action, but that isn't consent.
Please clarify the point you are attempting to make.
If I have a sale in my store, too good to pass up, and you come in and ask me to hold your check for 30 days and you will have the funds in your bank to cover the check you are writing today---and I agree---come that 31st day if you don't and the check bounces, that is a crime. Same as the casino marker deal.
BTW, I borrow large sums of money from my commercial bank and I sign papers that if I lie, misrepresent any facts in my financials or applications or misconstrue anything factual I could be prosecuted for a crime relating to bank fraud and obtaining funds under false pretenses. I just read through them the other day. This is a normal course of business, if I didn't agree I would not sign to it nor would I borrow from a lender that wants me to commit to telling the truth and being accountable for it.
You get jail for boosting a pack of Tums, but nothing happens when you stiff a white collar professional by not paying a bill for services rendered.
Seems unfair; all who owe and don't pay should be punished.
Get rid of bankruptcy: it only enables the weak and the lame.
We never should have made debtor's prisons unconstitutional.
Heck, if we brought back Poor Farms we'd help solve the homeless problem, and unwed welfare mothers could become productive citizens instead of sponges.
No wonder you wind up in the pokey with thoughts like that. Consensual means both people agree not being coerced threatened or deceived.Quote: rudeboyoiFraud isn't a crime because it's consensual. Theft is a crime because it's non-consensual.
Quote: MrVHow are you using logic to defend your position?
Fraud involves trickery and deceit.
Where "logically" is the "consent" in a fraud case?
Oh sure, there is overt action, but that isn't consent.
Please clarify the point you are attempting to make.
The casino consented to loan him money. Whether they get paid back or not is the risk they assume when loaning the guy the money. If he pays back then loan him money again. If he doesn't pay back then you probably shouldnt loan him money again and should probably tell others not to loan him money again either.
A non-consensual act would be if he went in with a gun and stole money from the cage.
In both examples he ends up with their money but in one example the casino wasn't forced into giving them their money and in the other example was.
Quote: rudeboyoiI think it's important to help others understand that the law is nothing more than some people making scribbles on pieces of paper threatening other people with violence if they choose not to obey those scribbles on a piece of paper. Whether you choose to obey or disobey those scribbles is up to you but they hold no weight in an intellectual discussion. If the law said the earth was flat it doesn't make it so.
So you think fraud is OK?
Quote: RSSo you think fraud is OK?
I don't think fraud is a crime since it's consensual. So you defend against fraud by yelping and shunning. Not with violence.
Quote: rudeboyoiI don't think fraud is a crime since it's consensual. So you defend against fraud by yelping and shunning. Not with violence.
What constitutes "crime" to you?
The Law is flexible, and is used to regulate society.
We make the law: it is us.
Most of us understand that we must moderate our behavior sometimes, for the good of the order.
Some don't, and we have a place for them: prison.
A society without law would by definition be lawless, and unacceptable to all but a few crazies.
If you don't like a particular law, or societal convention, then you should work to change it; don't just complain on a message board that the world isn't the way you want it to be.
Quote: rudeboyoiI don't think fraud is a crime since it's consensual. So you defend against fraud by yelping and shunning. Not with violence.
So you hire a contractor to build your house, or a backyard pool, and later discover serious flaws.
So you just lose thousands of dollars if they refuse fix it or reimburse?
So feel free to do that, and please try to refrain from carrying this debate across multiple threads as has been happening. It makes things confusing.
Quote: Baccaratfrom79Some of you guys seem to want the casino to grant you markers and if you win you might pay it back and if you don't win, then it would be considered a civil matter and not criminal. It is simple, their markers are only an advance to your check writing privileges and no one twisted your arm to get it. The players asks for it, applies for it and consents to their rules governing the matter.
If I have a sale in my store, too good to pass up, and you come in and ask me to hold your check for 30 days and you will have the funds in your bank to cover the check you are writing today---and I agree---come that 31st day if you don't and the check bounces, that is a crime. Same as the casino marker deal.
BTW, I borrow large sums of money from my commercial bank and I sign papers that if I lie, misrepresent any facts in my financials or applications or misconstrue anything factual I could be prosecuted for a crime relating to bank fraud and obtaining funds under false pretenses. I just read through them the other day. This is a normal course of business, if I didn't agree I would not sign to it nor would I borrow from a lender that wants me to commit to telling the truth and being accountable for it.
This is not true at all. Bounced checks are not enforcible if they are post dated. When a check is post dated it is nothing more than a promissory note. A promissory note is a civil matter unless you can prove fraud.
Eta: sorry face, did not see your message until after I replied.
Quote: rxwineSo you hire a contractor to build your house, or a backyard pool, and later discover serious flaws.
So you just lose thousands of dollars if they refuse fix it or reimburse?
If they refuse to fix it or reimburse you for it you let others know so they can decide whether or not to hire this contractor in the future. And it goes both ways if the contractor did a good job you can let other people know so others will seek out that contractor in the future. You assume the risk by hiring this contractor whether they're competent or not. If this risk isn't worth it to you then pay someone to insure you against that risk.
Quote: GWAEThis is not true at all. Bounced checks are not enforcible if they are post dated. When a check is post dated it is nothing more than a promissory note. A promissory note is a civil matter unless you can prove fraud.
Eta: sorry face, did not see your message until after I replied.
Where did I say "postdated", first of all when I had my retail store and auto shops I would never allow a local person to postdate, todays date and I will hold it, per county attorney was very prosecutable. And as far as casino's, the ones I personally know people signing markers, they ACH/EFT the pay back check, per se no post dating either.
Quote: rudeboyoiIf they refuse to fix it or reimburse you for it you let others know so they can decide whether or not to hire this contractor in the future. And it goes both ways if the contractor did a good job you can let other people know so others will seek out that contractor in the future. You assume the risk by hiring this contractor whether they're competent or not. If this risk isn't worth it to you then pay someone to insure you against that risk.
You're arguing that someone who frauds (or defrauds?) people shouldn't go to prison, correct? Does that mean you think it is OK for people to do this?
What would you do if someone did something like that to you? ie: You pay for someone to dig you a pool and make it and all that.....and they don't do a sufficient job.
Quote: RSYou're arguing that someone who frauds (or defrauds?) people shouldn't go to prison, correct? Does that mean you think it is OK for people to do this?
What would you do if someone did something like that to you? ie: You pay for someone to dig you a pool and make it and all that.....and they don't do a sufficient job.
I don't think anyone should be locked in a cage. I don't think it's okay to defraud others but that doesn't mean violence should be used against them for deciding to defraud others.
I prob wouldn't insure against the risk. If he did a poor job I'd ask him first to fix it. If he refused to fix it I wouldn't give him any more action and persuade others to do the same.
Quote: RonCWhat constitutes "crime" to you?
A crime is initiating violence against a person or their property without their consent.
Like mutual combat isn't a crime but assault is and fraud isn't a crime but theft is.
So what about when someone cons and lies to someone like an elderly person? IE lottery scams where they make fake lottery tickets and they get multiple people involved, like fake church leaders?Quote: rudeboyoiI don't think fraud is a crime since it's consensual. So you defend against fraud by yelping and shunning. Not with violence.
Quote: AxelWolfSo what about when someone cons and lies to someone like an elderly person? IE lottery scams where they make fake lottery tickets and they get multiple people involved, like fake church leaders?
Theyd be more shunworthy than like the bum that lies about needing bus fare to get a bottle.
Quote: rudeboyoiI don't think anyone should be locked in a cage. I don't think it's okay to defraud others but that doesn't mean violence should be used against them for deciding to defraud others.
I prob wouldn't insure against the risk. If he did a poor job I'd ask him first to fix it. If he refused to fix it I wouldn't give him any more action and persuade others to do the same.
It sounds like a great idea (actually....never mind no it doesn't). But in reality, it isn't that easy. What if I'm in the pool building business, and to get rid of my competitors I pay people to spread bad things about them....or I pay people to give other people a recommendation for me, even though I'm just gonna f*** people over? I'd really just be stealing people's money without doing any work...and according to you, that's all fine and dandy, except a bad recommendation or two.
PS: Look at reviews on yelp or the iTunes store....you'll find some ridiculous stuff there. People actually giving McDonalds 0/5 stars on reviews because the food is unhealthy....or people complaining about some app because they are too stupid to figure out how to run it.
Like with most of your Utopian/anarchist/do-whatever-spirit/cop shared criminals posts......it works a lot better in theory but in reality it doesn't.
Quote: RS
Like with most of your Utopian/anarchist/do-whatever-spirit/cop shared criminals posts......it works a lot better in theory but in reality it doesn't.
Actually sounds a lot like Liberalism as well.
Quote: RSIt sounds like a great idea (actually....never mind no it doesn't). But in reality, it isn't that easy. What if I'm in the pool building business, and to get rid of my competitors I pay people to spread bad things about them....or I pay people to give other people a recommendation for me, even though I'm just gonna f*** people over? I'd really just be stealing people's money without doing any work...and according to you, that's all fine and dandy, except a bad recommendation or two.
PS: Look at reviews on yelp or the iTunes store....you'll find some ridiculous stuff there. People actually giving McDonalds 0/5 stars on reviews because the food is unhealthy....or people complaining about some app because they are too stupid to figure out how to run it.
Like with most of your Utopian/anarchist/do-whatever-spirit/cop shared criminals posts......it works a lot better in theory but in reality it doesn't.
Lol my idea isn't utopian. The state is a utopian idea. That you can regulate people's behavior and control how they interact with each other in order to achieve a perfect society. People aren't meant to be controlled. Just let them interact with each other.
had you invested your life savings with Bernie Madoff you'd sing a different tune.
I am libertarian and even I recognize the need for, the place for, laws and regulations to govern human behavior and commerce.
It's a wicked world, and left to their own devices, people would behave wickedly.
Quote: MrVSo in your world, fraud isn't a crime?
had you invested your life savings with Bernie Madoff you'd sing a different tune.
I am libertarian and even I recognize the need for, the place for, laws and regulations to govern human behavior and commerce.
It's a wicked world, and left to their own devices, people would behave wickedly.
It's just such a ridiculous notion you defend. The state robs and murders more people than anyone else! Look at taxation. Look at war. And you think well in order to prevent people from robbing and killing each other we need a group of people to rob and kill each other. That is what you're arguing. Anarchy is no guarantee that some people won't do bad stuff. Having a state is a guarantee that some people will do bad stuff and on a massive scale!
Quote: rudeboyoiHaving a state is a guarantee that some people will do bad stuff and on a massive scale!
That's a matter of opinion...or perhaps perspective.
Quote: MrVSo in your world, fraud isn't a crime?
had you invested your life savings with Bernie Madoff you'd sing a different tune.
I am libertarian and even I recognize the need for, the place for, laws and regulations to govern human behavior and commerce.
It's a wicked world, and left to their own devices, people would behave wickedly.
Excellent statement MrV!
Quote: rudeboyoiIve been thinking about a topic to discuss that would be more appropriate for this forum. With all the game inventors here I thought it might be interesting to talk about the idea of intellectual property. My stance is that there is no such thing as intellectual property.
Well, to some degree, intellectual property is free after a period of time.
Writing a novel would be worthless if someone else just started printing it as soon as it was done.
edit -- and there was no recourse.
Quote: rxwineWell, to some degree, intellectual property is free after a period of time.
Writing a novel would be worthless if someone else just started printing it as soon as it was done.
edit -- and there was no recourse.
The words of the novel itself are just an idea. A very lengthy idea but still just an idea. The physical novel itself would be considered property but the words contained within would not. You'd have to persuade others to only purchase from the author/their publisher and not from other sources. The other sources are the fraudsters.
Not usually because the person getting defrauded isn't given the true facts, its theft by deception. You seem to be treating it like a bad investment.Quote: rudeboyoiThe interesting thing about fraud is that it tends to be a consensual act
Using your "act of violence so it isn't okay to defend with violence" What would you do with a person and a child abuse scenario? A young child might be a willing participant in a deplorable non violent act. Someone young or not capable of understanding could be brain washed ,groomed, tricked, conned etc etc.
Are you telling me a pedophile shouldn't be jailed(or worst) if 9 year old kid agreed?
Quote: AxelWolfNot usually because the person getting defrauded isn't given the true facts, its theft by deception. You seem to be treating it like a bad investment.
Using your "act of violence so it isn't okay to defend with violence" What would you do with a person and a child abuse scenario? A young child might be a willing participant in a deplorable non violent act. Someone young or not capable of understanding could be brain washed ,groomed, tricked, conned etc etc.
Are you telling me a pedophile shouldn't be jailed(or worst) if 9 year old kid agreed?
In order to defend against pedophilia you would have to consider children property of their "parents". That way property can't give consent and it would be a violation of another's property if someone else did something to them. Also considering them property makes the idea of abortion okay. When a child is considered an adult its always going to be an arbitrary number with or without laws. It's going to be a function of how the parents/child/community feel. As the child is young the parents play the most important factor and less important as the child ages. Like 18 is considered an adult in this country. For me personally I feel like a 16yr old banging a 12yr old is much much worse than a 20yr old banging a 16yr old even though the first might be considered legal and the second might not.
Quote: rudeboyoiIt's going to be a function of how the parents/child/community feel.
This doesn't answer the question posed.
The community feels it is wrong. What then?
