Big Head Press Forum

Online Comics => Escape From Terra => Topic started by: SandySandfort on April 26, 2011, 08:12:47 am

Title: ZAP!!!
Post by: SandySandfort on April 26, 2011, 08:12:47 am
Let's talk about the ZAP. In this discussion, I would like to relate the ZAP primarily to the EFT universe, but reference to the real world, for illustrative purposes would be fine. For starters, let's use the following explanation of the ZAP as our primary definition. If we want to get off onto discussions of nuances, fine, but the basic formulation will be as explained in this animation:

     http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lXkydzqPC6M
Title: Re: ZAP!!!
Post by: Holt on April 26, 2011, 10:45:25 am
The ZAP is best described as such: An ideal completely removed from reality.
Title: Re: ZAP!!!
Post by: spudit on April 26, 2011, 11:16:33 am
Cool video Sandy, I does explain it well.

And Holt is right as well. It really is an idea completly removed from his personal subjective reality, it suits the other six billion of us just fine.

But as pointed out it is a personal responsibility thing and you must be willing to be judged as a responsable person.

The term reasonable turns up in the courts a lot and does seem related. I wonder if you could put on your lawyer hat and help the slower students connect them since reasonable applies here too.

To misquote Dirty Harry from memory, when I see a naked man with a butcher knife ... chasing a screaming woman down an alley, I don't assume he's collecting for the Red Cross.
Title: Re: ZAP!!!
Post by: Holt on April 26, 2011, 11:41:16 am
Actually I would say it is suited for maybe a few million overall. But in actual practical application? a few hundred at the very most. You could apply it to a community but you'd have to find ways to seal said community off from the rest of the world.
Title: Re: ZAP!!!
Post by: happycrow on April 26, 2011, 12:06:06 pm
Why?
Title: Re: ZAP!!!
Post by: Holt on April 26, 2011, 12:21:06 pm
Well at its heart the ZAP requires the majority to adhere to it and for that majority to be great enough that the minority can be subdued with force.
Unfortunately this is unlikely to be the case as if you present an opportunity people will exploit it. All it takes is for a few people to realise that if they work together they can plunder with minimal risk to themselves. Once one group does it more such groups will form. Eventually these groups will be bribed into leaving people alone. A while after that they may take to protecting the ones bribing them. Then come rules from the boss as he gets bored. After a few generations you go down the road to repeating the development of modern government complete with a period of tyranny followed by a period of democracy followed by the mix of both that the civilised world employs (note that in this regard the USA is not classed as being part of the civilised world)
Title: Re: ZAP!!!
Post by: J Thomas on April 26, 2011, 12:46:13 pm
Quote
Quote
Quote from: J Thomas on April 25, 2011, 11:31:01 PM
Sometimes it's less clear. If the other guy has been aggressing against me there might be some circumstance where it's appropriate for me to punch him in the nose in response.

Sloppy, sloppy use of language and sloppy critical thinking. Let me red letter it for you. There are several formulations, but for our purposes here, L. Neil Smith's should do. "No human being has the right, under ANY circumstances, to initiate force against another human being, nor to advocate or delegate its initiation."

In your almost-a-scenario, you use the wiggle word, "aggression," without any clear definition. If your guy has verbally "aggressed" against you my saying that your mother wears army boots, there is no "force," so you would unequivocally be violating the ZAP if you punched him in the nose. If he had "initiated" (i.e., started it) "force" (i.e., physical aggression) against you, it would have been he who violated the ZAP.

Now, there are nuances. Fraud is usually included with the initiation of force, as is the threat of force, but for most situations, the key words are initiate and force. Got it? [/quote]

Sure. But there's a great big gray area with a slippery slope on it. I think that gets a lot narrower when people agree about common sense, and a community of like-minded individuals can probably do just fine.

So, here's a silly example.

You own a large plot with a nice home and a lot of trees. One day you are busy writing when you hear a chain saw nearby. You check on it, and there's this weird-looking skinny guy cutting down your trees. Being a level-headed sort, you ask him what he's doing.

"Some idiot is harboring dangerous trees here. They're a public danger, and I'm cutting themk down before they do more damage."

He's on your land cutting down your trees. At a minimum you deserve to take him to arbitration to get it established that he has no right to do that. But if you just argue with him about arbitration he'll cut down every tree you have before you can get it organized. Do you have a right to stop him by threat of physical force? I say you do. Probably better to stand back with a firearm and threaten him, since he is running a chain saw at the moment.

He then claims that you threatened physical force against him when you had no right to do that. It goes to arbitration. The arbitrator listens to him talk about the danger of allowing trees, and listens to you point out that it's your property, and I strongly expect the arbitrator will decide in your favor.

But what if it wasn't trees, but malaria-carrying mosquitoes? Lots of Americans agree that it's OK for the Public Health Service to come onto people's property and demand that they eliminate mosquito nesting sites, because in places with malaria or avian encephalitis etc it really is a public danger. If there wasn't any Public Health Service I'd figure anybody who knows that you're raising mosquitoes that leave your property has a right to make you stop. And if they are draining your mosquito breeding areas and you point a gun at them, or even shoot them?

Somewhere between cutting down your trees and killing your mosquitoes, there's something that's real real iffy, where reasonable people could go either way.

I say that when that issue comes up, reasonable people can find a reasonable way to handle it. Things like that don't in any way invalidate ZAP. But ZAP does not tell you which side to take when it's all iffy and debatable whether somebody is aggressing at you or instead protecting the public from your aggression. It can't do that, and we can't expect it to.

So, again, when we decide what's aggression and what isn't, whether it's you initiating force against him, or him initiating force against your trees, or your mosquitoes initiating force against everybody whose blood they spit into and then suck, the ZAP does not tell us what to choose. We have to depend on common sense and reason and so on to come up with good answers, and the ZAP can't substitute for common sense.
Title: Re: ZAP!!!
Post by: SandySandfort on April 26, 2011, 12:47:37 pm
The term reasonable turns up in the courts a lot and does seem related. I wonder if you could put on your lawyer hat and help the slower students connect them since reasonable applies here too.

The "reasonable person" (formerly the "reasonable man," when dinosaurs ruled the earth) is a useful legal fiction that allows a jury or judge to use the "what the fuck was he thinking?" test. In your example, the reasonable person would be correct in assuming the naked guy with the knife was up to no good. So, if he were to shoot the guy, to stop him from killing the woman, most juries would impute the initiation of force or the threat of force to the knife guy, not the woman running and screaming in terror.

The Wikipedia's article is pretty good:

https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/wiki/Reasonable_man
Title: Re: ZAP!!!
Post by: SandySandfort on April 26, 2011, 12:59:43 pm
So, here's a silly example.

You own a large plot with a nice home and a lot of trees. One day you are busy writing when you hear a chain saw nearby. You check on it, and there's this weird-looking skinny guy cutting down your trees. Being a level-headed sort, you ask him what he's doing.

"Some idiot is harboring dangerous trees here. They're a public danger, and I'm cutting themk down before they do more damage."

He's on your land cutting down your trees. At a minimum you deserve to take him to arbitration to get it established that he has no right to do that. But if you just argue with him about arbitration he'll cut down every tree you have before you can get it organized. Do you have a right to stop him by threat of physical force? I say you do. Probably better to stand back with a firearm and threaten him, since he is running a chain saw at the moment.

He then claims that you threatened physical force against him when you had no right to do that. It goes to arbitration. The arbitrator listens to him talk about the danger of allowing trees, and listens to you point out that it's your property, and I strongly expect the arbitrator will decide in your favor.

But what if it wasn't trees, but malaria-carrying mosquitoes? Lots of Americans agree that it's OK for the Public Health Service to come onto people's property and demand that they eliminate mosquito nesting sites, because in places with malaria or avian encephalitis etc it really is a public danger. If there wasn't any Public Health Service I'd figure anybody who knows that you're raising mosquitoes that leave your property has a right to make you stop. And if they are draining your mosquito breeding areas and you point a gun at them, or even shoot them?

Somewhere between cutting down your trees and killing your mosquitoes, there's something that's real real iffy, where reasonable people could go either way.

I say that when that issue comes up, reasonable people can find a reasonable way to handle it. Things like that don't in any way invalidate ZAP. But ZAP does not tell you which side to take when it's all iffy and debatable whether somebody is aggressing at you or instead protecting the public from your aggression. It can't do that, and we can't expect it to.

So, again, when we decide what's aggression and what isn't, whether it's you initiating force against him, or him initiating force against your trees, or your mosquitoes initiating force against everybody whose blood they spit into and then suck, the ZAP does not tell us what to choose. We have to depend on common sense and reason and so on to come up with good answers, and the ZAP can't substitute for common sense.

The short answer to your question is that the Chainsaw is initiating force and you have a right to use (reasonable) force to stop him. If he takes you to arbitration after than, what stopped him from taking you to arbitration in the first place? This suggests your special pleading so you can have your cake and it it to. First, arbitration does not occur to him, then it does. Please.

For some insight into the problem of "helpful neighbors" or government flunkies, look up "officious intermeddler."
Title: Re: ZAP!!!
Post by: J Thomas on April 26, 2011, 03:43:10 pm

The short answer to your question is that the Chainsaw is initiating force and you have a right to use (reasonable) force to stop him.

I agree with you when it's your trees. When it's your tin cans and old tires that are full of rainwater and mosquitoes, I disagree. Somewhere in between there's a case where I can't decide.

Quote
If he takes you to arbitration after than, what stopped him from taking you to arbitration in the first place?

In the silly example with the crazy person, he thought the trees were too much of an immediate threat to wait for due process. He chose your trees instead of somebody else's trees because that's where he happened to be when he got his chainsaw running.

In the example where you have a disease-breeding garbage dump on your property, he does a public service to clean it up and one of the easier ways to find out who the vandal is who owns the dump is to see who shows up and claims it. Maybe they'll help clean it up when they see the problem. Common sense says it's better to talk with them first before starting arbitration -- maybe it won't need arbitration.
Title: Re: ZAP!!!
Post by: quadibloc on April 26, 2011, 03:53:36 pm
First, arbitration does not occur to him, then it does.
Perhaps the point is that the ZAP itself doesn't spell out the need for arbitration, or the relationship between arbitration and the ZAP.

So there is some additional principle, which governs how arbitration will work, that one needs to understand to be able to know what kind of a society one is going to be living in - what kind of rules one will have to obey - that provides information not visible from the ZAP alone.
Title: Re: ZAP!!!
Post by: SandySandfort on April 26, 2011, 04:37:26 pm
First, arbitration does not occur to him, then it does.
Perhaps the point is that the ZAP itself doesn't spell out the need for arbitration, or the relationship between arbitration and the ZAP.

So there is some additional principle, which governs how arbitration will work, that one needs to understand to be able to know what kind of a society one is going to be living in - what kind of rules one will have to obey - that provides information not visible from the ZAP alone.

That is where the common sense comes in. The basic statement of the ZAP is a very good first approximation, but rational people must still connect the dots. So you have to look for solutions that make sense and that do not violate the ZAP. If you are creative, there may be many solutions that make sense without violating the ZAP. Having to think them up is in no way failure of the ZAP, just a test of your powers of reasoning.

You did just that when you wisely noted that before anyone goes to arbitration, just talking with the other party should be the first step. That strategy neither violates or obviates arbitration or the ZAP. Since most everyday interactions in life do not involve the initiation of force, it is no surprise that reference to the ZAP is rarely necessary. Most people, most of the time interact voluntarily and live by the ZAP without even putting a name on it. Huh, how about that?
Title: Re: ZAP!!!
Post by: Holt on April 26, 2011, 04:40:13 pm
You keep coming back to this "rational people" thing. The problem there is your definition of rational is pretty much "people who agree with me" ok that's what a lot of people have rational set as but you're a minority within a minority. The number of folk who agree with you is gonna be rather small.
Title: Re: ZAP!!!
Post by: J Thomas on April 26, 2011, 05:03:42 pm
You keep coming back to this "rational people" thing. The problem there is your definition of rational is pretty much "people who agree with me" ok that's what a lot of people have rational set as but you're a minority within a minority. The number of folk who agree with you is gonna be rather small.

That's a problem in general when people try to make simple principles.

Like, lots of people agree that if they're going to have a government, that government should be responsible to the citizens. It shouldn't be a government imposed on citizens that forces them to do things they don't want. It is responsible to them, and if they don't like what it does they have the right to change it.

It's a clear simple obvious principle that ought to apply to governments.

But in practice, in the USA we say that the US government satisfies this principle because every 2 years you get to vote. There are usually at least two choices to vote between, and you get to choose which of those two people helps make the laws that will bind you. And every 4 years you get to vote for the President who may select Supreme Court judges for life. Therefore the government has fulfilled its obligation to you.

If the government does things you don't like, all you need to do is vote for people who will stop that. If there aren't good candidates running or they don't get enough votes then the citizens must like the system the way it is.

It's a simple clear obvious principle which I believe is a good one.

But in the USA we make a sick joke of practicing it.
Title: Re: ZAP!!!
Post by: Holt on April 26, 2011, 06:06:31 pm
Aye. Unfortunately for you, you don't yet have a history of an openly tyrannical government from which to push the USA from a democratic republic (an inevitably corrupt and decadent system) to a mixed system where you balance a tyrant, the will of the people and an elected government. I make a point of endorsing any one system but I can't deny that constitutional monarchy and similar systems seem to be good performers. Whether this is due to the regions they tend to hail from or the system itself I can't say.
Title: Re: ZAP!!!
Post by: spudit on April 26, 2011, 09:01:41 pm
I used the term reasonable rather than rational, realistic or whatever, because most of us here are in or from countries with English Common Law traditions. There must be a good level of agreement or understanding within that tradition. It seemed like one of those most useful of tools, a well defined word.  Will it work?

Except for this one guy who seems especially cranky because his royal wedding invitation got lost in the mail. Bummer Holt, and I hear there's gonna be some killer free food too.

Lets try something between trees and mosquitoes, livestock, noisy smelly, crap all over the place and draw flies, sheep maybe. Or maybe just an endlessly barking dog who's replacement value as property, which is all current law allows, is say fifty bucks at the shelter. Both have value as do trees, but such big eyes too.

Did that clarify or complicate?
Title: Re: ZAP!!!
Post by: Holt on April 26, 2011, 09:17:39 pm
Like I'd want to go to that wedding. They invited the fucking Beckhams. I mean by the Omnissiah that's just going to be more trouble than it's worth.
But really I invite you to go and establish the anarchy of your dreams. If it is as superior as you claim then it should be easy to do.
Title: Re: ZAP!!!
Post by: spudit on April 26, 2011, 09:40:20 pm
Of course in my fictional example, the guy watching the man chase the woman was Dirty Harry, so certainly he would have Tazered or maced the poor confused fellow until he could be helped by a social worker.  ;D

I'd intended to start a thread about small scale AnCap and such, which does work everywhere, but reality intruded and the next few weeks look to be damned hectic. I won't have the time. If anyone else wants to post the topic please do, it relates to Friend Holt and other's ascertian that it can only work in a small tight knit community of special folks. I disagree; unsupervised people do it everywhere.

The video was right to point out a link to the do unto others concept. Hard to pick apart or discredit that source or it's Chinese mirror image. It comes down to culture and definitions, at least in part. To me Holt's penis replacement is assumed to be a defensive tool, to my brothers in Chicago it is an offensive weapon. It's the difference between the means and intent to help or hurt but it's still the same 2 pounds of steel just sitting there.
Title: Re: ZAP!!!
Post by: spudit on April 26, 2011, 09:44:40 pm
No Holt, I wish the kids well but I got my own special ceremony planned. Can't do both.
Title: Re: ZAP!!!
Post by: Holt on April 26, 2011, 09:52:36 pm
I guess you mean just normal unregulated trade?
Proves nothing really.
Title: Re: ZAP!!!
Post by: spudit on April 26, 2011, 10:38:30 pm
Nope, Holt.

This particular thread is about the ethics of shooting people not selling bullets. Big difference. It's about why we assume you don't grope women in an unmonitored lift without a cop or a camera to keep you from doing so. Your word against hers and who's to know or prove a damned thing?

And that unstarted thread for talk among'st I mentioned is about how uncoreced young people get up to to give their seats to old folks. I remember seeing a young Nation of Islam man in Chicago get up to give his seat to an old white woman. She said thank you, he said you are welcome Ma'am. This is Lewis Farakan's sect, which pretty much believe honkies really are the devil incarnate, but there is no need to rude about it.

Given the chance people will self organize into well scaled groups to accomplish a task be it a garden club or a bucket brigade. I like that. The problems come when outside forces screw with it, the club shall be so large with these people, the buckets no more than 4 gallons with people no less than one (1) meter apart. Up them, we are grownups.

Holt, Fact is our cultures are so messed up and we with them that it's hard to imagine a different way. Imagine this nonsense spouted here can and does work out, the future would look back at us like, well like they did in Timepeeper.

You wanna start and run and hold the off switch for that thread?
Title: Re: ZAP!!!
Post by: Aardvark on April 27, 2011, 06:20:35 am
Okay, I saw the Youtube explanation of ZAP and read the wikipedia article of the reasonable man. A few things come to mind:

If there is nothing else in place, I see no reason why this system wouldn't work for a while in relative isolation, then begin to break down along the same lines as almost any other system of government. The potential for corruption in Cererean society is as great, if not more so, than anything else.

Let me explain. It seems that the system of the "reasonable man" is being substituted for written law. As long as a society overwhelmingly consists of "reasonable men" and "reasonable women" who hold the same concept of what is reasonable, then all is well and good, but without something more than that, the same forces that transformed America into something the founding fathers would recoil in horror from, would, I believe, affect Cererean society in much the same way. Corrupt people would eventually figure out how to game the system.

To say that Cererean society has no government is, I believe, a fiction. The government consists of the arbiters, who have final control. In some ways they're similar to roving judges of the old West, except perhaps they are more powerful, with less oversight.

Once people figure out that they can create some dispute and then bribe the arbiter to take their side, corruption has taken over. The system fails.

Once a group of arbiters decide that society would be best served by obeying some higher set of rules to benefit the greatest number, such as the example with the trees that might carry mosquitoes or the potential prostitute who might infect a client, Cererean society treads on dangerous ground. Every decision an arbiter makes sets a precedent. If an arbiter rules for the man who is cutting down his neighbor's trees, effectively, everyone now knows that one can't own trees of a certain variety, and if the arbiter rules that a infected prostitute must be isolated or other wise restrained from her occupation of choice, everyone will understand that prostitutes must now meet certain health regulations or fail the "reasonable" test. Suddenly, there are laws, even if they don't call them that. The system fails.

There is nothing to stop arbiters from compassionate rulings. A man is executed in the Belt. His offspring are too young to be adults, but no one wants to adopt them except a member of NAMBLA. Now, the man hasn't done anything yet, but .... Does it pass the "reasonable man" test to order that kids should be raised by a likely abuser? I think not! The compassionate arbiter either sets up an orphanage, or creates a fund to have someone do foster care. Who's going to pay for this state-sponsored welfare? It will be anyone around who has the pockets to cough up the gold. Suddenly, the Belters have to pay taxes for an arbiter's decision. The system fails.

Like Thomas Paine and others have said, government is a necessary evil. The founders tried to set up a system of limited federal government. It's only purpose was to defend the nation and make sure the states allowed the free flow of trade. It also had to follow and enforce certain "natural laws," those individual rights in the Constitution. The American system worked tolerably well for a while. It started to fail when the citizens grew complacent and allowed the moochers and the takers to sweet talk their way into power. It was a very gradual process at first. Now these corrupt men and women openly bribe their constituents with other people's money and hold the people in contempt.

The lesson to be learned here is not that government is evil. It is, but some government is unfortunately necessary for one or two things. The lesson is not to call all governments evil, fascist and so forth, but to learn how keep it to its absolute minimum. It's vital to understand how governments go corrupt and grow into monstrosities that rule the people rather than the other way around, and find ways to prevent it from happening again and again, and how to reverse or start over if necessary.
Title: Re: ZAP!!!
Post by: SandySandfort on April 27, 2011, 05:08:25 pm
Okay, I saw the Youtube explanation of ZAP and read the wikipedia article of the reasonable man. A few things come to mind:

If there is nothing else in place, I see no reason why this system wouldn't work for a while in relative isolation, then begin to break down along the same lines as almost any other system of government. The potential for corruption in Cererean society is as great, if not more so, than anything else.

First, this is not a "system of government" so there is no reason to assume it would "break down" (whatever that means in this context) like a government. On the issue of corruption, you are dead wrong. Only in systems where the system of dispute resolution has the power to initiate force to enforce its rulings is institutional corruption a serious problem.

Let me explain. It seems that the system of the "reasonable man" is being substituted for written law. As long as a society overwhelmingly consists of "reasonable men" and "reasonable women" who hold the same concept of what is reasonable, then all is well and good, but without something more than that, the same forces that transformed America into something the founding fathers would recoil in horror from, would, I believe, affect Cererean society in much the same way. Corrupt people would eventually figure out how to game the system.

Here's your problem. You think the concept of the "reasonable person" is some sort of popularity contest. The "reasonable person" is a word of art in the common law. Suffice it to say, it doesn't mean what you appear to think it means. It doesn't even require reasonable people to apply it (though it helps).

Even if your interpretation were true, I think most people adhere to beliefs are are in the main "reasonable." Edge cases may make resolution a bit more difficult, but as long as the guiding principles are self-ownership and the ZAP, the actions of the "reasonable person" are relatively easy to deduce. Even people who do not think the ZAP is a good idea, could probably apply it correctly, if asked to. (The EFT Peanut Gallery of Ignoramuses to the contrary, notwithstanding. You know who they are.)

To say that Cererean society has no government is, I believe, a fiction. The government consists of the arbiters, who have final control. In some ways they're similar to roving judges of the old West, except perhaps they are more powerful, with less oversight.

I don't think you have been paying attention in this regard. What "control" and "power" do you think arbiters have beyond moral suasion and the respect of the community? The loser in an arbitration always has the power to disregard the arbiter's ruling. Not a good idea, but an option. However the winning party who is thereby stiffed, still can use force against the loser. Said loser would clearly be estopped from seeking arbitration himself.

Once people figure out that they can create some dispute and then bribe the arbiter to take their side, corruption has taken over. The system fails.

Then by your own standards, the system of state-run dispute resolution has failed, because judges can also be bribed. The problem with your theory is that you do not seem to realize that (a) arbitration is a business that relies on the incorruptibility of the arbiter, and (b) unlike judges, the choice of an arbiter has to be mutually agreed to. Arbitration is not some crazy science fiction idea I thought up in a drug-induced reverie. It is a form of dispute resolution that has existed from time immemorial.  It works; that is why people use it. If you would like to know how it works, a good place to start learning would be here:

     http://www.adr.org/

Once a group of arbiters decide that society would be best served by obeying some higher set of rules to benefit the greatest number...

With no political power (i.e., force), nor bar to entry into the arbitration business, pray tell how this could possibly happen? You are on the slippery slope of the infinitely recursive, progressively sillier, "yeah, but what if...?" DO-loop. If nothing else, at least set a counter with an escape exit.

... Every decision an arbiter makes sets a precedent.

Nonsense. Not even lower court rulings set precedents in Anglo-American jurisprudence. (Only appellate court rulings set precedents.) To the extent that previous decisions might help decide current disputes, the could be persuasive, but not dispositive nor binding. Even if considered dispositive, they can always be distinguished. And if not that, the arbiters may always act in equity.

These problems you think exist in arbitration or the common law have all been solved decades, centuries or even millennia ago.

There is nothing to stop arbiters from compassionate rulings. A man is executed in the Belt. His offspring are too young to be adults, but no one wants to adopt them except a member of NAMBLA...

Who are the parties to this special pleading scenario? Who asked for arbitration? Did NAMBLA take the children? Did a relative, friend or neighbor? Your scenario makes no sense as postulated. It doesn't seem like an arbitration situation at all. Their might be ZAP aspects, but you apparently have not thought about them. Tell me why this post belongs in a ZAP thread. I just don't see it.

Like Thomas Paine and others have said, government is a necessary evil.

Well, they were half right and I applaud them for that. Such an insight was very radical thinking for that era. But GIGO. Yes, they tried to limit the powers of the federal government and started losing ground almost immediately after that. I has all been down hill since then. Nice try, but their assumption that a state was necessary corrupted all of their efforts a short couple of centuries. Their efforts, as noble as they were, failed.

Title: Re: ZAP!!!
Post by: Aardvark on April 27, 2011, 07:46:26 pm
Sorry to see you say that, Sandy. Rereading the whole thing again, I believe that you either missed my points or sidestepped them. I'm afraid we're going to have to disagree.

With a degree of humor, and good wishes on the rest of the comic, I present you with:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rCDoBvG1HoI (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rCDoBvG1HoI)
Title: Re: ZAP!!!
Post by: NeitherRuleNorBeRuled on April 27, 2011, 09:23:31 pm
Sorry to see you say that, Sandy. Rereading the whole thing again, I believe that you either missed my points or sidestepped them. I'm afraid we're going to have to disagree.

I think Sandy got it pretty well right, and you've missed it.

With a bit more brevity:

1) You did not show a flaw in a ZAP/;AnCap-based society that does not also exist in any government-based society.  Corruption with equivalent results can occur in each of them.

2) You assume a fixed set of arbiters, rather than one where potential arbiters come and go.  With the latter, corruption of some set of arbiters is much more easily dealt with, since they will find that their business will drop off, going to both existing and new arbiters.  Even if they group together, arbiters would be unable to stop or otherwise control the influx of other arbiters.

3) Your "NAMBLA" example was badly flawed.  For an arbitration to occur, two or more parties have to ask for it -- and that isn't shown.  Without that as a  starting basis, there is no arbiter to make decisions.  If there are children who need care, and the only person who expresses any interest in caring for them happens to be a member of some group with positions on child care many don't like (e.g., NAMBLA) then there is no one to dispute it.  If some did attempt to dispute it and called for arbitration, then they would likely be told that they would need to provide the care (directly or indirectly) themselves if they prevailed -- if at least some of them didn't agree, they would naturally lose the arbitration (the alternative being to leave the children with no care at all).
Title: Re: ZAP!!!
Post by: SandySandfort on April 27, 2011, 11:32:05 pm
Sorry to see you say that, Sandy. Rereading the whole thing again, I believe that you either missed my points or sidestepped them. I'm afraid we're going to have to disagree.

What points, exactly, did I miss? What I saw was an incomplete scenario that lacked sufficient detail to really say anything. I replied with examples from real life, that threw light on your supposed problems with arbitration under the ZAP. Instead of supplying the additional information (calling my bluff if I were in fact, "sidestepping"), you cut and run.

Give me a more complete, more coherent statement of facts and I'll reply accordingly. If you want your points responded to, it would be best to have points to begin with. I didn't see any. It seems to me, that it is you who is "sidestepping" this discussion.
Title: Re: ZAP!!!
Post by: Rorschach on April 27, 2011, 11:54:33 pm
I'm looking for ZAP replies to these situations, and the first one is a gimme:
#1 Dumping 'brown' water into a drinking supply.
#2 Growing unmanaged Kudzu on my empty lot.
#3 recklessness involving air seals on a space station
#4 sabotage involving air seals on a space station that delays the seals breaking until after the person has left. (slow working acid, time bomb, etc)
Title: Re: ZAP!!!
Post by: spudit on April 28, 2011, 12:23:48 am
I'm looking for ZAP replies to these situations, and the first one is a gimme:
#1 Dumping 'brown' water into a drinking supply.
#2 Growing unmanaged Kudzu on my empty lot.
#3 recklessness involving air seals on a space station
#4 sabotage involving air seals on a space station that delays the seals breaking until after the person has left. (slow working acid, time bomb, etc)

1 if brown means poop as opposed to grey washwater it is a poison. Put poison in my drinking at your own risk be it turds or cyanide.

2 Grow whatever you want unmolested on your lot but expect it's borders to be sharply defined, your neighbors to hate your guts, the store refusing your business, and the bar, restaurants, gas stations... The hospital and church might let you in, grudgingly, but they won't like it or you.

3 Negligance in space, did you read the reasonable person arcticle, the very first case about improper storage causing a big fire. Small scale, it's your ass, kill someone and it's the rest too.

4 is silly, too damned silly. Like 3 on a far larger scale. Compare it to what Harris did and got.
Title: Re: ZAP!!!
Post by: Rorschach on April 28, 2011, 12:41:42 am
Before we start, I'd like to say I'm a Libertarian wanting to start a project similar to Seasteading where infrastructure IS important to everyone's survival, but I'm not seeing ZAP and dangerous living environments working out together.
1 if brown means poop as opposed to grey washwater it is a poison. Put poison in my drinking at your own risk be it turds or cyanide.
So cyanide in the "brown terrorists" personal drinking water to counter the dysentery? Do you do DNA testing of everyone to find the "brown terrorist"?

2 Grow whatever you want unmolested on your lot but expect it's borders to be sharply defined, your neighbors to hate your guts, the store refusing your business, and the bar, restaurants, gas stations... The hospital and church might let you in, grudgingly, but they won't like it or you.
Empty lot, I don't live there. The property values plummet at the rate of 1-3' per day. I come in a year later after buying it all for pennies on the dollar and then raise a ton of goats to kill the kudzu. Anybody who doesn't sell is bordered on 3+ sides by Kudzu. Goats only clear lots where I own large blocks of land. Also, I'm an investor not a resident.

3 Negligance in space, did you read the reasonable person arcticle, the very first case about improper storage causing a big fire. Small scale, it's your ass, kill someone and it's the rest too.
People make mistakes. It IS your ass, and a lot of people die anyway. Are we offering training and certification or just waiting for some noob to kill more than himself?

4 is silly, too damned silly. Like 3 on a far larger scale. Compare it to what Harris did and got.
#4 is an aggressive takeover and UW can claim all Ceres through salvage, bill any survivors for services rendered while making the situation as bad as they can get away with. Ceres as a port is now controlled by UW at UW prices. Ceres as a city is completely dead, then restocked with all UW citizens who refuse to provide services to Ceres-natives who balk at all. Longer explanation in another thread.
Title: Re: ZAP!!!
Post by: SandySandfort on April 28, 2011, 01:26:37 am
Before we start, I'd like to say I'm a Libertarian wanting to start a project similar to Seasteading where infrastructure IS important to everyone's survival, but I'm not seeing ZAP and dangerous living environments working out together.

Well that's nice. I have a lot of unsupported opinions too. Also, the wannabe seasteaders I know, plan to not share infrastructure. Every man for himself, as it were.

So cyanide in the "brown terrorists" personal drinking water to counter the dysentery? Do you do DNA testing of everyone to find the "brown terrorist"?

This is about ZAP. I'm not sure what you are trying to say about the ZAP, but it is not at all clear. Clearly, under the ZAP, dumping unsanitary water in someone's water is the initiation of force. If people wish to voluntarily submit to DNA testing, I wouldn't stop them, but compelling them would be the initiation of force. Now if you saw them do the dumping, you don't need a DNA test. Of course, the guy's willingness or refusal to provide a sample could be considered by the arbiter.

Empty lot, I don't live there. The property values plummet at the rate of 1-3' per day. I come in a year later after buying it all for pennies on the dollar and then raise a ton of goats to kill the kudzu. Anybody who doesn't sell is bordered on 3+ sides by Kudzu. Goats only clear lots where I own large blocks of land. Also, I'm an investor not a resident.

Cool. Nobody "owns" what other people think about them or their property. So unless your kudzu is causing direct physical harm to your neighbors, you have not violated the ZAP. Of course, people who think that was a crappy thing to do can refuse to have anything to do with you. What in the world led you to believe that this was a difficult ZAP issue?

People make mistakes. It IS your ass, and a lot of people die anyway. Are we offering training and certification or just waiting for some noob to kill more than himself?

Sure, people make mistakes, but do those mistakes constitute the willful initiation of force? I don't think so. Of course, negligence could be the subject matter of arbitration, without having anything to do with the ZAP.

And what do you mean we, white man? Who is this "we" that would offer "training and certification"? Sounds like a business opportunity to me, not some mandated practice. It is in the economic best interest of the owner of property to protect himself from arbitration suits, by providing a safe environment. To do so, he might require workers to have some certifications or other evidence of competence. Sorry, this is not a ZAP issue at all. (Though it might be one for arbitration suits for negligence.) You really need to listen to the YouTube explanation until you have internalized what it is and what it isn't.

#4 is an aggressive takeover and UW can claim all Ceres through salvage, bill any survivors for services rendered while making the situation as bad as they can get away with. Ceres as a port is now controlled by UW at UW prices. Ceres as a city is completely dead, then restocked with all UW citizens who refuse to provide services to Ceres-natives who balk at all. Longer explanation in another thread.

Now this is really an asinine concoction. I bet since you used the word "aggressive" this somehow made this a ZAP question, right? The UW's admiralty law (that is what you are talking about, whether you realize it or not) is totally irrelevant to the Cerereans. The UW may say whatever it wishes, but invading and claiming Ceres is the initiation of force, even if the cover story is "humanitarian aid." If this is still not clear to you, I suggest you read about the previously mentioned concept of the "officious intermeddler."

You started out pretty reasonably, but these recent posts are an embarrassment. You obviously have only a vague handle on the ZAP, arbitration, officious intermeddlers, etc. You may have read all the threads, but you clearly have not applied critical thinking to what you have read. Whether the ZAP will or will not work in practice (it does in my life, YMMV) is yet to be seen. However, before one can make intelligent comments, one must first learn what one is commenting on. I don't like communism, but you can bet your britches I schooled myself on the labor theory of value and dialectical materialism so I know why I don't like it.
Title: Re: ZAP!!!
Post by: Rorschach on April 28, 2011, 02:02:43 am
I'll "show my hand" so to speak. All of these examples are related because they all involve government intervention to prevent. With *only* ZAP, they will occur given time.
#1 Brown water terrorist could just as easily be flourite in the water by government. Putting it in the water turned "hazardous waste" into a "valuable commodity" purchased by municipal governments. In other words, "poisoning the water supply" happens today, all across the US. I posed the question in a way to see if you would come up with either DNA testing, regulations, protection of the water supply or none. Your answer was none, and your city is likely going to die of water poisoning.
#2 Kudzu takes over large areas of land if not aggressively dealt with. Without some sort of "that invasive plant is not permitted" regulation, the invasive plant will take over. Another failure. Genetic engineering can accomplish the same thing, there is a grass without a root now lose in Oregon. How do we kill it? Nobody knows. How do we stop the spread? Nobody knows last I checked. These are the sorts of problems that need organization and cooperation to deal with. It is no ones *selfish* interest unless they are awarded some sort of external reward. It is in everyone's personal interest, but there is no direct reward or point. The Kudzu scenario is a better example than the Genetic Engineering flaws because it is real, practical and happening today. I also provided an exploit on how to manipulate land prices using the plant, but you still rely on ZAP. ZAP again fails.
#3 Aggression through Incompetence. ZAP fails here because it really doesn't apply, and agree with you. #3 is a counter example to #4 since the outcome is very similar, but the individual doesn't initiate force. A mistake can be just as or more deadly than an intentional attack, but again you made no provisions to deal with the issue. I do agree to certification by private business, but the requirement of certification is now a government regulation issue. So the licensing/certification proposal must be backed by force of government in order to be effective. Insurance could do similar - but that's a different kind of force and probably involves MORE overhead since they are operating for profit and will (as standard business practices) over charge and under deliver. Again, we aren't talking about a "single owner single person" scenario like a homestead (where ZAP is perfect), but instead an aggregate, a polis, a body of people who are not a single group with identical interests. This happens in any place of business which appears to be your assumption, but on Ceres it is the de facto standard. That air and protection from vacuum relies on infrastructure. A single (very rich) person may own it, but who protects the infrastructure from incompetence?
#4 I think you just missed the point here, but I'm unable to tell since the reply was a mixture of conjecture and unresolved allusion. I'll restate the situation for clarity, since I think this is a very pertinent argument to a society or culture that uses ZAP. An outside force attempts an attack. It is a "terrorist action" of which the US has committed over 200 since WW2 according to the list on http://www.krysstal.com/ The aggressor has a two stage tactic, destroy then reclaim. Yes they operate under auspices of humanitarian aid for the second stage, but they create a scenario in stage 1 to ensure that A) Aid is required B) No one else can provide the aid required C) The aid ensures ownership D) creating the scenario in stage 1 doesn't trace back to them (I provided historical examples, I can provide many more) E) Control is also achieved. Now E can be accomplished multiple ways, but I don't have the full technical info available or a list of requirements. http://forum.bigheadpress.com/index.php?topic=558.msg14645#msg14645 enumerates some of the conditions mentioned but the thread is different. After typing that out I decided to use the scenario here. I've planned the invasion and defense of the city I intend to create, but I can't see how to maintain ZAP. It is plausible to create an automated sniper that automatically shoots anyone who fires a gun using a neural network, sonic weapons tracking, infrared and color cameras. Is that enough? Not by any means. Hence, the bomb vs airlock scenario. We could do a similar scenario for an underwater city in the San Francisco Bay or on a Seasteading floating island that uses supports. Or how about the guy who already created his own floating island using trash that floats? Assume the same technique scaled up a bit and then someone decided to break up the sections. How does a libertarian society that embraces ZAP protect itself from very plausible attack scenarios that involve subterfuge?  If you simply assume that all conflict will only involve unprepared attackers with poor intelligence, you're wrong, dead and dead wrong.

Before I embrace regulation and government in MY design, show me how I can avoid doing so.
Title: Re: ZAP!!!
Post by: sam on April 28, 2011, 03:00:13 am
#2 Kudzu takes over large areas of land if not aggressively dealt with. Without some sort of "that invasive plant is not permitted" regulation, the invasive plant will take over. Another failure.

My property is full of invasive plants, and from time to time I go after them with poison spray, chain saw, earth moving equipment, and so forth.   So all I have to do is ask the council to pass a regulation against them?  Oh, how easy.  But wait!  The council has already passed a regulation against them, and strange to report, the plants are not listening.

Invasive plants are notoriously apt to disregard regulations.  Prohibiting invasive plants is silly, and indeed promulgating such regulations an indication of delusion.
Title: Re: ZAP!!!
Post by: Rorschach on April 28, 2011, 03:54:40 am
I never suggested the plants would listen to regulation. I suggested that a cooperative effort might be required to remove them. I also suggested the idea of a selfish person manipulating real estate prices through kudzu, which you can't remove with poisons that allow the land to be fertile. I'm not sure about the effects of RoundUp on Kudzu, but RoundUp is poisonous to everything that has roots with the exception of specific GE crops.

My suggestion is this: answer the question. How can ZAP appropriately deal with these 4 scenarios?
Title: Re: ZAP!!!
Post by: dough560 on April 28, 2011, 04:02:05 am
First, the UW has no authority over Ceres.  None of their laws or regulations apply.  Any action by them would at a minimum be an act of piracy, if not invasion.  

Ask any military planner or counter terrorism  professional;  What is your worst nightmare?  Answer:  A motivated, educated, inventive person who has nothing to lose and not associated with any group.

You live at the bottom of several gravity wells and rocks are cheap.  How badly do you want to tick someone off by destroying their property and killing family and friends due to an unprovoked attack?  At a minimum, all of your space worthy assets are now subject to attack.  The personnel manning those assets are walking dead.  They just don't know it yet.  You can forget the argument.... they were just following orders, and therefore not responsible for the outcome.  Might as well put a gun in your mouth and pull the trigger.  With enough provocation; you, your assets, personnel and their families are now targets.  Near misses will take out bystanders.  By the way.  With plenty of power, it would be simple to make a kinetic weapon capable of remote guidance and  target your facilities on earth.  Such things as your headquarters, and home for starters.  The projectile could be scaled to destroy it's target with limited collateral damage.

As for your Kudzu.... You're welcome to grow it on your property.  It spreads onto my property and I'll kill it.  Followed by a bill for my materials and labor.  Refuse to pay the bill or arbitrate and you won't believe the number I'd do to you.  By the time I'm through, you'll be infamous for your stupidity.  With that infamy no one will do business with you.  

Contaminate or poison my water.  Arbitration.  Someone dies?  Expect to hear from my second.  In either event, your name is mud.

Implied-Self-Interest, and ZAP are alive and well in our everyday lives.
Title: Re: ZAP!!!
Post by: Rorschach on April 28, 2011, 04:42:38 am
dough, thanks for your contributions. You're the first person to suggest billing for labor I think. That is probably the best solution for dealing with the Kudzu threat since the stuff grows 1-2' per day.

Mutually Assured Destruction is probably the best way to deal with things on the international level while using ZAP. Neal Stephenson wrote in one of his books about creating a digital archive for resisting invasions, creaking a large collection of blueprints he called Ark. The main way to fight a large government force is to make prevalent a lot of information on how to make anti tank weapons from household chemicals  8) Of course, any place I'm involved with would respond with an insurgency force if attacked in a paramilitary manner. Enter manhole, plug power line into copper phone line. There are no fuseboxes on phone lines  ;D Bridges are easy targets of opportunity, and combined with PsychWar quite a bit can be done regarding food supplies. A lot of suggestions to "not panic" and "not hoard" after a few bridges are down and a city will rip itself apart. Due to improvements in delivery scheduling, the average urban stockpile of food went from 1 week+ to 2-3 days in the past decade.

The solutions I came up with for group living all involved independent testing and accurate labeling. If your labels don't match your food/runoff/emissions listings then financial penalties apply based on the severity.  Strip mining has been effectively banned in the US due to large deposit requirements, the strip mining runoff often contained arsenic and mercury contaminants. Simply making the deposit commensurate with potential damages encourages cost effective socially responsible behavior.

The biggest weakness I see with the libertarian philosophy is environmental controls, handling emissions, etc. The Cap and Trade system helps make it a free market system, but there are limitations and inefficiencies (cutting pollution is often more expensive than buying emissions credits).

I'm hoping to make a sustainable city, and I really want to make one as ZAP and libertarian friendly as possible. I'm hoping to build a few for different cultures, and then let each city decide how it wants to manage itself. The thought experiment in another thread asking about cultural rules and legal rules was part of my "Grand Plan". After several cities are built, the next phase is Train To Space! (mass driver)
Title: Re: ZAP!!!
Post by: J Thomas on April 28, 2011, 06:56:59 am
dough, thanks for your contributions. You're the first person to suggest billing for labor I think. That is probably the best solution for dealing with the Kudzu threat since the stuff grows 1-2' per day.

I was writing a detailed post which included that, when I saw his. I'll delete it.

But -- dandelions don't look like a kudzu-type threat to me, but I've had neighbors who objected to my letting them flower. If they set seed I can't keep them from infecting my neighbors' yard. Does my neighbor have the right to, say, $12/hour from me for the time he spends digging up dandelions? Or should he divide up the bill among everybody upwind who harbors dandelions?

The difference is that kudzu will grow pretty much anywhere in our biome, including shading out forests, and it makes deep roots that are hard to get rid of. Dandelions are good only at colonizing disturbed habitats where nothing stops them, and they get crowded out easily by anything at all robust. They are marginally edible, and they plain don't do much harm.

So I say that kudzu is worth controlling, and dandelions aren't, and if we look at the whole list of invasive plants we will find one which is balanced in the middle where reasonable people will disagree about the obligation for control.

Quote
Mutually Assured Destruction is probably the best way to deal with things on the international level while using ZAP.

MAD has worked every time so far with governments -- at least, whatever they have decided to resolve their issues, so far they have not chosen mutual destruction. But isn't it true that one of the big driving forces for the pseudo War On Terror is the possibility that hundreds or thousands of terrorist groups might get nukes and attempt MAD against the USA? And isn't that what you are proposing, that hundreds or thousands or even millions of AnCap terrorists each get WMDs to threaten governments with? (And threaten each other, if it comes to that.) It would take a lot of creativity for governments to handle that situation.

Quote
The main way to fight a large government force is to make prevalent a lot of information on how to make anti tank weapons from household chemicals  8)

I see. Munitions as a cottage industry. This is better than mass production because ... because ... because you don't have to deal with a great big munitions industry?

Quote
Of course, any place I'm involved with would respond with an insurgency force if attacked in a paramilitary manner. Enter manhole, plug power line into copper phone line. There are no fuseboxes on phone lines  ;D Bridges are easy targets of opportunity, and combined with PsychWar quite a bit can be done regarding food supplies. A lot of suggestions to "not panic" and "not hoard" after a few bridges are down and a city will rip itself apart. Due to improvements in delivery scheduling, the average urban stockpile of food went from 1 week+ to 2-3 days in the past decade.

I'm a little unclear about this. Are you talking about sabotaging your own cities, or infiltrating an enemy nation and sabotaging their cities?
Title: Re: ZAP!!!
Post by: Rorschach on April 28, 2011, 08:45:51 am
J Thomas, you see some issues. I agree dandelions are a weed. I've eaten them, but they are a little bitter. Control is simple, picking yellow flowers. Kudzu on the other hand can't be dug out unless you take all the topsoil off and a little more. It will literally consume entire houses in the span of 2 weeks if unchecked. There are 3 ways to kill it from what I read. #1 Throw away a ton of topsoil and/or pave over. #2 Poisons that prevent anything growing in the location for the next decade or two. #3 Goats that overgraze for weeks. On a side note, Japanese peasants ate Kudzu when they didn't have a barley crop.

Here is challenge #2: how does ZAP deal with Kudzu, which is extremely property damaging?

I'm against proliferation of nukes, but MAD can work on a non nuke level through urban guerrilla warfare. Against middle ranking countries, cruise missiles, snipers, etc are an effective "on the field of battle" low cost vs high value targets. The new drones can be built relatively cheaply and deliver payloads. In a very asymmetric situation, fighting China or the US for example, a small independent nation who lost their families would do better targeting big city infrastructure. If someone wanted to liberate Myanmar and reinstate the democratic leader, I'd suggest taking out the oil pipeline and ruby industries in order to cut down the ability to pay off the UN (like they have been doing). Guard the pipeline with snipers after dropping some big rocks in it. Prevent repairs, etc. Go for big targets. There isn't a simple single answer that satisfies your national defense of a small libertarian nation. If you had nukes, they would need a government to hold them OR 100+ years of proliferation without a nuclear war. MAD was a proposal to challenge #4, and I'm agreeing it would work in a libertarian society that isn't as tech advanced as Ceres. (MAD is usable on Earth, today if you scrap Geneva Convention.) Neal Stephenson's Ark concept makes it more viable to defend against invasions.

Big Munitions Industry isn't something I'm for or against. They specialize in something. Unfortunately if yours is destroyed, invaded, controlled, not built, etc - what then? Also it probably isn't possible to outspend the US military budget as a small nation, but from what I've seen of the Future Weapons show a lot of stuff is made in foreign countries. I just don't know what their purchasing restrictions are, and outsourcing all of your BMI is probably not wise. BMI also probably means taxes. On the other hand, knowing how to make explosives out of old batteries or rust and an aluminum can... That sort of info is useful without taxation required.

The challenge in #4 is summarized as "How does a small ZAP country defend itself from sponsored terrorism by Big Govt?"
Title: Re: ZAP!!!
Post by: mellyrn on April 28, 2011, 08:59:36 am
When is it OK to start trouble?  



Title: Re: ZAP!!!
Post by: J Thomas on April 28, 2011, 11:50:23 am
J Thomas, you see some issues. I agree dandelions are a weed. I've eaten them, but they are a little bitter. Control is simple, picking yellow flowers. Kudzu on the other hand can't be dug out unless you take all the topsoil off and a little more. It will literally consume entire houses in the span of 2 weeks if unchecked. There are 3 ways to kill it from what I read. #1 Throw away a ton of topsoil and/or pave over. #2 Poisons that prevent anything growing in the location for the next decade or two. #3 Goats that overgraze for weeks. On a side note, Japanese peasants ate Kudzu when they didn't have a barley crop.

Here's the first link I looked at about that:
http://kokudzu.com/ControlOutline.aspx

People are experimenting with workable methods. They have something that works without so much damage, but it's extremely labor-intensive. They claim the roots will rot away if the "crowns" are removed, and those are close to the surface, and in the USA hardly ever more than about 6 inches in diameter and a few feet long.

Notice their procedure for handling kudzu at a property boundary -- every week take the vines which have crossed over and bend them back to encourage them to grow back onto the property they came from. They say not to cut the vines because that's a signal for even more vines to grow where the cut ones were.

Here is challenge #2: how does ZAP deal with Kudzu, which is extremely property damaging?[/quote]

I thought that had been covered and you understood.

1. Find the owner.
2. Point out the problem and see if he cooperates.
3. If the owner won't cooperate, take it to arbitration.
4. Presumably the arbitrator will rule that the extremely damaging kudzu is a damge to you which must be fixed. We can never guarantee what an arbitrator will do unless the fix is in, but he'll probably rule in your favor. If he rules against you then suck it up and pay whatever he says to pay.
5. After the arbitrator rules in your favor, if the landowner fixes the damage and doesn't make more, you are done. If the landowner does not keep his agreement, then you and the other people he has harmed can do various things about it. You can tell everybody that he broke the rules, which may cause him difficulties. You can apply reasonable physical force, and he can hardly take you to arbitration about it. If he assaults you over your legitimate force you can kill him etc. You can take a reasonable amount of his property in payment for what he has cost you. If he is too well-armed and vicious for you to apply physical force, and he has demonstrated this by shooting at you and perhaps wounding or killing one of you, you can hire mercenaries to take him out and pay the mercenaries out of what he owes you.

Not so very different from existing practices, right? The difference is that arbitration is to a large extent voluntary, and there is no government to enforce the rulings.

Quote
I'm against proliferation of nukes, but MAD can work on a non nuke level through urban guerrilla warfare.

If two different factions in one city disagree too much about anything, they can each destroy the city rather than give in? With a small number of factions this looks like victory for the least reasonable. With a large number, there will surely be two extremist groups that will not get along and will destroy the city.

If you have to send saboteurs into foreign cities to destroy them, you're encouraging everybody everywhere to give up their civil rights so they can easier catch foreign saboteurs. I foresee problems.

Quote
Big Munitions Industry isn't something I'm for or against. They specialize in something. Unfortunately if yours is destroyed, invaded, controlled, not built, etc - what then? Also it probably isn't possible to outspend the US military budget as a small nation, but from what I've seen of the Future Weapons show a lot of stuff is made in foreign countries. I just don't know what their purchasing restrictions are, and outsourcing all of your BMI is probably not wise. BMI also probably means taxes. On the other hand, knowing how to make explosives out of old batteries or rust and an aluminum can... That sort of info is useful without taxation required.

Yes, on all counts. There are tradeoffs. If you try to make your munitions as a cottage industry, it will take a lot more resources than if you actually use economy of scale. But if you have giant businesses they might dominate you. If you start building weapons when lots of individual people feel threatened then you won't get a whole lot built. But if you make a lot ahead of time, who pays for them and will people be tempted to use them because they're there?

It would be better to avoid making nations mad at you than building expensive defenses, but we can't depend on foreign nations to be reasonable.

I like the idea of doing a lot of trade so you're worth more to them as you are, than you would be defeated and destroyed. And also try not to look like a big threat by having lots of obvious weapons that you look like you'd use. Also have a lot of useful tools that could turn into weapons. Trucks can't really replace tanks, but they can be useful in a war and also useful for the economy before a war starts. The more you can fight using OTS stuff that you have lying around because it's useful all the time, the less it costs you for armaments and the quicker it's available.

Expect to suffer if your land gets invaded. The American idea that we should be so strong that we are no worse off during wartime than in peacetime, is just perverse. We can't be so prepare for war that we won't do any suffering if we have to fight one. It just does not work that way unless we suffer all the time.

Quote
The challenge in #4 is summarized as "How does a small ZAP country defend itself from sponsored terrorism by Big Govt?"

1. Don't look so important that they put significant funding into destroying you. This is unreliable because you never know what a Big Government will do.

2. If you start getting terrorism, be cautious around people who do not culturally fit in. It's very hard for strangers to slip through any sort of culture without drawing attention to themselves. On Ceres they will tend not to know how to walk. Anywhere, they won't know the right slang and will likely be grossed out by popular breakfasts etc. If there's sabotage going on then you can do a lot to stop foreign terrorists. But it's draining to do that all the time, so don't do it until the sabotage starts. This is not completely reliable but it could help a whole lot.

3. Try to recruit known or suspected terrorists to ZAP etc. Some of them will join you and will help you find others. You have to judge how much you can trust them.

4. Try to persuade whoever is sponsoring the terrorism to cut it out. Any Big Government will have factions, and their media will have factions, and there may be foreign media. If you look like quaint ZAPs you might get a lot of favorable publicity. Ideally you should look like happy cuddly teddy bears who only scratch and bite people who treat them really bad. Do not threaten the media that you might drop big rocks on them, or nukes, etc. Give them the impression that the guns everybody wears are actually ceremonial objects (which they in fact are). Look cute and cuddly and zero-aggression. It pays off better than trying to look tough and mean. Meanwhile look for ways that avoiding war can be useful to the factions who are least against you. Since there is no government to appoint people to do this stuff, it can and should be done by volunteers.

Nothing works 100%. But if you do better as a small ZAP country defending yourself from Big Government than you would as a small Big Gov't country defending likewise, then you come out ahead on average.
Title: Re: ZAP!!!
Post by: SandySandfort on April 28, 2011, 02:15:51 pm
I'll "show my hand" so to speak. All of these examples are related because they all involve government intervention to prevent. With *only* ZAP, they will occur given time.

And they will all occur even with government intervention, given time. So what's your point?

In a free world (i.e., market anarchy), there are no public goods. Water is owned by water companies who sell it to individuals. If shit is thrown into the water before it is transmitted to the customers, there is a violation of the ZAP with regard to its owner(s). Who has had force initiated against them, will largely be determined by where along the supply line it is dumped. These details are irrelevant, though, as to whether or not someone has violated the ZAP.

#2 Kudzu...

Either it stays within the owners, in which case, no violation of the ZAP or it invades other people's property, in which case there is a ZAP violation. This is all ZAP 101. I do not understand why you are having trouble understanding this concept.

#3 Aggression through Incompetence...

No such thing. You have one or the other. As much as I appreciate the "shotgun" approach as a debating technique, it does not lead to reasoned thinking. I have a better idea.

1. Pick one subject, be it Kudzu or whatever.

2. Do not pretend to just be asking a question for your edification. (This is the tactic of the Ignoramuses (CG, Dolt, etc.) to allow them to get on their soapbox.

3. State a thesis that demonstrates a situation in which you believe the ZAP, "fails." (Understand, not applying to a given situation, is not a failure. It must fail in a situation where it is relevant.) Also, please, no bizarre situations, that while theoretically possible, are so unlikely in the real world as to constitute special pleading.

4. Allow others to clarify what you are saying, via posted questions.

5. Use the language of the ZAP as presented by Smith and the YouTube video. Let's all stay on the same page.

If this seems to lead us to some enlightenment, we can put that issue aside and turn our attentions to another scenario--maybe messing with someone else's water supply or whatever.

In re-reading the above, it occurs to me you are not really discussing the ZAP so much as posing the question, "How do you prevent bad shit from happening in a situation with no government." While that may or may not involve the ZAP directly, it is certainly relevant to a society such as the Belt, were the ZAP is  fundamental to all social interactions. So maybe a question would be okay, if it were in the form of, "How would a market anarchy deal with such-and-such a situation/danger/nuisance that government currently addresses with via the initiation of force or threat of force?" I think we can quickly boil these hypotheticals down to first principles in this manner. How about it?
Title: Re: ZAP!!!
Post by: quadibloc on April 28, 2011, 02:48:21 pm
Either it stays within the owners, in which case, no violation of the ZAP or it invades other people's property, in which case there is a ZAP violation. This is all ZAP 101. I do not understand why you are having trouble understanding this concept.
If you don't understand, I'll helpfully spell it out for you.

Kudzu spreads. It doesn't just sit there and not move on to other people's property. And it spreads pretty fast, too.

Not only that, but the cost of removing it, once it does get on your property, may well exceed the amount of money an arbitrator can squeeze out of the owner of the property that does have the kudzu on it.

Or, in other words, people who are not believers in the ZAP hold on to this strange and outmoded evil statist concept known as "clear and present danger".

It's not good enough for an arbitrator to try to get something from the guy after the damage is done - nothing less than being stuck with exactly zero out-of-pocket expenses due to the other guy's negligence is acceptable.
Title: Re: ZAP!!!
Post by: J Thomas on April 28, 2011, 05:52:56 pm
Either it stays within the owners, in which case, no violation of the ZAP or it invades other people's property, in which case there is a ZAP violation. This is all ZAP 101. I do not understand why you are having trouble understanding this concept.
If you don't understand, I'll helpfully spell it out for you.

Kudzu spreads. It doesn't just sit there and not move on to other people's property. And it spreads pretty fast, too.

Not only that, but the cost of removing it, once it does get on your property, may well exceed the amount of money an arbitrator can squeeze out of the owner of the property that does have the kudzu on it.

Or, in other words, people who are not believers in the ZAP hold on to this strange and outmoded evil statist concept known as "clear and present danger".

It's not good enough for an arbitrator to try to get something from the guy after the damage is done - nothing less than being stuck with exactly zero out-of-pocket expenses due to the other guy's negligence is acceptable.

OK, for the basics I don't think there's any disagreement here. If you put kudzu on your property and it spreads, you are liable to everybody you harm.

If it happens that way -- you do the harm before anybody can persuade you not to -- then you are liable even to the extent of losing most of your future earnings for the rest of your life to pay back your debts, if you have done that much harm.

Now, you are saying that people who predict you will harm them, have the right to prevent you from harming them -- before you have actually done anything wrong.

At first sight this violates the ZAP. You have not actually done anything to them yet, and they are pre-emptively telling you what you can and cannot do. If they are wrong about the consequences then they are aggressing against you for no good reason. But if they are right then they are saving you considerable expense.

So for a concrete example. John is a professional knife-thrower. He has a beautiful assistant who wears a skimpy costume, and people pay to watch him throw knives that almost hit her but do not quite hit her.

John comes up with a stupid idea to drum up business -- he and his assistant go out into the mall. She carries a small target, and when some random person walks between them he throws a knife very close to them which sticks in the target. But people are not impressed with his skill, they are outraged that he might have hit them. He points out that he is indeed an expert knife thrower who will never hit them, that is the point of the demonstration after all. They say that he is aggressing on them and he'd better quit fast.

Is John aggressing on people by almost hitting them with knives? If he does actually hit somebody then yes, definitely he is. But is it aggression when they simply don't trust him, even though in reality his skill is great enough to always miss?
Title: Re: ZAP!!!
Post by: SandySandfort on April 28, 2011, 09:23:50 pm
Okay, simple enough. First, unless you are an adjacent or nearby land owner, what the guy grows is none of your damned business. So it is not a community issue, it's just a neighbor issue. If I am the neighbor and I like kudzu, I'm cool with it. If I see it as a "clear and present danger," however, what are my options?

1. I could talk to the neighbor and ask him to stop growing the stuff, because it spreads and I don't see any actions on his part to confine it to his property.

2. If he blows me off, I might see if there is a covenant running with the land that forbids the growing of kudzu. Since you believe it is such a "clear and present danger," there is probably a covenant that prohibits, so I simple take him to court to stop him. Possibly the owners association will do the honors.

3. If there is not covenant running with the land, nor an owners association, I might just poison my land along its border with the Kudzu Kid.

4. I might take him to arbitration and the arbiter all about the "clear and present danger" and see if the arbiter will rule in my favor.

5. I might just take my chances and poison the kudzu on the guy's property, not mine. If he doesn't take me to arbitration, I win. If he does, well, there is still that old, "clear and present danger" standby. Maybe the arbiter will see that as the "threat of physical force" and rule in my favor. And maybe not.

The point I am making here, is that there are any number of possible options and just like in every other human action, ya pays your money and ya takes your chances. There are no guarantees just odds. And hey, guess what? That is true under a government too. The difference being that government will use force to side with one group over another, and non-punitive solutions are rarely its first choice.

If you would like to compare how voluntarism trumps heavy-handed, meat-cleaver justice, look into "Community Boards" in San Francisco and elsewhere. As likely as not, they handle kudzu-like disputes on a regular bases without any threat of force. Moral suasion and social pressure are their methods of "enforcement."


Either it stays within the owners, in which case, no violation of the ZAP or it invades other people's property, in which case there is a ZAP violation. This is all ZAP 101. I do not understand why you are having trouble understanding this concept.
If you don't understand, I'll helpfully spell it out for you.

Kudzu spreads. It doesn't just sit there and not move on to other people's property. And it spreads pretty fast, too.

Not only that, but the cost of removing it, once it does get on your property, may well exceed the amount of money an arbitrator can squeeze out of the owner of the property that does have the kudzu on it.

Or, in other words, people who are not believers in the ZAP hold on to this strange and outmoded evil statist concept known as "clear and present danger".

It's not good enough for an arbitrator to try to get something from the guy after the damage is done - nothing less than being stuck with exactly zero out-of-pocket expenses due to the other guy's negligence is acceptable.
Title: Re: ZAP!!!
Post by: SandySandfort on April 28, 2011, 09:46:23 pm
OK, for the basics I don't think there's any disagreement here. If you put kudzu on your property and it spreads, you are liable to everybody you harm.

If it happens that way -- you do the harm before anybody can persuade you not to -- then you are liable even to the extent of losing most of your future earnings for the rest of your life to pay back your debts, if you have done that much harm.

Now, you are saying that people who predict you will harm them, have the right to prevent you from harming them -- before you have actually done anything wrong.

At first sight this violates the ZAP....

Your analysis was good up to that point. Remember, the ZAP allows you to respond to the actual threat of force, not just the initiation of force. So in a more realistic example than kudzu, if you are in a situation where a drunk guy across the rooms says "I am going to go over there and kick your ass!" Does that violate the ZAP or not? Well, that depends. If the guy is in an iron lung, the threat is not credible and so it does not violate the ZAP. In the other extreme, if it's Mike Tyson and he gets up and starts for you, he has violated the ZAP. Shooting him at this point might be prudent and would be permitted by the ZAP.

In between these extremes is a continuum with no clear delineations. At the end of the day, what happens may be second guessed by an arbiter, who will have to apply the ZAP as he sees it based on forensic evidence and the testimony of the participants and witnesses. Hey, it is entirely possible that the arbiter will get it wrong. Welcome to the human race. We do the best we can with what we have. There is nothing wrong with the ZAP as a principle. After that, though, how it is applied is a judgment call. You never get perfection under any system of dispute resolution, but you do get a guiding principle and a forum in which to decide how it should be applied. Works for me.
Title: Re: ZAP!!!
Post by: Rorschach on April 28, 2011, 11:53:45 pm
Your analysis was good up to that point. Remember, the ZAP allows you to respond to the actual threat of force, not just the initiation of force. So in a more realistic example than kudzu, if you are in a situation where a drunk guy across the rooms says "I am going to go over there and kick your ass!" Does that violate the ZAP or not? Well, that depends. If the guy is in an iron lung, the threat is not credible and so it does not violate the ZAP. In the other extreme, if it's Mike Tyson and he gets up and starts for you, he has violated the ZAP. Shooting him at this point might be prudent and would be permitted by the ZAP.
According to the ZAP documents I read and the video, words are not violence and are not an excuse to initiate violence. Even if they hint at violence, they are not violence. Your example of ZAP just used preemptive force.

I did boil my objection down to core principles. I provided 4 clear examples. As I said #1 was a clear 'gimme' regarding ZAP. On the other hand, collecting the information necessary to catch the brown terrorist is probably going to involve DNA samples.

I thought of methods of catching and preventing all 4 examples before I proposed them. Since the world tends to use Orwellian tactics including unreasonable search and seizure. (I had a sealed water bottle seized because it was more than 4oz.) In the EFT example, the kid was able to stop the mugger by use of investigation that didn't violate anyone's privacy. I could kill everyone on Ceres (or a few city blocks on Earth with Ceres technology) using a hotel room and unsearched luggage. Pay a few days extra on the hotel room, leave and debark my flight before the timer goes off. (poison gas, water supply, biological weapons like virus/bacteria, nuclear weapons, explosives if my room borders outer wall, etc)
A) So far the proposal to prevent these attacks are:
#1 ?
#2 threat of suing, threat of ostracizing
#3 certification (mine)
#4 Big Munitions Industry as threat, guerrilla warfare as threat (mine), gravity well

B) The proposals to resolve these attacks are:
#1 suing
#2 suing, arbitration
#3 ?
#4 gravity well, creative and intelligent terrorist with nothing to lose.

C) In contrast, PREVENTION of these situations as handled by governments involve:
#1 DNA sampling, tracking systems, moderately sealed access, employees
#2 Homeowners associations, zoning restrictions, outside contractors billed to owner, Force
#3 Certification, Insurance, Regulations, oversight and inspections
#4 Restrictions on travel goods, licensing/certification/bonding in order to buy explosives, prohibited sales of certain items, tracer chemicals in chemicals that can be used to create explosives, dedicated employees. Background checks on travel, Restrictions on travel

The fundamental flaw I see in ZAP at the city level is that someone must be permitted the chance to destroy everyone before they can be inhibited in any way. While this is fine for homesteads, it is not fine for an entire city. Should I estimate how many are dead for each scenario before you accept that this is "not fine"?

I wanted something very specific from my questions, I wanted to know how my libertarian philosophy could still ensure the safety of the population at large. So far, ZAP fails and regulation and certification at least offer the ability to save some lives and prevent some damage.  The threat of counterattack may prevent some governments, but it has not in any way deterred the US from regime change after regime change, from killing entire villages, hiring their own guerrilla fighters, training torture camps, etc. The US and UK manufacture enemies every day, and yet they continue. No, I don't think the gravity well or mini-nukes system would be adequate deterrent to prevent UW from killing everyone in Ceres with 1-6 bombs.

Do you have any ZAP methods of prevention aside from threat of lawsuit?
Title: Re: ZAP!!!
Post by: orthzar on April 29, 2011, 12:11:08 am
Do you have any ZAP methods of prevention aside from threat of lawsuit?

I do have a means of prevention of a broad attack against a city:

1) don't frack with other people's affairs.   The whole reason America, Britain, etc. have terrorist problems is due to their interventionist foreign policy.   If you notice, nations that have virtually no military have virtually no terrorist problems.   The majority of Latin American countries come to mind.   The Drug War in general causes all of the fighting over drugs, thus ending drug prohibition would end the violence over drugs; this is different than foreign policy, but it works on a similar mechanism.

2) Gieger counters are a particularly effective way for someone to know whether you are bringing a nuke into a city, I am pretty sure.   Suitcase nukes give off radiation, as far as I know, and modern radiation detectors should be able to detect that.   Suitcase nukes, from what I know, are as big as two 55 gallon drums stacked vertically, and weigh far too much to carry alone.   You can't hide a modern suitcase nuke in a hotel, much less get it into a hotel.

Plus, who would want to nuke a peaceful city.   Oh right, an American president did that twice; governments nuke people, just after governments invented nukes.

Biological warfare, invasions, etc. only occur because of either because of interventionist foreign policy or because of government greed.   The current arc in EFT is a good example of how government merely wants to gain from aggression (I guess increased tax revenue).

It is true that ZAP will not stop lunatics, but lunatics tend to be politically driven(e.g. Tuscon, Arizona shooting, like all the assassination attempts on all politicians), so if you get rid of politics, namely government, then you nobody will have any reason to go psycho over politics.   The only thing left to go nuts over might be religion and sex, but I don't hear about religion being a problem  as much as sex-related aggression is a problem, namely rape and spouses attacking each other over cheating.
Title: Re: ZAP!!!
Post by: J Thomas on April 29, 2011, 05:20:12 am

In between these extremes is a continuum with no clear delineations. At the end of the day, what happens may be second guessed by an arbiter, who will have to apply the ZAP as he sees it based on forensic evidence and the testimony of the participants and witnesses. Hey, it is entirely possible that the arbiter will get it wrong. Welcome to the human race. We do the best we can with what we have. There is nothing wrong with the ZAP as a principle. After that, though, how it is applied is a judgment call. You never get perfection under any system of dispute resolution, but you do get a guiding principle and a forum in which to decide how it should be applied. Works for me.

Thank you! I have been trying to make this simple obvious point for some time, and it seemed to me that it had not been acknowledged until now.

ZAP is a clear, simple, obvious moral code. And in practice it does not always have a clear, simple, obvious application.

And that's OK.
Title: Re: ZAP!!!
Post by: dough560 on April 29, 2011, 06:46:51 am
Nothing is ever perfectly safe.  Do the best you can and deal with the consequences.

As to invasion, see our earlier threads.  Things got rather interesting.

MAD is not limited to interactions between governments.  Individuals are applying the same principles to their daily interactions.  Think of some of your neighbors or acquaintances.  Or family for that mater.

Title: Re: ZAP!!!
Post by: quadibloc on April 29, 2011, 07:40:04 am
At the end of the day, what happens may be second guessed by an arbiter, who will have to apply the ZAP as he sees it based on forensic evidence and the testimony of the participants and witnesses. Hey, it is entirely possible that the arbiter will get it wrong. Welcome to the human race. We do the best we can with what we have. There is nothing wrong with the ZAP as a principle. After that, though, how it is applied is a judgment call. You never get perfection under any system of dispute resolution, but you do get a guiding principle and a forum in which to decide how it should be applied. Works for me.
You are right that it isn't fair to demand perfection of AnCap if we don't get perfection from the present governmental system.

However, I think I should clarify what I think the point is that is being harped upon by detractors of AnCap in this discussion.

Despite some really big exceptions, like taxation and conscription, our current system of democratic government, at least originally, had the same basic idea as its goal as is behind the ZAP. What defines our current system as distinct from the AnCap ideal, therefore, is not their shared idea that individuals have rights and are not creatures of the state - but rather, the exceptions to the ZAP that our system allows.

Thus, the point is that an AnCap system, in practice, is going to be defined, not by the ZAP, but by how arbitration works within it, since that's where the "exceptions" - that may not be the right word - to the ZAP are going to come from. Under AnCap, you can't just ignore the existence of other people either, and so the form that arbitration will take will make a very big difference to the kind of society you will be living in - so if arbitration is handwaved away as "something we'll figure out later", the objection that AnCap is a pig in a poke is a legitimate one.
Title: Re: ZAP!!!
Post by: mellyrn on April 29, 2011, 09:26:21 am
Quote
if arbitration is handwaved away as "something we'll figure out later", the objection that AnCap is a pig in a poke is a legitimate one.

Yes, well, welcome to life.  So is government a pig in a poke.  American law says X, but what it means doesn't get determined until you -- you, specifically -- are in court about it.  Then a precedent is set, but how that precedent applies next time will only be determined next time.  Governmental court is an arbitration process, just as unknowable as an anarchic one.  And it's one that comes with a lot of extra baggage, like 8-10 years in prison for murder and 25 years in prison for a little toke of weed despite public opinion.

The advance security that is sought by setting up "government" does not exist.  In AnCap, I know things are fluid and uncertain; under a government, I run the risk of believing I know what the hard and fast rules are, only to find, when it comes time, that I was terribly wrong, so that I pay for my advance security with the shock of disillusionment.

"Eternal vigilance" isn't limited to "always be ready for violence".  It means "always be ready for anything".  Life's like that.  No government can spare you that.  AnCap's just a way of acknowledging that security is an illusion.

If you'd like to discuss arbitration schemes, we could start a new thread. . . . :-)
Title: Re: ZAP!!!
Post by: Rorschach on April 29, 2011, 11:09:16 am
Low profiles are insufficient unfortunately, look at Chile for example. Resources are also sufficient for targeting, look at Argentina. There is also the question of political expediency, like Clinton vs the pharma company in Africa when the Starr report was released. Under banner of 'unification against a common threat' of their own invention, existing is sufficient cause for all sorts of issues. Low profile and good karma are reasons I don't want to displace a native population in order to form a country.

I agree regarding enhanced targeting for MAD. With appropriate intel, efficiency increases drastically as both deterrent and penalty.

It appears the main methods advocated so far are simply risk hedging which I fully endorse. I don't want to be classified as a "detractor" but rather someone who wanted to brainstorm the efficiency of ZAP at the international level.  A superior culture will subsume an inferior one, look at how many times China was invaded but survived due to cultural power.  Another example would be Chapterhouse Dune by Frank Herbert.

Arbitration is inherently more fair than courts, the main imbalance of power with courts is the entire premise of police -> prosecution -> government. The aggression against Dmitri Skalarov is a prime example. Adobe dropped the case, the FBI took it up and detained him for a year without 'victim' participation or consent. E.g. the wheels keep turning even when nobody is driving the car. My situation was similar.

I wanted to simplify civil torts by creating a list of "standard" contracts. They would be fill in the blank, fill in the penalty for violation. Negotiation and settlement should be lawyer free. On the other hand, if the contract is contested later it would simply be a matter of going down the checklist, looking for violations, excising the stated penalty, charging extra for being stupid enough to go to court after breach of contract. People could sign any contract they want, but the courts would only hear "standard" contract cases. The difference I created for this sort of design was courts would ask militia to enforce the decisions, unlike arbitration which inherently has no teeth. All 3rd party contracts would be arbitrated outside the courts.

For any sort of criminal proceedings, my main concern regarding justice is a reliance on evidence. Evidence is not currently collected in any sort of fair way in the US, so any attempt at fairness is an improvement. UK's rules of evidence are unknown to me.

I think ZAP is the ideal system for homesteads. Regarding security of space stations made cheaply, welding together a bunch of derelict craft would permit redundant air supply. The main issue would be integration of the computer systems or docks if the space industry doesn't standardize quickly after it goes commercial.

Title: Re: ZAP!!!
Post by: SandySandfort on April 29, 2011, 12:34:30 pm
Despite some really big exceptions, like taxation and conscription, our current system of democratic government, at least originally, had the same basic idea as its goal as is behind the ZAP.

Quite true. The seed of destruction was the faulty idea that an agency of coercion (i.e., government) could safeguard those ZAP ideals. Thus the US democratic government was doomed ab initio, by its internal contradiction.

What defines our current system as distinct from the AnCap ideal, therefore, is not their shared idea that individuals have rights and are not creatures of the state - but rather, the exceptions to the ZAP that our system allows.

Bingo.

Thus, the point is that an AnCap system, in practice, is going to be defined, not by the ZAP, but by how arbitration works within it, since that's where the "exceptions" - that may not be the right word - to the ZAP are going to come from.

This does not follow. Assuming arguendo, that Belters mostly adhere to the ZAP as a first principle, then arbiters will do so as well. Why? Because they will not be hired by litigants if they do not.

Also, everyone keeps assuming that "arbiter" is some sort of professional caste. It is not. Anyone can sit it arbitration. ANYONE. In EFT, Pablo Rosenberg is probably the closest thing to a professional arbiter. With Reggie, on the other hand, arbitration is a sideline to his church activities--much as rabbis play the role of arbiter in the resolution of disputes between Jews.

Let's create a simple example. Robyn borrows a blouse from Libby to wear to a party. A clumsy boy spills wine on the blouse, creating a permanent stain. Libby wants Robyn to buy her a new blouse (the "you break it, you buy it" theory); Robyn thinks that Libby assumed the risk by lending it to go to a party. (Also she advances the theory that she is not responsible for the stain (the "I didn't stain the blouse, the oaf did" theory).

Rather than fight about it, they decide to ask Emily to resolve the issue and agree to abide by her decision. Emily agrees to act as arbiter (for free or for .2 grams of gold). She decides that Robyn should pay half the cost of replacing the blouse. Neither Robyn nor  Libby are crazy about the solution, but a deal is a deal. Problem solved. Now is Emily secretly aspiring to be a member of the putative oligarchy that does/will rule Ceres? Probably not.

Under AnCap, you can't just ignore the existence of other people either, and so the form that arbitration will take will make a very big difference to the kind of society you will be living in - so if arbitration is handwaved away as "something we'll figure out later", the objection that AnCap is a pig in a poke is a legitimate one.

If the ZAP is the Belters' First Principle, then mutually agreed upon arbitration to resolve disputes, is the Second Principle. Why? Because it is pretty much the only form of dispute resolution that does not, explicitly or implicitly, involve the initiation of force. (I say "pretty much the only form" because, there are even more primitive alternatives, such as paper-scissors-stone or running a foot race.)

BTW, trial by combat, trial by ordeal or throwing the I Ching are all permitted by the ZAP. For a resolution based on the merits, though, some sort of voluntary third-party resolution is the only ZAP-compliant option.

And just to tie this up, voluntary means voluntary. If someone does not agree to arbitration, his life will suddenly become a lot more complicated.
Title: Re: ZAP!!!
Post by: quadibloc on April 29, 2011, 12:43:48 pm
And just to tie this up, voluntary means voluntary. If someone does not agree to arbitration, his life will suddenly become a lot more complicated.
But that's the detail in which the devil may lie.

It is being assumed that shunning is inadequate for dealing with "real criminals", and not all "real criminals" will make mistakes in victim selection, and that "real criminals" - that is, people who commit serious aggressions, like murder and rape, against other citizens, will exist, however infrequently. It seems to me that any system adequate to deal with them... will also have the power to impose community whims on people as well... unless there's something going on here that no one has spelled out.

This could well be a "theoretical" problem - especially if citizens of an expanse where AnCap is practiced can vote with their feet (no mutual extradition treaties that override the judgment of the arbiters in the next village over, for example - so you can run from the imposition of a local whim, but not from the penalty for a serious aggression, because all the villages will agree about those). People with statist habits of thought may imagine appellate arbiters and Supreme Planetary Arbiters, but if a putative AnCap society doesn't have things like that, then it makes it more plausible that it isn't a state in disguise after all.

EDIT: Oh, and by the way, I've thought of an even sillier objection to AnCap.

Local: Welcome to our happily functioning anarchist society.

Visitor: Oh, that's nice. When will you be having your next election, so that the people here can decide if they want to retain anarchy as their form of government?

Local: We don't have government, so we can hardly have elections.

Visitor: But that's tyranny!

So one must make allowances for the fact that much about AnCap is unintelligible to the traditional mind-set.
Title: Re: ZAP!!!
Post by: mellyrn on April 29, 2011, 03:26:57 pm
Quote
When will you be having your next election, so that the people here can decide

Elections decide nothing.  Before the election -- long before -- there has been some level of social conversation about the issues.  This may be by the water cooler, it may be movies made with a particular bent, it may be ads on a bus.  The election is only a means to tally up how successful the various sides of the conversation have been.

If you wait until voting time to flex your civic muscles, it's too late:  you've long since been manipulated -- instead of being one of the manipulators.
Title: Re: ZAP!!!
Post by: Brugle on April 29, 2011, 04:04:43 pm
It is being assumed that shunning is inadequate for dealing with "real criminals", and not all "real criminals" will make mistakes in victim selection, and that "real criminals" - that is, people who commit serious aggressions, like murder and rape, against other citizens, will exist, however infrequently. It seems to me that any system adequate to deal with them... will also have the power to impose community whims on people as well... unless there's something going on here that no one has spelled out.

Perhaps I missed something, but this seems confused.

Sure, there will be mechanisms for dealing with "real criminals".  If such mechanisms aren't standard, they will be created as necessary.  And, certainly, such mechanisms in a community of people where aggression is accepted would lead to the aggressive imposition of community whims.  But what does that have to do with an AnCap community?

Title: Re: ZAP!!!
Post by: quadibloc on April 29, 2011, 06:19:34 pm
And, certainly, such mechanisms in a community of people where aggression is accepted would lead to the aggressive imposition of community whims.  But what does that have to do with an AnCap community?
Now, that's an effective response... from an angle I didn't even think of.

Finding people you can trust as neighbors, though, solves a lot of problems under any political system - and, again, people with statist habits of thought might imagine that a requirement of the right kind of political system is to somehow dispense with that requirement. I can't refute the counterargument that this would be wishing for the impossible.
Title: Re: ZAP!!!
Post by: sam on April 30, 2011, 01:07:08 am
1) don't frack with other people's affairs.   The whole reason America, Britain, etc. have terrorist problems is due to their interventionist foreign policy.

And the reason Sweden, Switzerland, Thailand, Nigeria, etc have terrorist problems is?

Take a look at the bloody borders of Islam map.
Title: Re: ZAP!!!
Post by: sam on April 30, 2011, 01:19:47 am
It is being assumed that shunning is inadequate for dealing with "real criminals", and not all "real criminals" will make mistakes in victim selection, and that "real criminals" - that is, people who commit serious aggressions, like murder and rape, against other citizens, will exist, however infrequently. It seems to me that any system adequate to deal with them... will also have the power to impose community whims on people as well.

Any monopoly system to deal with them will have the power to impose community whims.

But assume that the authority of the arbiters comes in large part not from some professional caste of enforces that are obligated to follow the dictates of the arbiters, but from the fact that people would otherwise fight it out, and for real crimes, shoot it out - that burglars submit to arbitration because the likely alternative is that the homeowner puts the burglar's head on a post outside his home to discourage subsequent burglars, and that homeowners don't actually need to go to arbitration - if the burglar already has a bad reputation and no one who wants to stick up for him, the homeowner can probably just stick the burglar's head on a post without bothering with arbitration - and if the burglar skipped out after a previous arbitration, and burgles again, that is quite possibly what will happen.

Such authority is not capable of enforcing "community whims".

Or, indeed, community anything.  It cannot enforce public good laws, only private good laws.  There has to be a particular aggrieved party who is particularly aggrieved at a particular offender.  The offender can get away with doing things that are bad for society.  He cannot get away with doing things that are bad for some particular person.
Title: Re: ZAP!!!
Post by: J Thomas on April 30, 2011, 06:38:54 am

Such authority is not capable of enforcing "community whims".

Or, indeed, community anything.  It cannot enforce public good laws, only private good laws.  There has to be a particular aggrieved party who is particularly aggrieved at a particular offender.  The offender can get away with doing things that are bad for society.  He cannot get away with doing things that are bad for some particular person.

I will give a silly example. Imagine that on Ceres people realize that human dandruff is a bad thing. It blows around everywhere. It gets into people's food. It gets into air filters. I's just basicly unsanitary and bad. And everybody but you has gotten convinced about this, to the point they all shave their heads daily and vacuum them to minimise dandruff.

So, somebody calls for arbitration on you because you are walking around in public with hair on your head. You believe that you have a right to grow hair and you sure don't want to be on record as someone who refused arbitration.

So this bald woman tells the bald arbitrator that when she saw your hair it made her sick to her stomach and she started to get an asthma attack. Because of you.

And the arbitrator agrees that your dust-mop is an assault on the senses for everybody who sees it, and open aggression on the air filters. But it isn't like you're killing anybody. People breathe each others' skin flakes all the time, you're just doing it hundreds of times worse. So he rules that you can keep your hair if you want to, and the only requirement is that if you go into a corridor that uses the public corridor company's filters you must pay them 0.1 gold per day, and if anybody who sees you in public complains to you then you must pay them 0.01 gold per complaint on the spot.

This might seem like a badly debased ZAP arbitration. But I think that if you find yourself doing something in public that most people disapprove of, they will find a way to go after you.
Title: Re: ZAP!!!
Post by: terry_freeman on April 30, 2011, 07:02:36 am
All existing forms of states have failed to eliminate real criminals - people who rape, murder, and steal. Even Singapore, which has quite extensive lists of crimes and punishments thereof, has a problem with real criminals.

Why then all the bitching and moaning about the possibility that real criminals might be able to survive in a society which takes ZAP seriously? If we apply the same standard to both, then we should conclude that both statism and ZAP are failures.

Is Holt honest enough to do that?

A better criterion would be, which sort of organization reduces real crime? Since real crime is by definition aggression, it seems that ZAP would have a definitive lead in any such race.

As for people like Holt, they'd have trouble buying a meal without paying up front - and their coins would be tested. Who would trust such perverse people?
 
Title: Re: ZAP!!!
Post by: J Thomas on April 30, 2011, 07:25:02 am
All existing forms of states have failed to eliminate real criminals - people who rape, murder, and steal. Even Singapore, which has quite extensive lists of crimes and punishments thereof, has a problem with real criminals.

Why then all the bitching and moaning about the possibility that real criminals might be able to survive in a society which takes ZAP seriously? If we apply the same standard to both, then we should conclude that both statism and ZAP are failures.

Or rather, statism has failed in practice, while ZAP fails according to some people's theories.

However, state supporters tend to be pretty good at finding reasons why it isn't the state's fault. Like, they can believe that people of a particular race tend to be criminals and what can the state do about that except jail them? Or people whose parents didn't teach them right. People who have some forms of mental illness. And when the state arrests somebody, people can assume that the criminal has been found and that justice will prevail.

If a ZAP society is not as good at hiding the criminals who get away, it will look worse. How hypocritically can a ZAP society pretend it has solved all problems? Is that contest even worth competing in?
Title: Re: ZAP!!!
Post by: quadibloc on April 30, 2011, 08:23:07 am
Why then all the bitching and moaning about the possibility that real criminals might be able to survive in a society which takes ZAP seriously? If we apply the same standard to both, then we should conclude that both statism and ZAP are failures.
Oh, that's quite true.

We're familiar, though, with the efforts that statism makes to try to combat crime.

It's clear that AnCap will deal with crime by giving citizens more latitude in self-defense. This may help.

But we would like to know what else AnCap has planned. It's hard for some of us to see how an arbitration system that isn't a monopoly could possibly work, and it seems that advocates of AnCap haven't yet settled on one scheme of arbitration - which makes it harder to find a satisfying answer to the question.
Title: Re: ZAP!!!
Post by: SandySandfort on April 30, 2011, 10:42:53 am
It is being assumed that shunning is inadequate for dealing with "real criminals"...

No, it is not. Shunning is one method--and a very effective one. However, there is a wide range of "self-help" that could be brought to bear against a criminal.

This could well be a "theoretical" problem - especially if citizens of an expanse where AnCap is practiced can vote with their feet (no mutual extradition treaties that override the judgment of the arbiters in the next village over, for example - so you can run from the imposition of a local whim, but not from the penalty for a serious aggression, because all the villages will agree about those). People with statist habits of thought may imagine appellate arbiters and Supreme Planetary Arbiters, but if a putative AnCap society doesn't have things like that, then it makes it more plausible that it isn't a state in disguise after all.

This is sort of what happened in the era of westward expansion in the US. A lot of criminal types, went west to avoid punishment for crimes they committed in the East. Also a lot of them ended up the guests at necktie parties, when they resumed their wayward practices in the West. In some senses you can run, but you cannot hide--from your own nature.

I suspect that finding bad guys would be a big market opportunity in the Belt. True bounty hunters (not just bail enforcement agents) would be respected profession in the Belt.

(http://community-2.webtv.net/@HH!5C!51!5D4DE6329D78/BaronHermes/OldTimeRadio/media/captureD64.jpg)
Title: Re: ZAP!!!
Post by: SandySandfort on April 30, 2011, 10:57:47 am
... dandruff...

... This might seem like a badly debased ZAP arbitration. But I think that if you find yourself doing something in public that most people disapprove of, they will find a way to go after you.

Special pleading, J Thomas. Your example is totally of whole cloth. It falls into the "Yeah, but what if invisible aliens attack?" category. Come up with a plausible example if you want to challenge the ZAP. Arbitration has to be agreed to by the plaintiff, the defendant and the arbiter. What do you think are the chances that the plaintiff would be willing to post a bond, the defendant would take the claim seriously and an arbiter would be interested in such a silly pissant case? You can do better than this.
Title: Re: ZAP!!!
Post by: SandySandfort on April 30, 2011, 11:22:27 am
It's clear that AnCap will deal with crime by giving citizens more latitude in self-defense. This may help.

You think?  ::)

When virtually every man, woman and child is armed and willing to use their weapons in self-defense, it seems axiomatic that the threat posed by criminals be vastly reduced. So I think your "this may help" dramatically underestimates the salutary effect of armed "citizens" on social order.

But we would like to know what else AnCap has planned.

Sort of an unfair request of an anarchy, don't you think? AnCap isn't a government or any other entity. It is more of a process or description of a way of interacting. However, that doesn't mean AnCap people won't have plans for their own protection. It does not mean that arbiters are oblivious to the threat represented by criminals.

It's hard for some of us to see how an arbitration system that isn't a monopoly could possibly work, and it seems that advocates of AnCap haven't yet settled on one scheme of arbitration...

Bingo! Riddle me this, why should there be only one scheme of arbitration? If the disputants are happy with the arbitration they sign up for, why should that be anyone's concern but their own? Imagine a hippie and a New Age person who have a dispute. If they agree to have an arbiter throw the I Ching and resolve their dispute based on his interpretation of the throw, so what? Ditto for Judaic law, Sharia or flipping a coin.

Just as long as the social expectation is the ZAP, the method of resolving disputes is pretty much irrelevant. My guess is that the almost universal default setting will be standard arbitration methods similar to those currently offered by the American Arbitration Association, but who knows? (And who cares?)
Title: Re: ZAP!!!
Post by: sam on April 30, 2011, 11:27:43 am
So this bald woman tells the bald arbitrator that when she saw your hair it made her sick to her stomach and she started to get an asthma attack. Because of you.

And the arbitrator agrees that your dust-mop is an assault on the senses for everybody who sees it, and open aggression on the air filters.

And whatever he rules, you ignore it.  She did not really get sick her stomach.   No one person is aggrieved enough to use force, or if he is, is only one person.
Title: Re: ZAP!!!
Post by: J Thomas on April 30, 2011, 12:31:10 pm

This is sort of what happened in the era of westward expansion in the US. A lot of criminal types, went west to avoid punishment for crimes they committed in the East. Also a lot of them ended up the guests at necktie parties, when they resumed their wayward practices in the West. In some senses you can run, but you cannot hide--from your own nature.

People have been claiming here that the "wild, wild west" just didn't have much crime. Now you claim that there were a lot of lynchings.

How would we find out who's right? I can imagine that you are right but that the people who hanged suspected criminals didn't keep many records, and so the histories would show very little crime.
Title: Re: ZAP!!!
Post by: J Thomas on April 30, 2011, 01:18:26 pm
... dandruff...

... This might seem like a badly debased ZAP arbitration. But I think that if you find yourself doing something in public that most people disapprove of, they will find a way to go after you.

Special pleading, J Thomas. Your example is totally of whole cloth. It falls into the "Yeah, but what if invisible aliens attack?" category. Come up with a plausible example if you want to challenge the ZAP.

This example actually does seem plausible to me. But I don't think it in any way challenges the ZAP. It might challenge some people's limited appreciation of ZAP.

Quote
Arbitration has to be agreed to by the plaintiff, the defendant and the arbiter. What do you think are the chances that the plaintiff would be willing to post a bond, the defendant would take the claim seriously and an arbiter would be interested in such a silly pissant case? You can do better than this.

If the defendant refuses, then he has refused arbitration. He may find things getting interesting afterward. He may find that a dozen thugs arrive to shave his head in public, and if he resists them he'll face serious arbitration. Because everybody except him agrees that this is the sort of thing he should not resist, and he refused arbitration before.

It's quite likely that an arbiter can be found who will accept the case. Nobody wants a disgusting mophead running around in public. And depending on public opinion, which the arbiter is likely to agree with being part of the public, the plaintiff's bond may be safe.

This is not an attack on ZAP. This is ZAP in action. If people on a space station etc feel that dandruff is aggression, then it isn't unreasonable that they will respond. There is nothing wrong here.

If I give an example that you think is plausible, you will agree with me that ZAP is operating correctly in that example. It's only because you don't think of dandruff as aggression that you balk at my example.
Title: Re: ZAP!!!
Post by: J Thomas on April 30, 2011, 01:33:39 pm
Why then all the bitching and moaning about the possibility that real criminals might be able to survive in a society which takes ZAP seriously? If we apply the same standard to both, then we should conclude that both statism and ZAP are failures.

Oh, that's quite true.

We're familiar, though, with the efforts that statism makes to try to combat crime.

It's clear that AnCap will deal with crime by giving citizens more latitude in self-defense. This may help.

But we would like to know what else AnCap has planned. It's hard for some of us to see how an arbitration system that isn't a monopoly could possibly work, and it seems that advocates of AnCap haven't yet settled on one scheme of arbitration - which makes it harder to find a satisfying answer to the question.

Here's one possible argument. If you agree that current approaches to crime prevention are not worth doing, would we be worse off if we stopped doing them?

Whatever we evolved to replace them might be better. ZAP and arbitration might easily be a better base to start from, and we won't find out how it would change to better fit reality until we try it.

So the fundamental question is whether what we have is good enough to keep.
Title: Re: ZAP!!!
Post by: sam on April 30, 2011, 01:46:45 pm
People have been claiming here that the "wild, wild west" just didn't have much crime. Now you claim that there were a lot of lynchings.

If they needed killing, not a crime.

In the west, the penalty for stealing a horse or "insulting" a woman, was generally death.  Seems right to me.
Title: Re: ZAP!!!
Post by: sam on April 30, 2011, 01:51:47 pm
If the defendant refuses, then he has refused arbitration. He may find things getting interesting afterward. He may find that a dozen thugs arrive to shave his head in public,

Not one of these dozen thugs has an incentive, whereas a particular homeowner does have an incentive to do something about a particular burglar.

If you refuse arbitration over burglary, the offended home owner might use violence, quite possibly deadly violence, and the next homeowner certainly will.  Dandruff, not likely, because no one person has an incentive to himself do much about it.


Title: Re: ZAP!!!
Post by: J Thomas on April 30, 2011, 02:06:00 pm
People have been claiming here that the "wild, wild west" just didn't have much crime. Now you claim that there were a lot of lynchings.

If they needed killing, not a crime.

If they needed killing, they committed a crime?
Title: Re: ZAP!!!
Post by: J Thomas on April 30, 2011, 02:13:08 pm
If the defendant refuses, then he has refused arbitration. He may find things getting interesting afterward. He may find that a dozen thugs arrive to shave his head in public,

Not one of these dozen thugs has an incentive, whereas a particular homeowner does have an incentive to do something about a particular burglar.

If you refuse arbitration over burglary, the offended home owner might use violence, quite possibly deadly violence, and the next homeowner certainly will.  Dandruff, not likely, because no one person has an incentive to himself do much about it.

This is your claim about people in general. Like, you would argue that in the old days, people made lynch mobs only when they personally had each been harmed.

You are ignoring the possibility that men sometimes joined lynch mobs so they would look violent and some ways antisocial and therefore be more attractive to women.

And other possibilities.

But if a space station does have a dozen guys who are ready to enforce common courtesy, and nobody objects except the perp they enforce it on, why would you say it wouldn't happen?

What if it was a dozen women instead? Is he going to commit violence on them to stop them?
Title: Re: ZAP!!!
Post by: sam on April 30, 2011, 09:43:18 pm
If you refuse arbitration over burglary, the offended home owner might use violence, quite possibly deadly violence, and the next homeowner certainly will.  Dandruff, not likely, because no one person has an incentive to himself do much about it.

This is your claim about people in general. Like, you would argue that in the old days, people made lynch mobs only when they personally had each been harmed.

The core of a "lynch mob" was always some important, influential and wealthy person, who had himself usually been harmed, or one of his employees or family or close associates had been harmed.

Thus, for example, when someone robbed a bank, was usually found and killed by bankers leading bank security guards, not by random concerned citizens.  Analogously for cattle rustlers, horse thieves, and those who "insulted" women.

Title: Re: ZAP!!!
Post by: SandySandfort on April 30, 2011, 10:22:53 pm

This is sort of what happened in the era of westward expansion in the US. A lot of criminal types, went west to avoid punishment for crimes they committed in the East. Also a lot of them ended up the guests at necktie parties, when they resumed their wayward practices in the West. In some senses you can run, but you cannot hide--from your own nature.

People have been claiming here that the "wild, wild west" just didn't have much crime. Now you claim that there were a lot of lynchings.

Time for that remedial reading class. I did not claim there were a lot of hangings. I claimed that a lot of the criminals who committed crimes were hanged. Not the same thing at all.

If 1000 criminals went west and 100 "resumed their wayward practices," (i.e., committed new crimes) and of those 100, 80 ended up dead for their troubles that 80 compared to the 900 criminals who did not resume a life crime, or the hundreds of thousands of other people in the West, is not a lot. 80 out of 100 is a lot, however. Get it?

How would we find out who's right? I can imagine that you are right but that the people who hanged suspected criminals didn't keep many records, and so the histories would show very little crime.

Irrelevant to my point, but first, a lot of the criminals were hanged by the law. Second, do you really believe that a conspiracy that hanged someone would not be noticed? In small communities, people blab and the law and the newspaper take note of it. But again, no relevant to my point.
Title: Re: ZAP!!!
Post by: SandySandfort on April 30, 2011, 10:48:45 pm
This example actually does seem plausible to me. But I don't think it in any way challenges the ZAP. It might challenge some people's limited appreciation of ZAP.

   ::)

If the defendant refuses, then he has refused arbitration. He may find things getting interesting afterward. He may find that a dozen thugs arrive to shave his head in public, and if he resists them he'll face serious arbitration. Because everybody except him agrees that this is the sort of thing he should not resist, and he refused arbitration before.

"Everyone" agrees, only because you asserted that as part of your totally implausible scenario. If you can assert with a straight face that is would be totally likely that an entire dwarf planet's population would share such a silly belief, I will know you have lost touch with reality. That is why I asked for a realistic scenario without "everybody agrees" hand waiving. I though of a great one myself, but I think I will let you twist in the wind for a bit more.

It's quite likely that an arbiter can be found who will accept the case. Nobody wants a disgusting mophead running around in public. And depending on public opinion, which the arbiter is likely to agree with being part of the public, the plaintiff's bond may be safe.

Do you really think rational people give a flip about someone else's dandruff to the point where they would actually go to court or arbitration? As far as I know, this has come up nowhere in the world or even on the International Space Station. Please, J Thomas, do not embarrass yourself further, trying to make this dead bird fly. Saying that people would care and then building an elaborate rationalization for clearly aberrant behavior on the part of the man in the street and arbitrators is beneath you.

If I give an example that you think is plausible, you will agree with me that ZAP is operating correctly in that example. It's only because you don't think of dandruff as aggression that you balk at my example.

Your example is the height of stupidity, since it is completely out of touch with reality. Find an example that happens, or realistically could happen, in the real world, then we can talk. Something that should keep in mind, however, is damnum absque injuria, okay?
Title: Re: ZAP!!!
Post by: quadibloc on May 01, 2011, 02:27:39 am
Your example is the height of stupidity, since it is completely out of touch with reality. Find an example that happens, or realistically could happen, in the real world, then we can talk.
I was going to reply to the post in question with a similar, although milder, criticism.

Because I can clearly see the point he was trying to make, but I did feel that by using a silly example, he made it likely that others would miss his point.

The point is: if you have the ZAP, and "aggression" means causing harm to humans without a just reason, then you have to define "harm" and "humans".

For defining "humans", take abortion or Negro slavery.

For defining "harm", take the recent controversy about the age of consent in another thread.

Living among "a community of people who believe in the ZAP" may avoid the issue being raised.

The issue is, perhaps, this: despite people in the United States almost overwhelmingly sharing the value of wanting to be left alone by government to live their lives in their own way, history showed - long before Franklin Delano Roosevelt ever darkened the doors of the White House - that it was pretty easy to persuade people to hunt witches, outlaw homosexual behavior between consenting adults, ban polygamy, shun recusants (people not showing up at church on Sunday)... and even outlaw the manufacture and importation of beverage alcohol.

Self-selection notwithstanding, AnCap is not expected (nor, in fact, unless I miss my guess, does it even attempt) to change human nature.

So the argument is intended to show that AnCap isn't really any better than the government system in preventing people from imposing their bigotries on others. The mechanism of how they do so will only be a little different, that's all.
Title: Re: ZAP!!!
Post by: sam on May 01, 2011, 03:47:25 am
The point is: if you have the ZAP, and "aggression" means causing harm to humans without a just reason, then you have to define "harm" and "humans".

For defining "humans", take abortion or Negro slavery.

For defining "harm", take the recent controversy about the age of consent in another thread.

In the old west, the three most common grounds for hanging people were horse stealing, cattle rustling, and “insulting a woman”.

“Insulting a woman” not only meant hitting on a woman in an unwelcome and intimidating manner, it also meant hitting on a woman in a manner that ought to be unwelcome if she was as chaste as she was supposed to be – for example hitting on someone else's wife, or courting someone's daughter without paternal permission.

The dandruff example is, of course, ridiculous.  “Insulting a woman” is not ridiculous.   Hanging men who “insult” a woman sounds like a good idea to me.   It did not sound like a good idea to Saga period icelanders, indeed it would sound as outrageous to them as it does to many in this forum, but it sounded like a pretty good idea to people in the old west, where virtuous women were in rather short supply.
Title: Re: ZAP!!!
Post by: J Thomas on May 01, 2011, 06:07:18 am

This is sort of what happened in the era of westward expansion in the US. A lot of criminal types, went west to avoid punishment for crimes they committed in the East. Also a lot of them ended up the guests at necktie parties, when they resumed their wayward practices in the West. In some senses you can run, but you cannot hide--from your own nature.

People have been claiming here that the "wild, wild west" just didn't have much crime. Now you claim that there were a lot of lynchings.

Time for that remedial reading class. I did not claim there were a lot of hangings. I claimed that a lot of the criminals who committed crimes were hanged. Not the same thing at all.

If 1000 criminals went west and 100 "resumed their wayward practices," (i.e., committed new crimes) and of those 100, 80 ended up dead for their troubles that 80 compared to the 900 criminals who did not resume a life crime, or the hundreds of thousands of other people in the West, is not a lot. 80 out of 100 is a lot, however. Get it?

OK. I didn't think of 1000 criminals as "a lot" or 10% of them as "a lot". No big deal.
Title: Re: ZAP!!!
Post by: J Thomas on May 01, 2011, 07:17:47 am

"Everyone" agrees, only because you asserted that as part of your totally implausible scenario. If you can assert with a straight face that is would be totally likely that an entire dwarf planet's population would share such a silly belief, I will know you have lost touch with reality.

I came up with this example from David Gerrold's book, Jumping Off the Planet in which he makes it seem quite plausible. YMMV.

Quote
That is why I asked for a realistic scenario without "everybody agrees" hand waiving.

You want an example where there is considerable difference of opinion about the rules? Where, for example, a lot of people think it's rape and a lot of people don't think it's rape? How come?

I looked at Jamesd's claim that on Vanuatu men think rape is OK. A couple of europeans who have lived there said that a whole lot of Vanuatu men believe that if they find a woman alone, that is evidence that she has given consent. If she didn't want to have sex with the first man who found her, she wouldn't be alone now would she? They also believed from western movies that western women have sex with lots of men on short acquaintance or no acquaintance.

We could make up a story about a space station where half the men were from Vanuatu, but what's the point? I don't have a point about that. Of course ZAP depends on social consensus about what's aggression and what isn't. How could it be otherwise?

Quote
It's quite likely that an arbiter can be found who will accept the case. Nobody wants a disgusting mophead running around in public. And depending on public opinion, which the arbiter is likely to agree with being part of the public, the plaintiff's bond may be safe.

Do you really think rational people give a flip about someone else's dandruff to the point where they would actually go to court or arbitration?

Gerrold's book didn't go that far. He had a character explain to his children that on their space stations it was considered the height of rudeness not to be bald, and that they should follow the local customs to be polite, so they did. The place they visited had a lot of tourists who didn't, and nobody sued them. He didn't have any mention of lawsuits about it, but, well, read the book and see what you think.

Quote
If I give an example that you think is plausible, you will agree with me that ZAP is operating correctly in that example. It's only because you don't think of dandruff as aggression that you balk at my example.

Your example is the height of stupidity, since it is completely out of touch with reality. Find an example that happens, or realistically could happen, in the real world, then we can talk.

OK. How about somebody who chews tobacco and spits indoors, not only on the floor but also on tabletops where people eat and on doorknobs, menus, and trays of utensils. To remove a side issue, have him chew not tobacco but something that's not known to be poisonous.
Title: Re: ZAP!!!
Post by: J Thomas on May 01, 2011, 07:51:07 am

The dandruff example is, of course, ridiculous.  “Insulting a woman” is not ridiculous.   Hanging men who “insult” a woman sounds like a good idea to me.  

As usual, you assert that the customs you are familiar with are right and proper, while other people's customs (hypothetical or not) are no good.

Don't get out much, do you?
Title: Re: ZAP!!!
Post by: quadibloc on May 01, 2011, 08:31:43 am
To remove a side issue, have him chew not tobacco but something that's not known to be poisonous.
Unless the germ theory of disease has suddenly become controversial, it is unclear to me how that would change any issues.

As usual, you assert that the customs you are familiar with are right and proper, while other people's customs (hypothetical or not) are no good.

Don't get out much, do you?
Aggression against women is against the ZAP, just like any other kind of aggression.

Your point, after all, doesn't require an assertion of moral relativism to be made effectively, so this line of discussion only obscures that point - which, I presume, is that the ZAP doesn't itself incorporate a definition of aggression. So to actually work, it requires a population who share similar customs and cultural assumptions.

The best way to illustrate that is with cases where it can be seen that there are two clashing viewpoints that are plausible. Using outrageous examples, as we've seen, causes people to focus on the unrealistic appearance of the example rather than the issue of reconciling divergent basic views.

And it's when you have a population that doesn't share similar customs and cultural assumptions that the government system works badly, and there are bloody civil wars instead of elections, because each ethnic group fears being dominated by the other. Which seems to imply that AnCap doesn't really solve any of the really important problems.
Title: Re: ZAP!!!
Post by: J Thomas on May 01, 2011, 08:54:23 am
I was going to reply to the post in question with a similar, although milder, criticism.

Because I can clearly see the point he was trying to make, but I did feel that by using a silly example, he made it likely that others would miss his point.

Actually, one of my major points was that they would miss the point.

Quote
So the argument is intended to show that AnCap isn't really any better than the government system in preventing people from imposing their bigotries on others. The mechanism of how they do so will only be a little different, that's all.

Yes, but on the other hand there's no reason to expect that AnCap would be worse about that. And it's only a problem for us when we disagree about what is being imposed. When we agree with the goal it doesn't look like an imposition at all. It looks like the people who do things we don't like are aggressing against somebody or other, and maybe we ought to get involved.
Title: Re: ZAP!!!
Post by: SandySandfort on May 01, 2011, 10:17:27 am
The point is: if you have the ZAP, and "aggression" means causing harm to humans without a just reason, then you have to define "harm" and "humans".

No, no, no. It means the initiation of force (threat of force, fraud). This is ZAP "black letter law." Your formulation leads to all sorts of false "problems" that are only artifacts of fuzzy, wiggle-word definitions.

For defining "humans", take abortion or Negro slavery.

I have never seen anyone who seriously took the position that fetuses or black slaves were not human, just that they had few or no rights as such for whatever reason.

A fetus, while unequivocally "human," is only an inchoate or potential human being. As such, its human rights are inchoate or potential as well. When does that status change? Well, if you would like to start a topic on that subject, be my guest, but it is beyond the scope of this topic, here

With regard to slaves, their enslavement was predicated upon their being inferior humans, not non-humans. (Just to head off the "3/5 of a man" BS, it had nothing to do with their humanity, but with their states' representation in Congress. The Southerners wanted them counted 100% for the purpose of having greater representation. It was the non-slave states that wanted them not to be counted at all. 3/5 was a compromise negotiated between the two sides and had nothing to do with the slaves' humanity.)

For defining "harm", take the recent controversy about the age of consent in another thread.

Fortunately, the ZAP has nothing to do with "harm," only the initiation of force. This a perfect example why the prerequisite for critical thinking is definitional clarity.

The issue is, perhaps, this: despite people in the United States almost overwhelmingly sharing the value of wanting to be left alone by government to live their lives in their own way, history showed - long before Franklin Delano Roosevelt ever darkened the doors of the White House - that it was pretty easy to persuade people to hunt witches, outlaw homosexual behavior between consenting adults, ban polygamy, shun recusants (people not showing up at church on Sunday)... and even outlaw the manufacture and importation of beverage alcohol.

Yes governments have been very good at using their stolen money to fool people into doing, or accepting, stupid things. Your other examples were isolated aberrations or primitive thinking. I think it is obvious that a true ZAP society would be less tolerant of homophobia, for example, than under government systems. Most governments have various homophobic laws on the books and still enforces them to one extent or another.

Self-selection notwithstanding, AnCap is not expected (nor, in fact, unless I miss my guess, does it even attempt) to change human nature.

Bingo-plex! Every attempt by government to change human nature has failed. The ZAP accepts human nature and does not try to change it. Like governments, it does try to modify behavior, but instead of using force it uses other negatives incentive to a minimum and positive incentives to the greatest extent possible.
Title: Re: ZAP!!!
Post by: SandySandfort on May 01, 2011, 10:19:58 am
In the old west, the three most common grounds for hanging people were horse stealing, cattle rustling, and “insulting a woman”.

I'm afraid that just as with your 7-year old age of consent, I am going to have to call bullshit. Citations please.
Title: Re: ZAP!!!
Post by: J Thomas on May 01, 2011, 10:34:51 am
To remove a side issue, have him chew not tobacco but something that's not known to be poisonous.

Unless the germ theory of disease has suddenly become controversial, it is unclear to me how that would change any issues.

Tobacco includes nicotine, a deadly poison, among other things. It has been used effectively as an insecticide. People will naturally object to having poisons come in contact with things that their food might touch.

Quote
As usual, you assert that the customs you are familiar with are right and proper, while other people's customs (hypothetical or not) are no good.

Don't get out much, do you?

Aggression against women is against the ZAP, just like any other kind of aggression.

Agreed.

Quote
Your point, after all, doesn't require an assertion of moral relativism to be made effectively, so this line of discussion only obscures that point - which, I presume, is that the ZAP doesn't itself incorporate a definition of aggression. So to actually work, it requires a population who share similar customs and cultural assumptions.

And people who use ZAP may have customs and cultural assumptions you don't agree with. In that case, moral absolutism says that they are wrong and you are right, while moral relativism says they have the right to use ZAP in their own community the way they choose.

Quote
The best way to illustrate that is with cases where it can be seen that there are two clashing viewpoints that are plausible. Using outrageous examples, as we've seen, causes people to focus on the unrealistic appearance of the example rather than the issue of reconciling divergent basic views.

Well, see, plausibility is entirely an individual esthetic judgement.

Consider issues of water quality. In the old days, people often used the rule of thumb that moving water purifies itself every 500 feet. So if your downstream neighbor complained that your outhouse was too close to the creek, you could count off the distance and if it was more than 500 feet it was none of his business. And experience proved this right -- if you got typhoid there was a strong chance he would not get it from you.

But now, in my state we have government standards for water quality. If an open stream has more than 1000 coliform bacteria per 100 ml of water, it is in violation whether there is any disease involved or not. And standards for drinking water are even higher. We simply do not put up with as much of other people's shit in our water as we used to.

Does it make sense that sanitation standards might continue to improve? It does to me. Standards in space would depend on the engineering. If each person has a sleeping area that is 1000 cubic meters or more, and air cleaning is so thorough that it uses 50,000 watts per individual, then we probably won't have any concerns.

If sleeping areas are more like 3 cubic meters
http://www.yesicanusechopsticks.com/capsule/IMAG0354.JPG
and life support runs closer to the edge, then we will.

Meanwhile, we have no known examples of diseases spread by dandruff, except perhaps dandruff. (Smallpox virus has been detected in dandruff, but nobody has ever proven it can spread that way. And it's temporarily extinct anyway.) We have tended not to look for disease spread that way either, since we assume it doesn't happen. We do have things like mononucleosis spread by saliva. So the two examples are objectively somewhat different by current medical knowledge.

But if you wait until people are eating and then you point out that they are eating little bits of other people's skin flakes in their food, they will usually lose their appetite. They don't want to be reminded of that. It's currently the custom to ignore it because there's nothing you can do about it, except for basic precautions like to require cooks and food servers to wear hats or hairnets.

Quote
And it's when you have a population that doesn't share similar customs and cultural assumptions that the government system works badly, and there are bloody civil wars instead of elections, because each ethnic group fears being dominated by the other. Which seems to imply that AnCap doesn't really solve any of the really important problems.

Of course, even if AnCap doesn't solve that problem, I haven't seen anything to say it makes it worse than governments make it. It might be better. Without a government for an ethnic group to dominate, things might go somehow smoother.
Title: Re: ZAP!!!
Post by: J Thomas on May 01, 2011, 10:59:16 am
The point is: if you have the ZAP, and "aggression" means causing harm to humans without a just reason, then you have to define "harm" and "humans".

No, no, no. It means the initiation of force (threat of force, fraud). This is ZAP "black letter law." Your formulation leads to all sorts of false "problems" that are only artifacts of fuzzy, wiggle-word definitions.

For defining "harm", take the recent controversy about the age of consent in another thread.

Fortunately, the ZAP has nothing to do with "harm," only the initiation of force. This a perfect example why the prerequisite for critical thinking is definitional clarity.

OK! Now we're getting somewhere! I didn't understand this subtlety before.

So, say that somebody goes to an arbitrator and says of somebody else, "Here's how his actions harm me." And he shows how he is harmed. The arbitrator might say "You have no right to not be harmed. You only have the right that he not initiate force. He can do whatever he wants, harming you or not, as long as it isn'r forceful."

And so, for example, say that a food handler does not wash his hands and he smears some of his excrement on your food. He has not initiated force against you, and he has not violated any of your rights. However, he has a contract with the restaurant owner that he will not do such things, and he has broken his contract. The owner has the right to fire him, and perhaps even sue him for breach of contract.

And if someone shits in public places? Unless he is carrying a disease he has not even threatened harm to anybody. He has not done force, he has not threatened, he never promised not to.    But there are no public places! Every place is owned by somebody, and that somebody has a right to throw people out of their property if they don't want them there. Do things the owner doesn't want and he can throw you out and then forbid you entry.

So if you don't own property yourself, and you happen to offend all the landowners, you can get yourself thrown from one to another right to the airlock.... Nobody is forced to allow you to be on their property, so if you rent and you offend too many people, you're toast. No arbitration required. "Is there anybody here who wants to keep this guy? If so, tell us and then come and get him. Otherwise, out he goes." Very similar to one of the abortion approaches!

Or if you own land you can huddle on your own property and never go anywhere.

This ZAP stuff is a lot more subtle than it looked at first sight.
Title: Re: ZAP!!!
Post by: SandySandfort on May 01, 2011, 11:31:26 am
OK. How about somebody who chews tobacco and spits indoors, not only on the floor but also on tabletops where people eat and on doorknobs, menus, and trays of utensils. To remove a side issue, have him chew not tobacco but something that's not known to be poisonous.

What is your question? What does this have to do with the ZAP? Spits indoors where? In the guy's own house? No ZAP issue there. On someone else's property? Easy. They tell him to cut it out or leave. No ZAP issue there. QED. This topic is about the ZAP. Please come up with examples that actually involves the ZAP.

BTW, this also applies to your dandruff example. In a market anarchy, everyplace belongs to someone, so it is someone else's call as to what they permit on their property. You guys really have to stop thinking in collectivist terms. In the Belt, there is no "community" property, water or even air. It all belongs to someone. As a result, cutesy little scenarios that require some sort of collective space, just won't fly. So how about back to the ZAP?
Title: Re: ZAP!!!
Post by: SandySandfort on May 01, 2011, 11:49:14 am
And so, for example, say that a food handler does not wash his hands and he smears some of his excrement on your food. He has not initiated force against you...

Of course he has. Carelessly having dirty hands is one thing; we can addresses it separately, if you want, but how is intentionally smearing feces on food not the initiation of force? That is about as pure as it gets.

Just out of curiosity, who on the list actually agrees with JT that smearing feces on food is not the initiation of force? Damn, I hate sea lawyers. >:(
Title: Re: ZAP!!!
Post by: J Thomas on May 01, 2011, 12:13:15 pm
And so, for example, say that a food handler does not wash his hands and he smears some of his excrement on your food. He has not initiated force against you...

Of course he has. Carelessly having dirty hands is one thing; we can addresses it separately, if you want, but how is intentionally smearing feces on food not the initiation of force? That is about as pure as it gets.

Just out of curiosity, who on the list actually agrees with JT that smearing feces on food is not the initiation of force? Damn, I hate sea lawyers. >:(

It isn't force. Unless he is sick he has not harmed you. He has not initiated physical force. He has not threatened force, he has not communicated with you. He has not committed fraud except for the implicit assumption that he wouldn't do such a thing, since your esthetic sense would not encourage you to let him touch your food unless you thought he wouldn't do that.

But it's fraud between him and his employer. His employer surely doesn't want that.

Handwashing is part of the job of foodhandling. Whether it's incompetence or malice, if he doesn't do it he just isn't doing the job. This is a social expectation. He is supposed to wear a hairnet and he's supposed to wash his hands. Also he doesn't spit in the food. There's nothing on the menu etc that says he won't, and unless he is diseased there's no big harm done, but people feel they have the right to assume he won't.

As you explained, not part of ZAP.
Title: Re: ZAP!!!
Post by: sam on May 01, 2011, 02:04:51 pm
A fetus, while unequivocally "human," is only an inchoate or potential human being. As such, its human rights are inchoate or potential as well. When does that status change? Well, if you would like to start a topic on that subject, be my guest, but it is beyond the scope of this topic, here

That debate, however, is the same debate as the the age of consent debate.  If we allow abortion, why not partial birth abortion? If we allow partial birth abortion, why not infanticide?  And, come to think of it, if we attempt to forbid infanticide, who is going to stop those who commit infanticide in an anarchic society?  There is no complainant.

OK then, in an anarchy, abortion will be legal, and infanticide not illegal.  So if infanticide is not illegal, then when do they stop being infants?

The only fully consistent position winds up being the position of the Roman Republic - that the paterfamilias could execute any family member, and his approval was required for any family member, male or female, of any age, to marry or have sex.
Title: Re: ZAP!!!
Post by: SandySandfort on May 01, 2011, 02:20:53 pm
It isn't force. Unless he is sick he has not harmed you. He has not initiated physical force.

Man, your powers of rationalization are amazing. It is my food. My property. I do not want shit in it. To do so intentionally is the initiation of force. If you come over to my house and wash my dirty car, it is the initiation of force. Intentionally adulterating my food is no different. This where the sea lawyers usually pipe up, "but you had no contract with the restaurant to keep shit out of your food!" Re-read about the "reasonable person" standard if you don't get this. There are also "duty of care" "fraud" and "implied contract" issues here, but honestly, do we really need to go there? Imagine a real arbiter hearing a case between the restaurateur and/or the food preparer and the patron. Whom do you think would win, really?  

Title: Re: ZAP!!!
Post by: SandySandfort on May 01, 2011, 02:42:19 pm
I will not replay the "argument of the beard" with you. Suffice it to say that lines will be drawn. It would be a fools errand try it now, and my mother didn't rear any fools. (Well maybe my brother, but that's not me.)

That debate, however, is the same debate as the the age of consent debate.  If we allow abortion, why not partial birth abortion? If we allow partial birth abortion, why not infanticide?  And, come to think of it, if we attempt to forbid infanticide, who is going to stop those who commit infanticide in an anarchic society?  There is no complainant.

Well of course that is utter nonsense. People complain now, they will complain in the Belt. What you will have in a market anarchy are two things:

Social opprobrium--in an artificial or remote environment, shunning, for example, is psychologically unpleasant in the extreme and potentially fatal. 

"Speakers for the Dead"--I have already postulated that an ACLU sort of organization that would come into being for the purpose of initiate arbitration on behalf of the victims of wrongful death.

Your argument of the beard attempts, to the contrary, notwithstanding, lines would be drawn. "And you can take that to the bank!" (Oops, sorry about that last outburst, I inadvertently slipped into Obama Mode.)
Title: Re: ZAP!!!
Post by: J Thomas on May 01, 2011, 03:08:56 pm
It isn't force. Unless he is sick he has not harmed you. He has not initiated physical force.

Man, your powers of rationalization are amazing. It is my food. My property. I do not want shit in it.

You bought it. If you notice you don't want it, take it back and demand your money back.

Quote
To do so intentionally is the initiation of force.

Someone has prepared food you do not like, so that's initiation of force. Hmm.

Quote
If you come over to my house and wash my dirty car, it is the initiation of force.

Hmm. Do you believe you have achieved definitional clarity?

Quote
Intentionally adulterating my food is no different. This where the sea lawyers usually pipe up, "but you had no contract with the restaurant to keep shit out of your food!" Re-read about the "reasonable person" standard if you don't get this. There are also "duty of care" "fraud" and "implied contract" issues here, but honestly, do we really need to go there? Imagine a real arbiter hearing a case between the restaurateur and/or the food preparer and the patron. Whom do you think would win, really?

Who do I think would win? I have absolutely no question that the food server will be in deep shit, one way or another. And if it were to turn out that he can find a legalistic arbiter who concedes that what he did was not directly initiation of force, he will be in deep shit anyway. People will find a way, even if it were to turn out that ZAP told them not to.

Where I'm getting lost is how a speck of shit is initiating force, while a larger speck of dandruff is not. It has something to do with 20th century US cultural standards, but I'm not sure about the details.
Title: Re: ZAP!!!
Post by: J Thomas on May 01, 2011, 03:15:32 pm
That debate, however, is the same debate as the the age of consent debate.  If we allow abortion, why not partial birth abortion? If we allow partial birth abortion, why not infanticide?  And, come to think of it, if we attempt to forbid infanticide, who is going to stop those who commit infanticide in an anarchic society?  There is no complainant.

Well of course that is utter nonsense. People complain now, they will complain in the Belt. What you will have in a market anarchy are two things:

Social opprobrium--in an artificial or remote environment, shunning, for example, is psychologically unpleasant in the extreme and potentially fatal. 

"Speakers for the Dead"--I have already postulated that an ACLU sort of organization that would come into being for the purpose of initiate arbitration on behalf of the victims of wrongful death.

Your argument of the beard attempts, to the contrary, notwithstanding, lines would be drawn. "And you can take that to the bank!" (Oops, sorry about that last outburst, I inadvertently slipped into Obama Mode.)

I got involved in an attempt to work out the abortion arguments, and I wound up with Sam's position. The most logically consistent approach I could find was to let the parents kill children up until the time they were economically self-sufficient or somebody else offered to support them. Which would be abortion past age 40 in some cases.

For all l know that's where the line would be drawn about abortion. Or it could be anywhere else. I applaud your refusal to predict just where they would be drawn in some future society we know little about. It's possible they would be drawn where Sam thinks they should, but they might be drawn, well, anywhere at all.
Title: Re: ZAP!!!
Post by: wdg3rd on May 01, 2011, 03:59:29 pm
In the old west, the three most common grounds for hanging people were horse stealing, cattle rustling, and “insulting a woman”.

I'm afraid that just as with your 7-year old age of consent, I am going to have to call bullshit. Citations please.

I suspect he gets his ideas about the old west from old movies, most of which were inspired by penny dreadfuls, not history.
Title: Re: ZAP!!!
Post by: quadibloc on May 01, 2011, 04:28:00 pm
Fortunately, the ZAP has nothing to do with "harm," only the initiation of force. This a perfect example why the prerequisite for critical thinking is definitional clarity.
There are four forces: the strong nuclear force, the weak nuclear force, electromagnetism, and gravity.

But I don't think that's what we're talking about here. If it was, I would be initiating electromagnetic force against my keyboard in order to type these words.

Instead, I thought we were talking about "force" as in "violence". (Yes, there's a distinction between those two as well, with force being all force, and violence being initiated force, or something like that.) Socking somebody in the jaw, or pumping a bullet into him. Doing a human being an injury - or at least forcibly restricting his movements, which is a different kind of injury, as is theft of property, presumably also included in "force" - is what is meant.

So if there is an alternative definition of force that excludes the need to define injury, I'm afraid I'm still unaware of it - even if I might suspect hazily that one could be based on defining "force" as restricting someone's choices.
Title: Re: ZAP!!!
Post by: J Thomas on May 01, 2011, 04:45:03 pm
In the old west, the three most common grounds for hanging people were horse stealing, cattle rustling, and “insulting a woman”.

I'm afraid that just as with your 7-year old age of consent, I am going to have to call bullshit. Citations please.

I suspect he gets his ideas about the old west from old movies, most of which were inspired by penny dreadfuls, not history.

I suspect that. But since that's where I get my ideas about the old west, plus things like Little Big Man and things people reference in EFT forums, I don't begin to know. I'll wait for the links.
Title: Re: ZAP!!!
Post by: sam on May 01, 2011, 05:20:23 pm
I will not replay the "argument of the beard" with you. Suffice it to say that lines will be drawn.

By whom?  To draw one line requires a final authority, a high court, or some such.  If we have a lot of different lines, we have no line.  Reasonable people have some quite serious disagreements about abortion, early infanticide, age of consent, and hitting on women.

That debate, however, is the same debate as the the age of consent debate.  If we allow abortion, why not partial birth abortion? If we allow partial birth abortion, why not infanticide?  And, come to think of it, if we attempt to forbid infanticide, who is going to stop those who commit infanticide in an anarchic society? There is no complainant.

Well of course that is utter nonsense. People complain now, they will complain in the Belt.

1.  People do not complain now.

2.  Complaining and picking a fight are two very different things.

What you will have in a market anarchy are two things:

Social opprobrium--in an artificial or remote environment, shunning, for example, is psychologically unpleasant in the extreme and potentially fatal. 

I don't see a whole lot of shunning, or indeed any shunning, going on over age of consent issues here and now.  I doubt anarchy is going to make people any more energetic on policing other people's morality on issues that do not affect or threaten themselves.

"Speakers for the Dead"--I have already postulated that an ACLU sort of organization that would come into being for the purpose of initiate arbitration on behalf of the victims of wrongful death.

Recollect the phrase "as cold as charity"

Reading old books on actual anarchic or near anarchic societies, action on behalf of victims of wrongful death was initiated by family, employers, or persons contractually obligated to avenge wrongs done to the victim if wronged.  I cannot recall a single pro bono prosecution by private parties.  There was one incident in the sagas I recall where someone murdered a traveling merchant from far away and stole his goods.  No one did anything directly, though the murderer suffered loss of reputation that eventually contributed to his violent death in a later dispute - and led to a situation where there were very few willing to prosecute his death.

Title: Re: ZAP!!!
Post by: SandySandfort on May 01, 2011, 05:33:54 pm
You bought it. If you notice you don't want it, take it back and demand your money back.

For god's sale, surrender Dorothy! You just don't get it or you don't wish to admit defeat. Fine. Declare yourself winner and drop it.

Whether you notice the shit or not is irrelevant. The act of adulterating your food is the initiation of force.

[
Someone has prepared food you do not like, so that's initiation of force. Hmm.

It is not about not "liking" shit in one's food. The clear and rational expectation is that putting shit in someone's food is the initiation of force. The reasonable person would say, "Well, gee whiz, unless I specifically ask for shit to be put in my food, it would be unreasonable to imagine that as anything but the initiation of force. That is not what restaurants are reasonably expected to do."

Hmm. Do you believe you have achieved definitional clarity?

Compared to treating shit as a condiment? Absofuckinglutely!

Who do I think would win? I have absolutely no question that the food server will be in deep shit, one way or another. And if it were to turn out that he can find a legalistic arbiter who concedes that what he did was not directly initiation of force, he will be in deep shit anyway. People will find a way, even if it were to turn out that ZAP told them not to.

So the system works.

Where I'm getting lost is how a speck of shit is initiating force, while a larger speck of dandruff is not. It has something to do with 20th century US cultural standards, but I'm not sure about the details.

So when did the smear turn into a speck? Anyway, I don't want the preparers dandruff in my food either, but that's probably not intentional, as per your bizarre scenario.
Title: Re: ZAP!!!
Post by: SandySandfort on May 01, 2011, 05:45:38 pm
I will not replay the "argument of the beard" with you. Suffice it to say that lines will be drawn.

By whom?  To draw one line requires a final authority, a high court, or some such.  If we have a lot of different lines, we have no line.  Reasonable people have some quite serious disagreements about abortion, early infanticide, age of consent, and hitting on women.

I draw a line today, you draw a line tomorrow and so on. I said "lines" not "one line." That's the way life works; no ultimate authority. When we apply the ZAP, we may apply it erroneously. You know, just like laws. However, laws are not absolute and they are just made by people too. You want perfection or "works pretty well most of the time"? If you want perfection nobody can help you. If you realize that "works pretty well most of the time" is the best you can do, then you have to look for the best "works pretty well most of the time" you can find. For me, that's the ZAP and it is what rules my actions. If you think dictatorial, top-down initiation of force works better for you, relax, you are already home.
Title: Re: ZAP!!!
Post by: J Thomas on May 01, 2011, 07:19:18 pm
You bought it. If you notice you don't want it, take it back and demand your money back.

The act of adulterating your food is the initiation of force.

Hmm. Do you believe you have achieved definitional clarity?

Compared to treating shit as a condiment? Absofrackinglutely!

No, compared to definitional opacity.

At this point I have as a detail, "If somebody puts something in food that will be sold to me that a reasonable person will predict I would not like, he has initiated force."

And it isn't about whether a reasonable person believes it will harm you. It's about whether a reasonable person believes you will not like it.

Am I wrong about this part of the definition? Can you say it clearer?
Title: Re: ZAP!!!
Post by: J Thomas on May 01, 2011, 07:30:38 pm
I will not replay the "argument of the beard" with you. Suffice it to say that lines will be drawn.

By whom?  To draw one line requires a final authority, a high court, or some such.  If we have a lot of different lines, we have no line.  Reasonable people have some quite serious disagreements about abortion, early infanticide, age of consent, and hitting on women.

I can imagine an uneasy equilibrium about issues where there's lots of disagreement.

Like, say you have sex with a 10-year-old. She's happy with it, his parents don't get too bent out of shape, probably nobody else who disapproves will do anything this time. If the kid says you did something she didn't agree to and it hurts, you might be in a lot of trouble.

So maybe Sandy is the odd man out about abortion, I'm the odd man out about early infanticide, you're the odd man out about age of consent, and Sams is the odd man out about hitting on women. We all mostly get along anyway, with some occasional temper flareups that we try to handle like adults.

But maybe I'm the odd man out about abortion, early infanticide, age of consent, and hitting on women? You guys are likely to decide I just don't fit in.

It might be a bit messy around the edges, but likely it could wind up as something that most of us could live with, most of the time. Get something that almost everybody is agreed about and it's hard times for the few who don't go along. When there's more disagreement then everybody tries to tiptoe around it. When it's a whole lot of disagreement that a bunch of people are ready to die for, maybe you get the Civil War on a space station. Ouch. Let's hope that's rare.
Title: Re: ZAP!!!
Post by: SandySandfort on May 01, 2011, 08:03:29 pm
And it isn't about whether a reasonable person believes it will harm you. It's about whether a reasonable person believes you will not like it.

Am I wrong about this part of the definition? Can you say it clearer?

Yeah, "like" has nothing to do with it. We can talk about expectations, contracts, implied contracts, sanitary considerations or whatever. They might be relevant, but "like" just isn't part of the ZAP, no matter how many times you try to insert it. I think it is reasonable that if you have peanut allergy, you say "no peanuts, please. I am allergic." However, having to say "no shit please," seems totally ridiculous in the world as we know it. Any intentional putting of shit in food is a physical attack no less than would be putting peanuts in the food of someone you know is allergic to them.

Is this diversion from the essence of the ZAP really helpful in understanding the ZAP? Though there are nuances and further clarifications, ZAP is easy.

"A man walks into a bar with a duck under his arm. Someone takes his duck. That is the initiation of force. The man punches the other guy in the nose and recovers his duck. This is also force, but in self-defense (or defense of another, if he really thinks the duck is "people." Just kidding).

Which reminds me of a joke I like. It is totally irrelevant to this discussion, but funny.

A man walks into a bar with a frog on his head. The barkeep is totally taken aback and blurts, "What the hell is this then?

"I don't know, but it started out as a pimple on my ass," replies the frog.
Title: Re: ZAP!!!
Post by: GlennWatson on May 01, 2011, 09:07:00 pm
No power for four days but it finally came back tonight along with a story to tell.  Don't worry this has to do with ZAP.

As you all know A series of tornadoes hight North Alabama.  Me and mine are fine but no power anywhere in the city.  Power is out of for hundreds of thousands of people.  Yesterday I decide to try from some gasoline.  I get in a long gas line and wait.  I have been waiting for about 30 minutes and I notice a man pulling up to the line ahead of me.  He converses with a car about four cars in front then pulls in front of them.

Fist question: Is this a violation of ZAP?

I see this and think to my self, "Oh Hell no."  (I have a thing about people cutting in front of me.)  I get out of my car and walk up to his.  In a non threatening way I make it clear this will not stand.  He cannot cut in line.  He will have to move his car.  I point out that there are a lot of people behind him and we have all been waiting.  He argues he was here last night and did not get any gas.  He also told a story about someone holding his place in line.  I indicated that was not a sufficient reason for his intrusion in the line.  He looked at me and said "Well," (I expected him to say, 'what are you going to do about it?'  But instead he said, "Well, I will  move, and he did in fact move out of the line.

Second question: Did I violate ZAP?

Third: IF I had pulled his ass out of the car would that have violated ZAP?
Title: Re: ZAP!!!
Post by: wdg3rd on May 01, 2011, 09:34:45 pm
No power for four days but it finally came back tonight along with a story to tell.  Don't worry this has to do with ZAP.

As you all know A series of tornadoes hight North Alabama.  Me and mine are fine but no power anywhere in the city.  Power is out of for hundreds of thousands of people.  Yesterday I decide to try from some gasoline.  I get in a long gas line and wait.  I have been waiting for about 30 minutes and I notice a man pulling up to the line ahead of me.  He converses with a car about four cars in front then pulls in front of them.

Fist question: Is this a violation of ZAP?

No, unless he did it like in a Bruce Willis movie.

Quote
I see this and think to my self, "Oh Hell no."  (I have a thing about people cutting in front of me.)  I get out of my car and walk up to his.  In a non threatening way I make it clear this will not stand.  He cannot cut in line.  He will have to move his car.  I point out that there are a lot of people behind him and we have all been waiting.  He argues he was here last night and did not get any gas.  He also told a story about someone holding his place in line.  I indicated that was not a sufficient reason for his intrusion in the line.  He looked at me and said "Well," (I expected him to say, 'what are you going to do about it?'  But instead he said, "Well, I will  move, and he did in fact move out of the line.

Second question: Did I violate ZAP?

No.

Quote
Third: IF I had pulled his ass out of the car would that have violated ZAP?

Yes.

Title: Re: ZAP!!!
Post by: quadibloc on May 01, 2011, 10:48:07 pm
Is this diversion from the essence of the ZAP really helpful in understanding the ZAP? Though there are nuances and further clarifications, ZAP is easy.
I don't disagree with the claim that ZAP is easy if you leave out the nuances and clarifications.

Since, though, you've claimed that because ZAP is about the "initiation of force", it is not necessary, as one of those nuances and clarifications, to define harm (or, I presume, injury) in order to have a workable definition of "force" from which to begin to address those nuances and clarifications... I am now at a loss to see on what those nuances and clarifications might rest.

And thus, I have even less confidence than before that these fine points are not a loophole through which an AnCap society could be hijacked. Although, as you've pointed out, it isn't claimed that an AnCap society is going to be robust if the community at large is not sincere in its commitment to AnCap ideals - except in not having a ready-made machinery of repression and an unarmed citizenry to hand for ambitious politicians. Making it an improvement on the present situation.

So maybe my concern is with a non-issue.
Title: Re: ZAP!!!
Post by: SandySandfort on May 01, 2011, 11:01:34 pm
Wow! A real life example. I may pee myself.

No power for four days but it finally came back tonight along with a story to tell.  Don't worry this has to do with ZAP.

thousands of people.  Yesterday I decide to try from some gasoline.  I get in a long gas line and wait.  I have been waiting for about 30 minutes and I notice a man pulling up to the line ahead of me.  He converses with a car about four cars in front then pulls in front of them.

Fist question: Is this a violation of ZAP?

I see this and think to my self, "Oh Hell no."  (I have a thing about people cutting in front of me.) 

No violation of the ZAP I can see, but man, I am with you on this one. It is, in my opinion, a huge breech of social cooperation. Now if he pushed his way into the line, that's a different story.

I get out of my car and walk up to his.  In a non threatening way I make it clear this will not stand.  He cannot cut in line.  He will have to move his car.  I point out that there are a lot of people behind him and we have all been waiting.  He argues he was here last night and did not get any gas.  He also told a story about someone holding his place in line.  I indicated that was not a sufficient reason for his intrusion in the line.  He looked at me and said "Well," (I expected him to say, 'what are you going to do about it?'  But instead he said, "Well, I will  move, and he did in fact move out of the line.

Okay, I just wet myself from amazed and gratified laughter. Bravo!

Second question: Did I violate ZAP?

Assuming you were, in fact, non-threatening, I don't think so. You apparently won by the power of moral suasion. Congratulations. What would be an interesting question would be, what would you have done if he had called your bluff, i.e., "Bite me, Poindexter."

Third: IF I had pulled his ass out of the car would that have violated ZAP?

Probably, but I doubt anyone would have intervened. Assuming he put up no resistance or you kicked his ass to the point where he could not fight back, his only recourse would arbitration. Unless you put out an eye or similar, though, he might just decide he had it coming and marked it up to experience. Who knows. Just because you violate the ZAP, due to the totality of the circumstances, you might walk. Human nature being what it is, my guess is that it would be very difficult for him to find witnesses among the drivers behind him.  ;)
Title: Re: ZAP!!!
Post by: SandySandfort on May 01, 2011, 11:14:04 pm
And thus, I have even less confidence than before that these fine points are not a loophole through which an AnCap society could be hijacked. Although, as you've pointed out, it isn't claimed that an AnCap society is going to be robust if the community at large is not sincere in its commitment to AnCap ideals - except in not having a ready-made machinery of repression and an unarmed citizenry to hand for ambitious politicians. Making it an improvement on the present situation.

So maybe my concern is with a non-issue.

I think it is. Most people act rationally, most of the time. Most people don't want to fight. Most people are generally fair minded. Positing all sorts of irrational ideas and actions is fine. Shit happens. However, trying to imagine that the bulk of a population is going to act in an irrational way seems really unlikely to me. I guess I am more optimistic than the collectivists, who fear everyone and therefore feel the need to control everyone. And of course, they are always the least qualified to do so (assuming anyone is qualified to do it at all).

I do not put you in that category, but you do tend to focus on the rare minutia. Let me suggest that you and the other Doubting Thomases, give less thought to dandruff fantasies and more to what it would mean for you, personally, to live in a market economy largely based on the ZAP. I bet you would do just fine.
Title: Re: ZAP!!!
Post by: spudit on May 01, 2011, 11:50:51 pm
I'm glad you're OK Glenn, I wondered.

Just talking, no threats of violence, no force, no ZAP issues on your side.

Question at large though, is this situation additive? The guy cuts in front of Glenn, naughty, in doing so he cuts in front of 30 others behind Glenn, naughty x 30?
Title: Re: ZAP!!!
Post by: dough560 on May 02, 2011, 03:04:34 am
No Zap issues involved.  There was a social contract violation for each person he pulled in line in front of.  His problem, not yours.  However your actions reinstated the contract for everyone.

Glad you and yours are all right.
Title: Re: ZAP!!!
Post by: J Thomas on May 02, 2011, 05:23:47 am
And thus, I have even less confidence than before that these fine points are not a loophole through which an AnCap society could be hijacked. Although, as you've pointed out, it isn't claimed that an AnCap society is going to be robust if the community at large is not sincere in its commitment to AnCap ideals - except in not having a ready-made machinery of repression and an unarmed citizenry to hand for ambitious politicians. Making it an improvement on the present situation.

So maybe my concern is with a non-issue.

I think it is. Most people act rationally, most of the time. Most people don't want to fight. Most people are generally fair minded. Positing all sorts of irrational ideas and actions is fine. Shit happens. However, trying to imagine that the bulk of a population is going to act in an irrational way seems really unlikely to me. I guess I am more optimistic than the collectivists, who fear everyone and therefore feel the need to control everyone. And of course, they are always the least qualified to do so (assuming anyone is qualified to do it at all).

But almost all people act irractionally almost all the time. We have to live with that.

Quote
I do not put you in that category, but you do tend to focus on the rare minutia. Let me suggest that you and the other Doubting Thomases, give less thought to dandruff fantasies and more to what it would mean for you, personally, to live in a market economy largely based on the ZAP. I bet you would do just fine.

I think so too. What I see is that you talk like ZAP means something, but when it gets down to details, what ZAP means is "prevailing community standards" whatever those happen to be. It is fine to assault people with your dead skin flakes. It is against ZAP to assault them with your shit. Not because one is harmful and the other isn't. Because you think reasonable people will agree with one and not the other. You assume that people in another future society will agree with your own prevailing community standards because you think the standards you are used to are what reasonable people will agree to.

I'm pretty sure I can cope, and if it looks too bad I can leave. Beyond that, I can have my personal opinions to guide me in avoiding initial force against other people, and when I should push back. But what gets me in trouble will be prevailing community standards, whatever they happen to be. They will in some cases be completely arbitrary, and it's my job to find out about such things before they bite me.
Title: Re: ZAP!!!
Post by: GlennWatson on May 02, 2011, 06:55:36 am
No, unless he did it like in a Bruce Willis movie.

He stole time from everyone in that line.  How can that not be a violation?  If everyone did what he did it would cause chaos.
Title: Re: ZAP!!!
Post by: mellyrn on May 02, 2011, 07:48:03 am
Quote
But what gets me in trouble will be prevailing community standards, whatever they happen to be. They will in some cases be completely arbitrary, and it's my job to find out about such things before they bite me.

That is true always and everywhere there are people.  It is the state of nature of social beings.  It will not matter whether your new community is an anarchy or a dictatorship with practically everything covered by one law or another, it's still your job to find out about such things before they bite you.
Title: Re: ZAP!!!
Post by: spudit on May 02, 2011, 09:23:25 am
Still damned busy here, so not much input. The boat was fit to launch on Saturday as promised but still no trailer. To town today for extinguishers, insurance and to call in every damned favor I have out.

Thought on Glenn's gas.

If this was 1973 and it was one tanker for the whole town total, in all or nothing 10 gallon lots, maybe damage done. But I expect the gas had been there all along, just no power for the pumps. So there was no lasting shortage, the goods were not in short supply anymore.

I like to use Rand's definition of value, that which one acts to gain or keep. I give the store cash for a dog bone and the bone to the dog, both species are happy; both gain a value, to them.

Glenn, how was the price?

Jthomas is missing an obvious and silly point about the crap in the food versus skin flakes. Skin flakes just happen but a number of deiberate actions are required to defeat the elaborate mechanisims to keep food and feces far apart. That is the initiation of force, deliberatly putting the nasty stuff where it does not belong.

Back to lurking.

Title: Re: ZAP!!!
Post by: SandySandfort on May 02, 2011, 09:41:19 am
But almost all people act irractionally almost all the time. We have to live with that.

You truly think so? You are far more cynical than I, my friend.  Millions of years of evolution created our magnificent brains. In 200,000 years, modern man has gone from the cave to being the rulers of earth and soon the solar system. (The rest of the universe will take a bit longer.) This is not accomplished by "almost all people act irrationally almost all the time."

Quote
I... to live in a market economy largely based on the ZAP. I bet you would do just fine.

I think so too. What I see is that you talk like ZAP means something, but when it gets down to details, what ZAP means is "prevailing community standards" whatever those happen to be. It is fine to assault people with your dead skin flakes. It is against ZAP to assault them with your shit. Not because one is harmful and the other isn't. Because you think reasonable people will agree with one and not the other. You assume that people in another future society will agree with your own prevailing community standards because you think the standards you are used to are what reasonable people will agree to.

If it helps you to think of the ZAP that way, I consider it a good start.

I'm pretty sure I can cope, and if it looks too bad I can leave. Beyond that, I can have my personal opinions to guide me in avoiding initial force against other people, and when I should push back. But what gets me in trouble will be prevailing community standards, whatever they happen to be. They will in some cases be completely arbitrary, and it's my job to find out about such things before they bite me.

Maybe. Give it some more thought.
Title: Re: ZAP!!!
Post by: J Thomas on May 02, 2011, 10:07:29 am

Jthomas is missing an obvious and silly point about the crap in the food versus skin flakes. Skin flakes just happen but a number of deiberate actions are required to defeat the elaborate mechanisims to keep food and feces far apart. That is the initiation of force, deliberatly putting the nasty stuff where it does not belong.

That's true. But consider -- it used to be, if you traveled you got covered in horseshit.

In dry weather the horses stepped on dry horseshit whose dust rose up and got in your nose and mouth and eyes and everywhere.

In wet weather, if you were standing anywhere nearby when a horse was stomping on the wet horseshit which covered the roads, he'd pretty surely splash little bits of it on you.

It was just accepted. You couldn't expect anything else. New York City was fully of horses and the horseshit was pretty much everywhere. But now if I understand it right, if you want a horse on a NYC road, even in Central Park, you have to keep him in a sort of diaper.

Because standards have changed. We don't just accept that stuff any more, even though it's at far less than one ten thousandth as much as it used to be.

If people -- particularly people living in space -- decide they don't want to tolerate skin flakes, then they won't tolerate them. One approach is to have everybody shave themselves all over every day, and then vacuum off any scaly stuff that's left, and then rub themselves with some sort of body lotion that might tend to trap whatever is left. Another approach is to equip each room with a high-power filtration system, with maybe electrostatic precipitation, and keep all the filters etc in good repair, and pay for the costs which I will wildly speculate at 125,000 watt-hours per day per person plus maintenance.

If they choose the former approach, you can cooperate or maybe a bunch of ladies will converge on you and shave you themselves. They will consider your skin flakes to be aggression on your part, and they will consider themselves fully justified by ZAP.
Title: Re: ZAP!!!
Post by: J Thomas on May 02, 2011, 10:20:22 am
But almost all people act irractionally almost all the time. We have to live with that.

You truly think so? You are far more cynical than I, my friend.  Millions of years of evolution created our magnificent brains. In 200,000 years, modern man has gone from the cave to being the rulers of earth and soon the solar system. (The rest of the universe will take a bit longer.) This is not accomplished by "almost all people act irrationally almost all the time."

I'm afraid it is. A superb achievement, under the circumstances.

I am by far the most rational person I know of. People continually interrupt my thinking. "Stop thinking about it and just do something! It doesn't matter that much!" And yet, every few days I have another "Why didn't I think of that?" experience. Despite my attempts at rationality, I have accepted a whole lot on faith and I keep finding out that my faith was misplaced. Kind of. I mean, what I did worked OK for my purposes at the time. It just didn't work the way I thought it did, and often enough there were ways to profit from the better view of it, that I missed out on.

People mostly just do what they were taught, as long as it keeps working. Then when it stops working they're all "Hey, this isn't my fault! Somebody come help, I need proof it isn't my fault, I did it right and it just didn't work! Help me find somebody to blame it on!" If people put a tenth the effort into figuring things out that they put into proving it isn't their fault when things go wrong, we'd probably all be a lot better off.

Quote
Quote
I... to live in a market economy largely based on the ZAP. I bet you would do just fine.

I think so too. What I see is that you talk like ZAP means something, but when it gets down to details, what ZAP means is "prevailing community standards" whatever those happen to be. It is fine to assault people with your dead skin flakes. It is against ZAP to assault them with your shit. Not because one is harmful and the other isn't. Because you think reasonable people will agree with one and not the other. You assume that people in another future society will agree with your own prevailing community standards because you think the standards you are used to are what reasonable people will agree to.

If it helps you to think of the ZAP that way, I consider it a good start.

I'm pretty sure I can cope, and if it looks too bad I can leave. Beyond that, I can have my personal opinions to guide me in avoiding initial force against other people, and when I should push back. But what gets me in trouble will be prevailing community standards, whatever they happen to be. They will in some cases be completely arbitrary, and it's my job to find out about such things before they bite me.

Maybe. Give it some more thought.

Thank you, I will.

It wouldn't hurt if you give it some more thought too. Of course, if you're satisfied with the results you get from your current beliefs, I guess it's too much to hope that you might look at alternatives.
Title: Re: ZAP!!!
Post by: quadibloc on May 02, 2011, 11:19:56 am
No Zap issues involved.  There was a social contract violation for each person he pulled in line in front of.
If people are bound by social contracts other than the one to follow the ZAP, that sounds like societies can contract to establish governments that levy taxes.

Since I don't think you meant to say that it would be OK to cut in front of people in line under AnCap, it's clear I don't understand your terminology.
Title: Re: ZAP!!!
Post by: GlennWatson on May 02, 2011, 11:43:33 am
Glenn, how was the price?

The price was near equilibrium and you are right that the main problem was electricity to get the gas out of the tank.  I am not a believer in anti gouging laws.  I think they hinder the market.  But I am surprised at the reaction to the cutting in line.  This person was stealing a place in line that other people had worked for by waiting.  Another person in the city was shot and killed by a station owner who caught him in the act of a midnight burglary.  Both men, the cutter and the burglar were stealing.  Granted the scale was different and neither deserved death.

Is theft a violation of ZAP?  Or is it only large thefts that are a violation?
Title: Re: ZAP!!!
Post by: SandySandfort on May 02, 2011, 11:50:01 am
If people -- particularly people living in space -- decide they don't want to tolerate skin flakes, then they won't tolerate them.

Fine, they have a right to control what is permitted on their own property. If I don't want someone in my home or business, I can ban them. So how is their dandruff any of my business after that? If I permit them into my space--dandruff and all--there is no initiation of force. If someone else complains, they need to complain to me. If I decide, "lump it or leave." the issue is settled, so no ZAP. This thread is about the ZAP.  So far, you have failed to come up with a situation in the Belt that has anything to do with the ZAP. To summarize. The answer to the great dandruff debate is whatever rules the owner of property permits. All spaces are private. End of story.
Title: Re: ZAP!!!
Post by: gemcat on May 02, 2011, 08:29:48 pm
In the US we started with the idea of popular sovereignty - if the people are sovereign a king is just a fraud, but that idea does not exist in other parts of the world. We seriously compromised popular sovereignty with corporate citizenship and almost every new law places a new barrier between responsibility and freedom. There is a legislative chasm between our current system and libertarian ideals. We have, for example, a lot of government agencies which by definition exist to initiate force under the particulars of their jurisdiction. To top it off the world is not quite full of reasonable people. I know a guy who got beat in the head and was in a coma for several months, since this event he has a certain lack of self control, he is a big guy and if not restrained by family and friends might seriously hurt someone if he gets angry.
Title: Re: ZAP!!! Plus
Post by: SandySandfort on May 03, 2011, 12:20:09 am
This topic was started to discuss the ZAP. Nevertheless, a few things have to be added about the context in which the ZAP operates and what more is needed for most dispute resolution.

In the imaginary world of EFT, the ZAP is explicitly understood, accepted and applied by the man in the street. However, the truth of the matter is, most people on earth today, implicitly operate in a ZAP-like manner in almost all of their daily interactions with others.

It should be understood, however, that in EFT or reality, the ZAP is rarely invoked. Other than governments and other criminals, the issue rarely arises or needs to be addressed. That doesn't make it unimportant. On the contrary, the ZAP actually represents the natural default setting for most human interactions.
So endlessly supposing strained, artificial "challenges" to the ZAP is a fool's errand. This is especially true when you want to arbitrate them. In cases of true, unequivocal ZAP violations, arbitration is hardly necessary. "He pulled a knife on me and demanded my money, so I shot him." What issues are left to arbitrate?

So, what will arbiters be arbitrating most of the time, if not ZAP cases? Well, boring stuff mostly, just like today. In a market anarchy, I would expect most of the arbiters to devote most of their time to resolving contract disputes and torts. Again, just like now.

It's hardly the stuff the would allow them to become Masters of the Universe, as some of the more easily frightened Forum posters seem to think. Even for that, you would need a whole bunch of ZAP cases and most of the time, those cases would just involve determination of damages, arising from fights, acts of vandalism and piddly little stuff like that. Anyone who believes otherwise, has probably watched way too many TV lawyer shows.  ;)

So anyway, in addition to discussing the ZAP, I am open to discussing other factors involved in dispute resolution in the Belt or elsewhere.
Title: Re: ZAP!!!
Post by: GlennWatson on May 03, 2011, 07:14:18 am
"He pulled a knife on me and demanded my money, so I shot him." What issues are left to arbitrate?

Right off the top of my head:

Did he really have a knife?
How big was the knife, are we talking pen or bowie?
Did you provoke him earlier?
Was there a history of violence between the too of you?
Could you have simply brandished the gun and not fired?
Did you owe him money?

Title: Re: ZAP!!!
Post by: mellyrn on May 03, 2011, 08:45:44 am
Quote
Did he really have a knife?
How big was the knife, are we talking pen or bowie?
Did you provoke him earlier?
Was there a history of violence between the too of you?
Could you have simply brandished the gun and not fired?
Did you owe him money?

How about, "He pulled a knife on me and demanded sex, so I shot him."  What issues are left to arbitrate?
Title: Re: ZAP!!!
Post by: spudit on May 03, 2011, 09:44:41 am
Pardon this recovering Chicagoan.

Hand the guy a butcher knife handle first, say hey hold this. He does, most would.
Then yell, as in South Park, He's Coming Right At Me!
Shoot him dead.
Crime, what crime. Anything good on TV tonight.

More wisdom absorbed as a child. "Remember kid, bolt cutters are cheaper than bicycles". Still true.

Feeling MUCH better now, one grows.
Title: Re: ZAP!!!
Post by: GlennWatson on May 03, 2011, 09:54:30 am
Quote
Did he really have a knife?
How big was the knife, are we talking pen or bowie?
Did you provoke him earlier?
Was there a history of violence between the too of you?
Could you have simply brandished the gun and not fired?
Did you owe him money?

How about, "He pulled a knife on me and demanded sex, so I shot him."  What issues are left to arbitrate?

The same questions arise.  Are you assuming the man who lived through the fight is always telling the truth?
Title: Re: ZAP!!!
Post by: SandySandfort on May 03, 2011, 10:01:22 am
"He pulled a knife on me and demanded my money, so I shot him." What issues are left to arbitrate?

Right off the top of my head:

Did he really have a knife?
How big was the knife, are we talking pen or bowie?
Did you provoke him earlier?
Was there a history of violence between the too of you?
Could you have simply brandished the gun and not fired?
Did you owe him money?

Who's asking for arbitration? Not the shooter, that's for sure. So that leaves only the shootee, if he is still alive, but then he and the shooter already know all of the answers to your questions. If the shootee dies, someone who cared about him might step in, but with what outcome in mind? Arbitration is for dispute resolution, be it restitution or what have you. Evidentiary fact finding might be in order if there are any facts in serious dispute, but otherwise the question is, "did the shooter's actions comply with the ZAP, and if not, what is it going to cost him?" As to your specific questions:

Did he really have a knife?

Is anyone alleging otherwise? Did the shooter have reason to believe otherwise? Only if he damned well knew the shootee was unarmed, would he be in violation of the ZAP. Of course, if he made a mistake, he might be liable in negligence, but not guilty of violating the ZAP. Further, though, if someone physically attacks another with a credible threat of death or great bodily harm, shooting them to stop the attack does not violate the ZAP (though the precipitating attack does).

How big was the knife, are we talking pen or bowie?

Pretty much irrelevant. Trust me, I could kill you with a butter knife.

Did you provoke him earlier?

"Provoke"? Can you substitute something concrete for your wiggle-word?

Was there a history of violence between the too of you?

And this is relevant, how? Give me some hard facts about prior violence, who initiated it and the outcome and you might have a legitimate question.

Could you have simply brandished the gun and not fired?

From my experience in combat firearms courses, the answer largely depends on distance. Anything within 7 yards, can be crossed in a fraction of a second by an assailant armed with a knife. Your only hope for not being stuck is to shoot. Beyond that is still problematic. Finally, you are under no duty to retreat, or use less than deadly force, where your assailant makes a realistic threat of death or great bodily harm.

Did you owe him money?

Is the shootee or a relative alleging that? In any case, a credible death threat is not a an appropriate response. That is what arbitration is for. The ZAP is not a binary question. It does not give the victim an unlimited free pass in the degree of his response. There is proportionality. You are in a park. A 5-year old slaps you lightly. You pull out your Dirty Harry, .44 magnum and drill the sassy little tyke. Reasonable? I don't think so.

So any more edge questions?
Title: Re: ZAP!!!
Post by: SandySandfort on May 03, 2011, 10:10:02 am
The same questions arise.  Are you assuming the man who lived through the fight is always telling the truth?

No, not an assumption. It is called a rebuttable presumption, that is the default unless there is evidence (video, eye witnesses, clear forensic evidence, etc.) to the contrary. This is really no different than what happens when a homeowner shoots an intruder in his house in the middle of the night. Except in seriously benighted jurisdictions such as the UK, charges are only brought if there are extenuating circumstances that call the homeowner's explanation into doubt. Ditto under the ZAP.
Title: Re: ZAP!!!
Post by: GlennWatson on May 03, 2011, 02:37:55 pm
Quote
I could kill you with a butter knife.

You could try.
Title: Re: ZAP!!!
Post by: SandySandfort on May 03, 2011, 04:14:35 pm
Quote
I could kill you with a butter knife.

You could try.

 8) Who knows? I might get lucky. Anyway, now you know that if I come at you with a butter knife, you can shoot me. :o
Title: Re: ZAP!!!
Post by: Rorschach on May 03, 2011, 05:22:21 pm
It isn't force. Unless he is sick he has not harmed you. He has not initiated physical force.

Man, your powers of rationalization are amazing. It is my food. My property. I do not want shit in it. To do so intentionally is the initiation of force. If you come over to my house and wash my dirty car, it is the initiation of force. Intentionally adulterating my food is no different. This where the sea lawyers usually pipe up, "but you had no contract with the restaurant to keep shit out of your food!" Re-read about the "reasonable person" standard if you don't get this. There are also "duty of care" "fraud" and "implied contract" issues here, but honestly, do we really need to go there? Imagine a real arbiter hearing a case between the restaurateur and/or the food preparer and the patron. Whom do you think would win, really?  
I don't want shit in water, in any concentration or form. By the same declaration and argument, now 99% of the world is now committing aggression against me.
Title: Re: ZAP!!!
Post by: Rorschach on May 03, 2011, 05:28:33 pm
That debate, however, is the same debate as the the age of consent debate.  If we allow abortion, why not partial birth abortion? If we allow partial birth abortion, why not infanticide?  And, come to think of it, if we attempt to forbid infanticide, who is going to stop those who commit infanticide in an anarchic society? There is no complainant.

Well of course that is utter nonsense. People complain now, they will complain in the Belt.

1.  People do not complain now.

2.  Complaining and picking a fight are two very different things.
[/quote]
People file lawsuits now. People will file lawsuits in the Belt. The real question becomes what kind of suits will be heard?

By whom?  To draw one line requires a final authority, a high court, or some such.  If we have a lot of different lines, we have no line.  Reasonable people have some quite serious disagreements about abortion, early infanticide, age of consent, and hitting on women.
Exactly! Social norms vary drastically. Cross an invisible line and a man with a healthy relationship with a 17 year old girl is now deemed a pedophile and felon even though the cirmcumstances of his relationship have not changed, only his location. This is within the same culture mind you! Funny enough, but according to the law in Oregon if two 17 year olds are dating, the one who turns 18 first is a felon RETROACTIVELY according to the courts.

Title: Re: ZAP!!!
Post by: Rorschach on May 03, 2011, 05:32:36 pm
So maybe Sandy is the odd man out about abortion, I'm the odd man out about early infanticide, you're the odd man out about age of consent, and Sams is the odd man out about hitting on women. We all mostly get along anyway, with some occasional temper flareups that we try to handle like adults.
Don't forget food cleanliness, cigarettes, aggressive religion (from Catholics destroying entire cultures to the person who chases people screaming "SINNER!"), kudzu, etc. The deep question is "where is the middle?" The reality in ZAP AnCap is that the middle changes based on which arbiter you hire. Want a different answer? Hire someone else. Now you're at an older definition Anarchy.
Title: Re: ZAP!!!
Post by: Rorschach on May 03, 2011, 05:35:38 pm
I'm glad you're OK Glenn, I wondered.

Just talking, no threats of violence, no force, no ZAP issues on your side.

Question at large though, is this situation additive? The guy cuts in front of Glenn, naughty, in doing so he cuts in front of 30 others behind Glenn, naughty x 30?
If the guy refused to go to the end of the line, I'd ask the 30 people he cut in front of to vote.
Title: Re: ZAP!!!
Post by: J Thomas on May 03, 2011, 07:05:14 pm
It isn't force. Unless he is sick he has not harmed you. He has not initiated physical force.

Man, your powers of rationalization are amazing. It is my food. My property. I do not want shit in it. To do so intentionally is the initiation of force. If you come over to my house and wash my dirty car, it is the initiation of force. Intentionally adulterating my food is no different. This where the sea lawyers usually pipe up, "but you had no contract with the restaurant to keep shit out of your food!" Re-read about the "reasonable person" standard if you don't get this. There are also "duty of care" "fraud" and "implied contract" issues here, but honestly, do we really need to go there? Imagine a real arbiter hearing a case between the restaurateur and/or the food preparer and the patron. Whom do you think would win, really?  

I don't want shit in water, in any concentration or form. By the same declaration and argument, now 99% of the world is now committing aggression against me.

It could be argued that you have no right to any water except the water that you personally own. So it's only people upstream of you who are putting shit into your water. And it's their water when they put the shit into it. There are implicit agreements (and common-law agreements, and sometimes government edicts) that they owe you reasonably clean water. That they can't just dam up the water and not let you have it, or rechannel it to somebody else, or dump a lot of poison in it. It's only by these agreements that they owe you. If it isn't your water then you have no right to it and they can do anything they want, so it's OK for them to dump lots of plutonium in it, and lots of shit, and it isn't any of your business.

I don't think that approach will win a lot of converts.
Title: Re: ZAP!!!
Post by: J Thomas on May 03, 2011, 07:12:46 pm
The same questions arise.  Are you assuming the man who lived through the fight is always telling the truth?

No, not an assumption. It is called a rebuttable presumption, that is the default unless there is evidence (video, eye witnesses, clear forensic evidence, etc.) to the contrary. This is really no different than what happens when a homeowner shoots an intruder in his house in the middle of the night.

The presumption is that a stranger in your house in the middle of the night is an intruder.

If anybody can shoot you and get away with it by claiming you threatened them, then it's your responsibility never to be alone with anybody you don't trust, unless the interaction is being recorded by somebody you trust.

In an EFT context it's reasonable to suppose that CCTV and recording stuff is so cheap that most places are being recorded most of the time. But in general, don't ever be alone with anybody you don't trust. If he can do a quickdraw with no warning and shoot you before you can shoot him, he can kill you and get clean away with it.
Title: Re: ZAP!!!
Post by: Rorschach on May 03, 2011, 07:19:29 pm
It could be argued that you have no right to any water except the water that you personally own. So it's only people upstream of you who are putting shit into your water. And it's their water when they put the shit into it. There are implicit agreements (and common-law agreements, and sometimes government edicts) that they owe you reasonably clean water. That they can't just dam up the water and not let you have it, or rechannel it to somebody else, or dump a lot of poison in it. It's only by these agreements that they owe you. If it isn't your water then you have no right to it and they can do anything they want, so it's OK for them to dump lots of plutonium in it, and lots of shit, and it isn't any of your business.
I don't think that approach will win a lot of converts.
I don't either, but this is exactly the argument I made back on page 4 with the "brown terrorist" that Sandy argued against, then reversed opinion completely when it came to food instead of water. I couldn't help but note the discrepancy.
Title: Re: ZAP!!!
Post by: J Thomas on May 03, 2011, 07:52:09 pm
If people -- particularly people living in space -- decide they don't want to tolerate skin flakes, then they won't tolerate them.

Fine, they have a right to control what is permitted on their own property. If I don't want someone in my home or business, I can ban them. So how is their dandruff any of my business after that? If I permit them into my space--dandruff and all--there is no initiation of force. If someone else complains, they need to complain to me. If I decide, "lump it or leave." the issue is settled, so no ZAP. This thread is about the ZAP.  So far, you have failed to come up with a situation in the Belt that has anything to do with the ZAP. To summarize. The answer to the great dandruff debate is whatever rules the owner of property permits. All spaces are private. End of story.

No, not end of story.

That would be practical if everybody has his own airlock. Whenever you want to go somewhere, just quick go outside to where nobody owns, and travel to the place you want to go and bang on their airlock.

But you have shown corridors where lots of people travel to get from one place to another. Those are owned by somebody, and that somebody provides air for everybody to use if they are allowed into his corridor, with no indication that he inspects people or makes them sign a contract before they enter.

If somebody is poisoning the air in the corridor I am using, they are aggressing against me. It isn't just between them and the owner of the corridor.

Similarly, if they cut in line at an automated gas station, it isn't just between them and the owner of the gas station.

Anywhere I have a right to be, I have a right to not have my air supply aggressed on. If the owner of the property specifically says that tobacco smoke or ammonia fumes or shit is OK, then it's my responsibility to be somewhere else. But when we both have the right to be there, it isn't just up to the owner. Any more than it's entirely up to the owner to decide what to do if you choose to kill me.
Title: Re: ZAP!!!
Post by: J Thomas on May 03, 2011, 08:48:58 pm
So maybe Sandy is the odd man out about abortion, I'm the odd man out about early infanticide, you're the odd man out about age of consent, and Sams is the odd man out about hitting on women. We all mostly get along anyway, with some occasional temper flareups that we try to handle like adults.

Don't forget food cleanliness, cigarettes, aggressive religion (from Catholics destroying entire cultures to the person who chases people screaming "SINNER!"), kudzu, etc. The deep question is "where is the middle?" The reality in ZAP AnCap is that the middle changes based on which arbiter you hire. Want a different answer? Hire someone else. Now you're at an older definition Anarchy.

The really easy answer comes when each of us has his very own asteroid and we can do whatever we want on our own property.

LIke the song goes,

Quote
Hiding in my room, safe within my womb.
I touch no one and no one touches me.
I am a rock,
I am an island.
Title: Re: ZAP!!!
Post by: GlennWatson on May 03, 2011, 09:39:35 pm
now you know that if I come at you with a butter knife, you can shoot me. :o

I could always shoot you.  The question is can I get away with it.  On your Ceres it seem likely. 
Title: Re: ZAP!!!
Post by: Rorschach on May 03, 2011, 09:55:09 pm
Thomas, that is simply wonderful :)
My proposal for a sustainable civilization in the next 5 years on Earth goes like this:
Make a variety of cities, each with contained borders and infrastructure that carries specific, clear and succinct rules.
Require that each culture agree on a set of rules and present a copy to every visitor. To make it more interesting, they need to be translated into major languages and readable in a short time frame.
Monitor and tax imports/exports to provide the things not produced but still counted as "infrastructure".

In the interests of sustainability and as a social experiment, base levels of food, shelter, local cell, medical will be provided in the most cost effective means possible. At commodity level pricing, that means $8/mo per person for a 1500 calorie wheat based diet, plus whatever is grown locally in large quantity. Connect them via local trains.

Replace most government with a database. Provide the means for direct democracy via web enabled cell phone, with the ability to assign representatives and rescind designation at any time. (I was stunned to see that in "The Probability Broach")

So my goal isn't to get everyone to agree, but bribe them to go where people think similarly and then give them motivation to improve their situation. On Social Security Disability, people are forbidden to improve themselves physically or mentally, and the government pays far too much for housing. This iteration of socialism is both untenable and unsustainable on every level. I hope to do better.
Title: Re: ZAP!!!
Post by: SandySandfort on May 03, 2011, 10:44:13 pm
It could be argued that you have no right to any water except the water that you personally own. So it's only people upstream of you who are putting shit into your water. And it's their water when they put the shit into it. There are implicit agreements (and common-law agreements, and sometimes government edicts) that they owe you reasonably clean water. That they can't just dam up the water and not let you have it, or rechannel it to somebody else, or dump a lot of poison in it. It's only by these agreements that they owe you. If it isn't your water then you have no right to it and they can do anything they want, so it's OK for them to dump lots of plutonium in it, and lots of shit, and it isn't any of your business.

It is a bit more complicated than that. Look up "riparian rights" and "prior appropriation"

https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/wiki/Riparian_water_rights

https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/wiki/Prior_appropriation_water_rights

Jurisdictions are split between the two. Care to guess which one is more compatible with market anarchy?
Title: Re: ZAP!!!
Post by: sam on May 03, 2011, 11:05:58 pm
But you have shown corridors where lots of people travel to get from one place to another. Those are owned by somebody, and that somebody provides air for everybody to use if they are allowed into his corridor, with no indication that he inspects people or makes them sign a contract before they enter.

Looks like a shopping mall, or several shopping malls, with one or more spaceports adjacent.  Presumably the same rules apply as in actually existent shopping malls. Most people can wander in and out without asking anyone's permission. Objectionable people, vagrants, and the like, get thrown out or restrained.  In actually existent shopping malls, there are unarmed security guards to deal with irritating people and protect low value targets, and sometimes unobtrusively armed security guards to deal with dangerous people and protect high value targets.
Title: Re: ZAP!!!
Post by: SandySandfort on May 03, 2011, 11:46:47 pm
But you have shown corridors where lots of people travel to get from one place to another. Those are owned by somebody, and that somebody provides air for everybody to use if they are allowed into his corridor, with no indication that he inspects people or makes them sign a contract before they enter.

When you go to the mall, who owns the air conditioning? Do you normally get inspected before you enter? If not, why not? Could that sort of bullshit be bad for business? When you see corridors in EFT, they do belong to somebody. In most cases to the Merchants Associations in which they are located.

If somebody is poisoning the air in the corridor I am using, they are aggressing against me. It isn't just between them and the owner of the corridor.

No, but the owner does set the rules. Irrespective of that, what do you think your options are in your scenario? Kind of depends on the severity, concentration and extent of the poison, right? If it is a hundred kilos of mustard gas, your response would be be different than if it were some spilled Clorox, right? So, someone is initiating force against you. So what do you think the ZAP permits you to do in the wide range of situations that might come under the rubric of "poison"? You are probably correct that in most cases, the ZAP could be invoked, but that doesn't really do much for you, unless you have the ability to discriminate between true, life-threatening events or events with affects that are de minimus. See:

   http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/Deminimus

The same doctrine would apply in arbitration cases where someone's beef might be legitimate, but is really trivial. You know, like dandruff in Ceres City.

Similarly, if they cut in line at an automated gas station, it isn't just between them and the owner of the gas station.

Sure that is obvious, but I never claimed that you could not have force initiated against you on somebody else's property. Only that owner set the rules on their property. There is no contradiction there. Didn't you get that?

Anywhere I have a right to be, I have a right to not have my air supply aggressed on.

No, the correct way to say that under the ZAP is that no one has the right to initiate force against you.

By the by, words have meaning. Nothing in the ZAP talks about "aggression." Yes, it is called the Zero Aggression Principle, but it defines aggression in terms of the initiation of force to distinguish it from other things that are also called aggression. It would show me that you are discussing the ZAP in good faith, if you and others actually used the terms of the ZAP. (I'm not accusing you of bad faith, but you know who I mean.) Once more, "No one has the right to initiate force against another human being" plus this is usually taken to include "the threat of force" and "fraud." Indulge me, please, by using the correct terminology. Thanks.

If the owner of the property specifically says that tobacco smoke or ammonia fumes or shit is OK, then it's my responsibility to be somewhere else. But when we both have the right to be there, it isn't just up to the owner. Any more than it's entirely up to the owner to decide what to do if you choose to kill me.

First, I never said otherwise, however, just because you are permitted entry into another's property, it does not follow that if smoking is permitted, you have any say-so about it if someone lights up. Either you accept the owner's rules or you leave. What in other circumstances might be the initiation of force, is not, if it is in compliance with the owners rules. Further affiant sayeth naught.
Title: Re: ZAP!!!
Post by: quadibloc on May 04, 2011, 12:58:34 am
It would show me that you are discussing the ZAP in good faith, if you and others actually used the terms of the ZAP. (I'm not accusing you of bad faith, but you know who I mean.) Once more, "No one has the right to initiate force against another human being" plus this is usually taken to include "the threat of force" and "fraud." Indulge me, please, by using the correct terminology. Thanks.
My problem is that I'm not sure I understand what those terms mean.

So it wouldn't be honest of me to try throwing them around in an argument.

Fraud, as I understand it, involves deception, including implied and passive deception.

Force, as I understand it, involves harm or injury, or the threat of harm or injury. But I'm being told that the definition of force doesn't rest on the definition of "harm".

Actually, though, I now recall the distinction that likely motivated the choice of words. A person's interests are harmed if a competitor sells something competing with what he produces more cheaply and with better quality. That kind of "harm" is legitimate, and doesn't involve any use of force.
Title: Re: ZAP!!!
Post by: dough560 on May 04, 2011, 01:49:08 am
Glenn, Self Defense is never a matter of "getting away with it".

I don't remember the number of people I've taken to emergency rooms for repairs after they were attacked by someone with focused intent to do harm.  Many times with an Item less inherently dangerous than a butter knife.

You're trying to argue disparity of force issues, but apparently don't know how to describe it.  Factors can and do include....  Age differences, physical condition, sex(s), weapon(s), armed / unarmed, lighting, in any and every combination thereof.  Plus other things not mentioned.

The suspects I investigated believed themselves physically and/or mentally superior to their intended victim.  They believed the only thing that mattered, was what they wanted, regardless to the cost to their intended victim.

General rules.  1.  A person within 21 feet of you can close that distance in 1.5 seconds or less.  A weapon in its' holster will not make it into play.  2.  The person attacking has skills equal to or greater than your own.  If your attacker believed you were his equal, there would not be an attack.  Attackers want a "sure thing". An attacker making contact is a really bad time to evaluate relative skills.   3.  Turing to run just means you'll be tired when the attacker catches you and the attack will come from the primary direction from which you will not be able to effectively defend.  4.  Waving a weapon around as a threat means it will be taken away and used against you.  You have to communicate your intent and determination to use force,  to have any hope of an attacker retreating.  When attacked, follow through with your intent as efficiently as possible.  Forcing either surrender or retreat.

Under today's "civilized" standards, victims are not supposed to fight back.  Heaven forbid they should do so effectively.  "That's Barbaric".  Governments have limited self defense to the point, many people will not defend themselves or their families under any circumstances.  Instead they seek the illusion of protection from government and demand all people be as helpless as they are.  Especially in our schools, self defense is ruthlessly crushed.

Gun free areas are government sanctioned killing grounds with guaranteed victims for every thug who decides to go hunting.

quadibloc.  Fraud is theft.  Whether the theft is by trick or force is immaterial.  The victim has been harmed with the theft of a period of the victim's life.  One way can get you dead very quickly.  The other could still get you dead, but you're more likely to end up in arbitration as your victim seeks restitution.
Title: Re: ZAP!!!
Post by: J Thomas on May 04, 2011, 04:57:51 am
It could be argued that you have no right to any water except the water that you personally own. So it's only people upstream of you who are putting shit into your water. And it's their water when they put the shit into it. There are implicit agreements (and common-law agreements, and sometimes government edicts) that they owe you reasonably clean water. That they can't just dam up the water and not let you have it, or rechannel it to somebody else, or dump a lot of poison in it. It's only by these agreements that they owe you. If it isn't your water then you have no right to it and they can do anything they want, so it's OK for them to dump lots of plutonium in it, and lots of shit, and it isn't any of your business.

It is a bit more complicated than that. Look up "riparian rights" and "prior appropriation"

https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/wiki/Riparian_water_rights

https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/wiki/Prior_appropriation_water_rights

Jurisdictions are split between the two. Care to guess which one is more compatible with market anarchy?

It's a split. Riparian rights are simpler and easier to understand and take less administration and less adjudicating etc. So that's the obvious choice. It depends on everybody agreeing what's "resaonable use", of course, so it almost entirely begs the question about how you establish who has what rights.

Prior appropriation accepts that the first person to get there and use the water has the right to as much has he's been taking. That looks like it fits AnCap property rules -- the first guy who establishes a claim to something owns it.

Neither of these follows directly from ZAP and neither of them is an obvious approach for an AnCap society to use, unless you are from an anglosaxon culture on Terra.
Title: Re: ZAP!!!
Post by: J Thomas on May 04, 2011, 05:31:32 am
But you have shown corridors where lots of people travel to get from one place to another. Those are owned by somebody, and that somebody provides air for everybody to use if they are allowed into his corridor, with no indication that he inspects people or makes them sign a contract before they enter.

When you go to the mall, who owns the air conditioning? Do you normally get inspected before you enter? If not, why not? Could that sort of bullshit be bad for business? When you see corridors in EFT, they do belong to somebody. In most cases to the Merchants Associations in which they are located.

Sure. And when people initiate force against you on somebody else's property, it isn't just between them and the property owner.

Quote
If somebody is poisoning the air in the corridor I am using, they are aggressing against me. It isn't just between them and the owner of the corridor.

No, but the owner does set the rules. Irrespective of that, what do you think your options are in your scenario? Kind of depends on the severity, concentration and extent of the poison, right? If it is a hundred kilos of mustard gas, your response would be be different than if it were some spilled Clorox, right? So, someone is initiating force against you. So what do you think the ZAP permits you to do in the wide range of situations that might come under the rubric of "poison"? You are probably correct that in most cases, the ZAP could be invoked, but that doesn't really do much for you, unless you have the ability to discriminate between true, life-threatening events or events with affects that are de minimus.

It's a matter of public opinion, or arbitrator's opinion, what events are insignificant. If you have no rights outside of immediate threats to your life, then you don't have many rights at all.

Quote
The same doctrine would apply in arbitration cases where someone's beef might be legitimate, but is really trivial. You know, like dandruff in Ceres City.

The latest way you present it, very few issues come to ZAP at all. Whenever you are in public, the Merchant's Association sets whatever arbitrary rules they think will please the majority of their customers. If those rules don't suit you, then your only option is to not go anywhere in public.

Quote
If the owner of the property specifically says that tobacco smoke or ammonia fumes or shit is OK, then it's my responsibility to be somewhere else. But when we both have the right to be there, it isn't just up to the owner. Any more than it's entirely up to the owner to decide what to do if you choose to kill me.

First, I never said otherwise, however, just because you are permitted entry into another's property, it does not follow that if smoking is permitted, you have any say-so about it if someone lights up. Either you accept the owner's rules or you leave. What in other circumstances might be the initiation of force, is not, if it is in compliance with the owners rules. Further affiant sayeth naught.

Well, it probably deserves more saying.

If the majority of customers don't want smoking, then most likely smoking will not be permitted even if the owner isn't concerned about greasy toxic smears on all his property, extra costs for air reclamation, and fire hazards. It's entirely up to the owner, and his concerns about public opinion. And public opinion might very well say that it's initiation of force to blow smoke in someone's face. Public opinion might very well say that it's initiation of force to leave your used smoke where they can breathe it. But if you smoke inside your own space suit then it's entirely your own choice until you open it.

And if public opinion is opposed to skin flakes blowing around in their air, chances are the Merchant's Association will deal with that too.

RIghts? Did somebody say they have rights? Sure, they can do absolutely anything they want on their own property, that belongs to them and them alone, so long as it doesn't affect the Merchant's Association.

Quote
Hiding in my room, safe within my womb.
I touch no one and no one touches me.
I am a rock,
I am an island.
Title: Re: ZAP!!!
Post by: J Thomas on May 04, 2011, 05:56:18 am
Glenn, Self Defense is never a matter of "getting away with it".

But murder is. And self-defense can be a matter of getting away with it when the laws are bad.

Quote
General rules.  1.  A person within 21 feet of you can close that distance in 1.5 seconds or less.  A weapon in its' holster will not make it into play.

But if it does make it into play, it may be hard to miss at point blank range. Something for the attacker to think about.

Quote
 2.  The person attacking has skills equal to or greater than your own.  If your attacker believed you were his equal, there would not be an attack.  Attackers want a "sure thing".

Not always so, sometimes people attack against the odds, when they feel they have no better choice. But when it is so, somebody who looks like they have a weapon is less a sure thing than somebody who looks unarmed.

Quote
  3.  Turing to run just means you'll be tired when the attacker catches you and the attack will come from the primary direction from which you will not be able to effectively defend.

It depends on their intention. If taking your wallet is the point, they see their loot running away. They might chase you down or they might possibly laugh and look for a sure thing with shorter legs. If they are "defending their honor" against what they take as your insults, etc, they might likely take it as a win if you run away. My experience is limited, but twice I did pretty well by running fast and around a corner, and then kick the first guy who came around it after me. The others clustered around him asking him what happened instead of chasing me, so it worked out in the short run. Once when it was only one guy chasing me I ran until we both started getting tired, then I ran up 4 steps up a stoop and then turned around and yelled and he ran away. I was about ready to kick him in the face but I hesitated and it turned out OK. That was back when I could run fast, though.

Quote
 4.  Waving a weapon around as a threat means it will be taken away and used against you.  You have to communicate your intent and determination to use force,  to have any hope of an attacker retreating.

Agreed. Don't point a gun at somebody until you shoot him. Don't wave it around. Maybe it's good to keep it in your pocket along with your hand? But if you shoot you'll spoil your pocket....

The trouble is, the first time it's always a big shock and people tend to freeze up or do something at random. So ideally people should not face violence the first time. Start with the second time. ;)

Quote
quadibloc.  Fraud is theft.  Whether the theft is by trick or force is immaterial.  The victim has been harmed with the theft of a period of the victim's life.  One way can get you dead very quickly.  The other could still get you dead, but you're more likely to end up in arbitration as your victim seeks restitution.

If somebody tells you they have an interesting story, and you listen to them and it turns out to be boring, is that theft? You'll never get back the time you wasted listening to them. And they'll never get back the time they wasted telling it to you. In that case nobody wins.

Is it only theft when they get something out of it, and you lose something? Or is it theft if you are harmed, regardless what they gain? Do you have to be harmed? Sandy has argued that you don't have to be harmed.
Title: Re: ZAP!!!
Post by: J Thomas on May 04, 2011, 06:11:44 am
Thomas, that is simply wonderful :)
My proposal for a sustainable civilization in the next 5 years on Earth goes like this:
Make a variety of cities, each with contained borders and infrastructure that carries specific, clear and succinct rules.
Require that each culture agree on a set of rules and present a copy to every visitor. To make it more interesting, they need to be translated into major languages and readable in a short time frame.
Monitor and tax imports/exports to provide the things not produced but still counted as "infrastructure".

In the interests of sustainability and as a social experiment, base levels of food, shelter, local cell, medical will be provided in the most cost effective means possible. At commodity level pricing, that means $8/mo per person for a 1500 calorie wheat based diet, plus whatever is grown locally in large quantity. Connect them via local trains.

I like that! The trouble is, my budget for social experiments is limited. If only the UN would give me 20 million or so people for experimental test subjects! We could make such fun experimental societies! The UN and all these governments are so short-sighted not funding me to do that.... ;)

Quote
Replace most government with a database. Provide the means for direct democracy via web enabled cell phone, with the ability to assign representatives and rescind designation at any time. (I was stunned to see that in "The Probability Broach")

So my goal isn't to get everyone to agree, but bribe them to go where people think similarly and then give them motivation to improve their situation. On Social Security Disability, people are forbidden to improve themselves physically or mentally, and the government pays far too much for housing.

Katherine Maclean did that in her great novel, The Missing Man.

They got people to join great big communes and such in NYC based on personal preferences, and then the limited city government tried hard to keep the different groups from fighting wars. There was a neighborhood devoted to the SCA, there was one where people dressed up like they had 50 years before and played news from 50 years before etc, there was one composed of refugees from Saudi Arabia after the Israelis pushed them out of the Saudi part of Israel, etc. Most of the sado-masochists joined the Aztec community and got jobs in government service.

http://www.amazon.com/s?ie=UTF8&keywords=The%20Missing%20Man%20-%20Katherine%20MacLean&rh=n%3A283155%2Ck%3AThe%20Missing%20Man%20-%20Katherine%20MacLean&page=1

If I read this right, at the moment you can get a hardback copy for 75 cents plus shipping.
Title: Re: ZAP!!!
Post by: spudit on May 04, 2011, 08:23:03 am
I remember and really liked that book. Wasn't there some mystery to be solved, the protaganist was a reporter or detective or such so he got around a lot.

Gentle chiding Rorschach, no offense intended, this thread is about the Zero Aggression Principle not social engineering. ZAP is about not starting physical fights unless in defense against direct physical threats, stealing or cheating.

But on social engineering, one size does not fit all and it would take a lot of these towns to get a good fit. Me, I see a lot to emulate in the self reliant Mormon lifestyle/mindset, but then there is that religion thing they have going, no fun for me.

Better maybe to set up a support base  providing basic power, water, sewage, stuff everyone needs. Then groups could plug themselves into it, like a campground or marina, though physically maybe more like an office park. With the sewage, nasty mobile stuff that it is, insuring proper handling of that disease carrying stuff does come close to the topic, sorta.

Meanwhile back on planet ZAP...
Title: Re: ZAP!!!
Post by: SandySandfort on May 04, 2011, 11:04:50 am
Force, as I understand it, involves harm or injury, or the threat of harm or injury. But I'm being told that the definition of force doesn't rest on the definition of "harm".

You know, you are right. Your comments (and those of others) have caused me to re-examine the ZAP using my lawyer brain instead of my "I like L.Neal Smith" brain. He is a wordwright, but he isn't a lawyer.

So here's the deal. If anyone thinks they have some clever or edge question that somehow "proves that ZAP cannot work," I have some additional words of art, that have generally understood and agreed upon meanings to further clarify the concept. I have already said that the normal version of the ZAP is shorthand for further limitations and clarifications. Okay, The following is what the original ZAP means, but I think this restatement is less ambiguous:

"No one has the right initiate (common law) assault or battery against another."

The question of fraud in dispute among libertarians, and since most laymen don't have a clue what this legal word of art. So until it actually comes up in a future arc, I am not going to get into it now.

So, what are common law assault and battery? Here are two very comprehensive explanations to clarify the topic. It makes more logical sense if you read the "battery" article before the "assault" article.

     http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/battery

     http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/assault
Title: Re: ZAP!!!
Post by: SandySandfort on May 04, 2011, 11:17:27 am
It's a split. Riparian rights are simpler and easier to understand and take less administration and less adjudicating etc. So that's the obvious choice. It depends on everybody agreeing what's "resaonable use", of course, so it almost entirely begs the question about how you establish who has what rights.

Prior appropriation accepts that the first person to get there and use the water has the right to as much has he's been taking. That looks like it fits AnCap property rules -- the first guy who establishes a claim to something owns it.

Neither of these follows directly from ZAP and neither of them is an obvious approach for an AnCap society to use, unless you are from an anglosaxon culture on Terra.

You get a B or B-. Your analysis of "prior appropriation" is very good, say an A-. However, claiming "Riparian rights are simpler and easier to understand and take less administration and less adjudicating etc.," is way off the mark. The funny thing is, you nailed the problem, what is "reasonable use?" "Prior appropriation needs no administration and way less adjudication.

BTW, neither system allows you to poison downstream users. You can use the water anyway you want... on your own land, but if you then release it downstream, you are liable for damage it causes.

Title: Re: ZAP!!!
Post by: Rorschach on May 04, 2011, 11:39:31 am
A.1) Under the Riparian system as described in the UK nobody has access to drinking water, and nobody has the right to rinse things off where the spillage lands on the dirt. Use basic physics, everything disperses and if I rinse off my plate using soap, the soap ends up in the water. This also completely prevents the "brown terrorist" that Sandy advocated for regarding water and against regarding food. This system seems relevant to the Wild West, but not asteroids where there isn't water running freely.

A.2) The second system, Prior Appropriation, is completely untenable without a large administration designating who gets what and how much. If I'm the first person to commercialize the moon, do I get the whole thing or just a few miles? If I land on the south side, do I get all of the water or just enough for the landing party to use in X years? This system (where I live) is ridiculous and encourages golf courses to be built in the desert. This system is basically a "grandfather clause" argument and is completely untenable in every situation. It is only made tenable through government force and prosecuting for water rights.

B) Regarding ZAP and Assault, this is ludicrous. Shaking your keys is a form of Assault. Adopting an aggressive stance is Assault. Standing too close to someone is Assault. Dandruff touching me is legally Battery, but having dandruff is Assault. I'd prefer a definition that includes the "attempt or infliction of harm" instead of simply feeling offended.

C) J Thomas, glad you're interested! My ZAP related point is that unless people can agree on things like cigarettes and Assault, ZAP won't work. The only solution I see is to list the social rules at the border. I'm budgeting $500k to get started. (windmills, water storage, cell phone system w/o tower, construction materials.)

D.1) There was a ZAP abuser I met on the light rail (train) up in Portland once. At the rail station he starts screaming and hurling insults, aggressive posturing, etc. I made no aggressive actions towards him nor did I respond at all to his insults. We boarded the light rail. We sat separately. He started being a jerk to someone else. I sat in the seat next to him wearing leather trenchcoat and a silk button up shirt (2 layers of armor vs knife).  I just sat there and had the biggest grin on my face, ON CAMERA. He got so upset he left, and then I explained to the people nearby what I did and why. Later on I saw the same guy doing it again to someone else and I came within 3 paces of him and greeting him. He freaked out, tried to hit me with his garbage bag full of whatever and ran off.

D.2) During his aggressive behavior, he boasted that he knew exactly what he could get away with and the cops wouldn't touch him because he knew the rules. I engaged in a ZAP counter, thoroughly prepared to defend myself against an attack that didn't involve him firing a gun while it was in his pocket. Knife, wrestling, etc I was emotionally prepared for. Off camera, he committed Assault but not Battery the first time around. The second time he committed Battery (actual contact)  and in both circumstances I committed psychological warfare without visible aggression. In other words, it will always be possible to screw with people.
Title: Re: ZAP!!!
Post by: SandySandfort on May 04, 2011, 01:00:28 pm
It's a matter of public opinion, or arbitrator's opinion, what events are insignificant. If you have no rights outside of immediate threats to your life, then you don't have many rights at all.

Nobody said you had no rights. Please stop hyperventilating. You always have your basic right to be left alone, if you haven't been assaulted or battered or haven't voluntarily agreed to owner's rules in order to be granted a temporary entry onto their property.

The latest way you present it, very few issues come to ZAP at all. Whenever you are in public, the Merchant's Association sets whatever arbitrary rules they think will please the majority of their customers. If those rules don't suit you, then your only option is to not go anywhere in public.

Besides the fact that Merchant Associations are going to set up rules that are as inclusive as possible and that different malls will have different rules, you still have several options:

1. Don't be such a baby. Man up and go anyway. I don't like smoking, but if I go where there is smoking I tolerate it. If the mall requires that you cover your genitals, wear pants, BFD.

2. Go somewhere else that does have rules of which you approve. In a market anarchy expect diversity.

3. Think, market niche. Get together with your non-pants wearing buddies and start your own damned mall, "Pudenda Galleria."

4. Stay at home and piss and moan about how cruel the world is to the pants challenged.

Quote
If the owner of the property specifically says that tobacco smoke or ammonia fumes or shit is OK, then it's my responsibility to be somewhere else. But when we both have the right to be there, it isn't just up to the owner. Any more than it's entirely up to the owner to decide what to do if you choose to kill me.

But you do not have a "right to be there." The owner has the right to exclude you or temporarily permit you to be there. If you say, "Hey, that guy is smoking and that violates my rights under the ZAP," the owner can say, "Don't be so sensitive. Sack up or leave." Problem solved. Trust me, unless you are voluntarily visiting Fight Club, the owner is not going to have rules that permit someone pummeling you and stealing your money.

Quote
And if public opinion is opposed to skin flakes blowing around in their air, chances are the Merchant's Association will deal with that too.

More precisely, if the Association believes that the best way to maximize profits is to ban dandruff, then they will ban it. "Public opinion" is an artificial construct. Another Mall could decide that because the first mall bans dandruff, then their is a potentially profitable niche market for people who don't want to shave their heads. So "public opinion" is not what drives the rule setting.


Title: Re: ZAP!!!
Post by: mellyrn on May 04, 2011, 01:05:24 pm
Quote
If I'm the first person to commercialize the moon, do I get the whole thing or just a few miles?

Commercialize "the moon"?  Do you commercialize the whole thing?

If you have the means to prevent me from landing & setting up my own operation (either directly, or by hiring people) -- i.e., if you can control the whole thing -- then I suppose you do get the whole thing.

If you don't have control over the whole thing, in what sense would I be harming you if I acquire control over a different bit?

Quote
There was a ZAP abuser I met on the light rail ....[delicious story snipped]

:D  I love it!

Quote
it will always be possible to screw with people.

Of course.  No amount of laws or LEOs can prevent this.  Victory goes -- as you showed -- to the creative.

We can't guarantee that we will always be the cleverer one, and escape harm.  Government is an attempt to get a guarantee of no harm.  And yet at its best it will only lower a believer's guard.
Title: Re: ZAP!!!
Post by: Rorschach on May 04, 2011, 01:12:05 pm
It's a matter of public opinion, or arbitrator's opinion, what events are insignificant. If you have no rights outside of immediate threats to your life, then you don't have many rights at all.

Nobody said you had no rights. Please stop hyperventilating. You always have your basic right to be left alone, if you haven't been assaulted or battered or haven't voluntarily agreed to owner's rules in order to be granted a temporary entry onto their property.
I claimed that people have no intrinsic rights. If there was divine intervention preventing person A from doing something to person B, that would be an example of a god given right. If the government intervenes preventing person A from doing something to person B that is a legally granted right. Upon examination, most rights are alienable and untenable. For example, the right to life. Does that mean that we need to bankrupt everyone in order to provide every possible medical procedure possible? The right to life is not even recognized as such in the United States, there is no right to medical care. ER will provide *emergency* care, but I have no right to insulin. I'm actually legally prevented from getting insulin through the free market. How about the pursuit of happiness? That must be the worst legal fiction I've ever heard.
Title: Re: ZAP!!!
Post by: J Thomas on May 04, 2011, 01:17:49 pm
It's a split. Riparian rights are simpler and easier to understand and take less administration and less adjudicating etc. So that's the obvious choice. It depends on everybody agreeing what's "resaonable use", of course, so it almost entirely begs the question about how you establish who has what rights.

Prior appropriation accepts that the first person to get there and use the water has the right to as much has he's been taking. That looks like it fits AnCap property rules -- the first guy who establishes a claim to something owns it.

Neither of these follows directly from ZAP and neither of them is an obvious approach for an AnCap society to use, unless you are from an anglosaxon culture on Terra.

You get a B or B-. Your analysis of "prior appropriation" is very good, say an A-. However, claiming "Riparian rights are simpler and easier to understand and take less administration and less adjudicating etc.," is way off the mark. The funny thing is, you nailed the problem, what is "reasonable use?"

Once people agree about what reasonable use is, then it's all simple and easy to understand. Admittedly that doesn't help you when somebody new comes along and wants to suck up the water that everybody else was just fishing and navigating in.

Quote
"Prior appropriation needs no administration and way less adjudication.

Here's a little bit from the link you supplied.

Quote
"Each water right has a yearly quantity and an appropriation date. Each year, the user with the earliest appropriation date (known as the "senior appropriator") may use up to their full allocation (provided the water source can supply it). Then the user with the next earliest appropriation date may use their full allocation and so on. In times of drought, users with junior appropriation dates might not receive their full allocation or even any water at all.

"It is possible for a senior appropriator to change his right without losing his priority date. However, any change is conditional on protecting Junior appropriators' water rights. Those junior appropriators are entitled to a Preservation of Conditions that were present when the junior appropriator was granted his water right. Farmers High Line v. City of Golden (CO 1954).

"When a water right is sold, it retains its original appropriation date. Only the amount of water historically consumed can be transferred if a water right is sold. For example, if alfalfa is grown, using flood irrigation, the amount of the return flow may not be transferred, only the amount that would be necessary to irrigate the amount of alfalfa historically grown."

You say this needs no administration? I'm astounded.

Quote
BTW, neither system allows you to poison downstream users. You can use the water anyway you want... on your own land, but if you then release it downstream, you are liable for damage it causes.

And it appears prior appropriation gives you no responsibility to release it downstream at all. If your use causes the lake or river to dry up, then too bad, it's your right to get what you want and nobody else has any rights at all.

I frankly can't imagine how anybody who thought about it could believe this is a good approach for a scarce resource. It looks to me like it's designed from the start to provide oligopoly rents forever for the descendants of whoever grabbed the mostest the firstest.
Title: Re: ZAP!!!
Post by: Rorschach on May 04, 2011, 01:20:51 pm
Quote
If I'm the first person to commercialize the moon, do I get the whole thing or just a few miles?
Commercialize "the moon"?  Do you commercialize the whole thing?
If you have the means to prevent me from landing & setting up my own operation (either directly, or by hiring people) -- i.e., if you can control the whole thing -- then I suppose you do get the whole thing.
If you don't have control over the whole thing, in what sense would I be harming you if I acquire control over a different bit?
I think we agree here: Prior Appropriation as a method of claiming ownership is untenable. My example of the silliness would be claiming the entire moon using Prior Appropriation if I'm part of the first commercialization wave. Under the letter of Prior Appropriation and sans extra regulation and registration, the whole thing is now mine. There was actually someone selling the moon, you can buy a few acres for $20 and he registers the claim. The question becomes, is presence required or simply "I own it!" ? By the "I own it" logic, the entire moon is owned several times over.  A. Dean Lindsay has legal claims to the entire universe aside from Earth. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Extraterrestrial_real_estate (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Extraterrestrial_real_estate) If you follow legal Prior Appropriation, Lindsay owns everything except for alien races that we recognize. Oh look, Lindsay owns it all.
Title: Re: ZAP!!!
Post by: J Thomas on May 04, 2011, 01:34:55 pm
It's a matter of public opinion, or arbitrator's opinion, what events are insignificant. If you have no rights outside of immediate threats to your life, then you don't have many rights at all.

Nobody said you had no rights. Please stop hyperventilating. You always have your basic right to be left alone, if you haven't been assaulted or battered or haven't voluntarily agreed to owner's rules in order to be granted a temporary entry onto their property.

If you have your own airlock then that's fine. If you are landlocked then you have to agree to an owner's rules to go *anywhere*. Like, the spaceport. But if you can get into a ship without going through the spaceport then you can slide by again.

Quote
The latest way you present it, very few issues come to ZAP at all. Whenever you are in public, the Merchant's Association sets whatever arbitrary rules they think will please the majority of their customers. If those rules don't suit you, then your only option is to not go anywhere in public.

Besides the fact that Merchant Associations are going to set up rules that are as inclusive as possible and that different malls will have different rules, you still have several options:

1. Don't be such a baby. Man up and go anyway. I don't like smoking, but if I go where there is smoking I tolerate it. If the mall requires that you cover your genitals, wear pants, BFD.

We're back to the question of freedom. You can do what you want on your property that is owned only by you, so long as it has no affect outside your property. Beyond that, knuckle under to what other people want. And the difference between that and what we have now is ... is ... now by traditional laws the authorities can get a warrant to come onto your property to check that you aren't doing something they don't want. And by the new laws they can break down your door to do that. Beyond that, not much difference. Do you want to go to the airport? Then you can voluntarily follow Homeland Security's rules. Don't like it, don't go. Same thing.

Quote
2. Go somewhere else that does have rules of which you approve. In a market anarchy expect diversity.

If you have your own airlock from your own personal property that only you own.

Quote
3. Think, market niche. Get together with your non-pants wearing buddies and start your own damned mall, "Pudenda Galleria."

If you can buy the land at a convenient location. Set up your own damn spaceport!

Quote
4. Stay at home and piss and moan about how cruel the world is to the pants challenged.

Hey, I can do that here, I don't need to go to the Belt for it. I know some people who do that here who practically drool at the thought of going to the Belt where they can be free.

Quote
If the owner of the property specifically says that tobacco smoke or ammonia fumes or shit is OK, then it's my responsibility to be somewhere else. But when we both have the right to be there, it isn't just up to the owner. Any more than it's entirely up to the owner to decide what to do if you choose to kill me.

But you do not have a "right to be there." The owner has the right to exclude you or temporarily permit you to be there. If you say, "Hey, that guy is smoking and that violates my rights under the ZAP," the owner can say, "Don't be so sensitive. Sack up or leave." Problem solved.

And if the owner has the right to exclude people who smoke and somebody smokes in your face, you can wait for the owner to fix it.  Hey, I've heard something like that right here in the USA! If somebody points a gun at you and demands your wallet, you can give it to him and wait for the police to protect you! You've substituted the Merchant's Association for the government, and they hire the police who will protect whatever rights they think you should have. The more things change....
Title: Re: ZAP!!!
Post by: J Thomas on May 04, 2011, 01:57:02 pm
Quote
If I'm the first person to commercialize the moon, do I get the whole thing or just a few miles?
Commercialize "the moon"?  Do you commercialize the whole thing?
If you have the means to prevent me from landing & setting up my own operation (either directly, or by hiring people) -- i.e., if you can control the whole thing -- then I suppose you do get the whole thing.
If you don't have control over the whole thing, in what sense would I be harming you if I acquire control over a different bit?
I think we agree here: Prior Appropriation as a method of claiming ownership is untenable. My example of the silliness would be claiming the entire moon using Prior Appropriation if I'm part of the first commercialization wave.

I think reasonable people would agree that you can only lay claim to the parts of the moon that you use. So, if you tramp around a big circle on the moon that has a 100 square mile area (about 35 miles) then maybe you could claim to 100 square miles of the surface. But does that give you mineral rights to the center of the moon? Surely not. You would have rights to use whatever tunnels you drill into the moon, so long as you don't drill into somebody else's cubic.

And if you discover an ice pocket? Presumably you will harvest it as fast as you can, as long as you can. If it turns out that somebody else is already harvesting it, how will either of you find out until the cavities you make in the ice get close together?

So the people who drill the tunnels in the moon basicly own everything. If you want to own instead of rent, maybe somebody will sell you a room off one of their corridors. Or if they only rent and never sell, maybe they will rent you the equipment to dig your own tunnel someplace nobody else has already drilled. Then you can have your own airlock so you can walk on the surface (that nobody cares to own) to wherever you're going. Or maybe they wont' rent drilling equipment after all.

But doesn't it make sense that you only own what you take, and whatever you leave for other people to take is theirs? You only own the whole moon if you can use the whole moon. Say you get a bunch of nanos that get busy making more nanos, and they spread out across the whole moon, then you're using it all and its all yours. And if you can get your nanos to drill 3 meters deep everywhere, then the whole moon volume is yours to a depth of 10 feet. Etc. But you have to show you've taken it before it's yours.

I don't like this approach much, but it's possible to do it in ways that a lot of reasonable people can sort of agree on, and not the most unreasonable way anybody has ever published.
Title: Re: ZAP!!!
Post by: Rorschach on May 04, 2011, 02:02:37 pm
My point is that Prior Appropriation involves a lot of regulation, and not just in registrations. What if I make a dark side observatory to look at space and collect electromagnetic data? 50 miles isn't enough distance to the next neighbor.
Title: Re: ZAP!!!
Post by: J Thomas on May 04, 2011, 03:05:57 pm
My point is that Prior Appropriation involves a lot of regulation, and not just in registrations.

I expect it would. But it could be mostly pretty straightforward. Like, say you have a dairy farm with 50 cows on the moon, and then somebody builds a mass transit system within 20 miles. You claim the vibration causes your cows to give less milk. Obviously, you arbitrate, and show that your cows have given less milk since the tube went through. So the guys who own the mass transit system have to pay you for the loss in milk, and if you get extra cows they don't have to pay for reduced milk from the new ones. You were there first, but the 51st cow wasn't there first.

If you've been dumping cow manure down a fractured fault line and later somebody drilling a tunnel drills into it, you don't owe them for messing up anything of theirs, because you found the fault line first. So your use of everything connected to the fault line as a putrid dump takes precedent over their use of it as a hospital or hotel etc.

If your manure produces a lot of methane which leaks into other people's cubic and causes it to blow up, it's their fault for getting leaks from your fault line which you discovered first, and not your fault for creating explosive methane.

See, first use provides a clear and unambiguous rule to decide who gets to do what. Being clear and unambiguous looks to me like its main good point, though, and maybe sometimes it won't be all that clear.

Quote
What if I make a dark side observatory to look at space and collect electromagnetic data? 50 miles isn't enough distance to the next neighbor.

Well, if you get there first then anybody who gets close enough to contaminate your results has no right to be there. Short, sweet, obvious, and clear. And a beautiful way to get title to 7500 or so square miles of unspoiled surface which might be worth a whole lot someday.
Title: Re: ZAP!!!
Post by: Rorschach on May 04, 2011, 03:59:29 pm
Thanks for your clear, well reasoned and descriptive explanation. When there is no competitive scarcity involved, the method makes a lot of sense. With water rights in Nevada, it makes almost no sense and the current policy is draining lakes faster and faster to keep up with the water use by golf courses. This system does provide economic incentive to colonizing groups.

The only thing we would need to be careful are businesses such as "water resellers" that will lay legal claim to a shared resources as part of their business model. I don't have a clear pro or con here, simply the regulatory body will need to make adjustments probably based on the amount of investment required. A $10 billion facility to ship water would lay claim to a lot of water, and they might demand very high prices. The amount of ice in the southern crater is estimated at 1 billion gallons. http://abcnews.go.com/Technology/water-moon-nasa-impact-probe/story?id=11939079 http://science.nasa.gov/science-news/science-at-nasa/2010/21oct_lcross2/ Compared to the estimated average of 32 ounces per ton of regolith, that's quite valuable.  It is likely that estimates need to be made and decisions based on long term profits. Unfortunately such a system is highly susceptible to corruption.



Title: Re: ZAP!!!
Post by: quadibloc on May 04, 2011, 06:47:09 pm
For example, the right to life. Does that mean that we need to bankrupt everyone in order to provide every possible medical procedure possible? The right to life is not even recognized as such in the United States, there is no right to medical care.
The last time I looked, murder was a crime in every one of the 50 states.

That's all the right to life means - not the right to be provided with what you need to live, merely the right not to be killed.

I think it can be agreed that most people believe that when someone is minding his own business, not hurting others, he should not be the subject of deadly violence - and to subject such a one to deadly violence is wrong. That is what is meant by "the right to life". And I don't think it's going away; I don't think people in general will change their minds, and start thinking that, say, it was OK when the Nazis decided they would round up the Jews and exterminate them, if that's what they wanted to do.
Title: Re: ZAP!!!
Post by: sam on May 04, 2011, 09:07:10 pm
I think we agree here: Prior Appropriation as a method of claiming ownership is untenable.

Yet most land rights in America, and most water rights in the west, were established by this method.

It is all the other methods that have failed catastrophically.  See De Soto's discussion of this problem.

Title: Re: ZAP!!!
Post by: quadibloc on May 04, 2011, 10:16:55 pm
Prior appropriation does make sense.

Taking something from nobody is not stealing.

Taking something from somebody else is stealing.

Societies with advanced state structures might well modify it somewhat - for example, by "appropriating" a whole continent for the government, and then allowing subjects to receive homesteads which are of a fixed standard size - and otherwise imposing land-use and development plans.
Title: Re: ZAP!!!
Post by: sam on May 05, 2011, 02:40:09 am
Societies with advanced state structures might well modify it somewhat - for example, by "appropriating" a whole continent for the government, and then allowing subjects to receive homesteads which are of a fixed standard size - and otherwise imposing land-use and development plans.

It has been tried, unsuccessfully in America, and with poor success in Australia.

In Australia, that policy, among others, led to the rum rebellion which ended inconclusively.  To this day there are large rural properties that the government maps list as public land, but which are in reality no public land.

In the US, the government allocation was mostly ignored, and after long and unpleasant conflict, the government generally conceded to the pioneers.
Title: Re: ZAP!!!
Post by: J Thomas on May 05, 2011, 05:36:45 am
Prior appropriation does make sense.

Taking something from nobody is not stealing.

Taking something from somebody else is stealing.

If only it was that simple.

So, say you go to the Amazon rain forest and you start paying people to cut down trees. You're the first to do that, and you cut down 1 square mile of trees the first year. The second year, you cut down 2 square miles of trees and a competitor cuts down 1 square mile. The third year,  you cu down 4 square miles, your first competitor cuts down 2 square miles, and your second competitor cuts down 1 square mile.

By prior appropriation, you now get to cut down 1 square mile of forest every year as long as there's any left, you get to cut down 2 square miles as long as there are 3 left, and you can cut down 4 square miles as long as there are 7 left. Your first competitor gets to cut down 1 square mile of forest as long as there's 3 square miles left, and 2 square miles as long as there are 7 left. Your second competitor gets to cut down 1 square mile of forest every year as long as there's 7 left. Nobody else gets any say in it, you get to cut down the forest as long as there's any left, because you did it before anybody else did so you have the right.

Should you really get an unlimited right to cut down rain forest because you did it before? I don't think so.

On the other hand, what if we decide the indians have rights? They were there first, using the rain forest for subsistence agriculture. Do they have the right to keep their forest, worth trillions of dollars, when they're going to almost completely waste it? Millions and millions of board feet of lumber, and they'll just let it fall down and rot? And they don't even extract enough of that wealth to pay for health care?

But if we don't agree that the first guy to start using something up has the right to keep going until it's all gone, what else can we decide? Let the government get involved?

I don't see a 100% fair solution that everybody can agree to, but it looks to me like the guys who say "I was here first so everybody has to let me do whatever I want" are part of the problem.
Title: Re: ZAP!!!
Post by: quadibloc on May 05, 2011, 06:53:42 am
I don't see a 100% fair solution that everybody can agree to, but it looks to me like the guys who say "I was here first so everybody has to let me do whatever I want" are part of the problem.
You make a point that I agree is valid. However, it's a point that I think is beyond what I could reasonably hope to argue in this forum.

Prior appropriation is reasonable on moral or ideological grounds, as long as one does recognize that Indians have rights too, when one excludes from consideration the necessary basis for your objection.

If the number of people in the world is sufficiently small that just allowing free-enterprise to function without government interference will liberate enough resources so that of course without being coercively forced to support them by taxation, a hundred Norman Borlaugs will bloom - and all this talk about running out of phosphorus, or global warming, or an ozone hole, is just a plot by evil liars who are using it as an excuse to inflict the United World on all of us - then the Amazon rainforest is just an insignificant postage-stamp sized area of land, and what happens to it doesn't matter to anyone else but those directly involved.

You do remember seeing people use Malthusianism as a dirty word around here?

The idea that physical limits are as real, and as inescapable, on the Earth as a whole as they are, say, aboard the Apollo 13 Lunar Module... is annoying to those who (unfortunately, with good reason) see most talk of externalities as just an excuse to tax economic activity into the ground.

This is why, for example, I advocate nuclear power - while I see the externality of global warming as real, I also see the energy-conserving future of living off of the energy we get from windmills and other warm and fuzzy energy sources as bleak and unfree.

I think we need to be determined to survive as free men. And we need to unflinchingly acknowledge reality.

Even uncomfortable and inconvenient realities - like, on the one hand, that global warming was real - and, like, on the other hand, that Nazi Germany and Communist Russia were real and out to enslave us, and so we actually needed to raise trillion-dollar defense budgets without waiting for voluntary donations.

Questioning the sanity of people, though, is... rude. And somewhat unfair too - since, while I may think that the views of those who favor AnCap are not entirely rational, the same applies to the voices I hear from the mainstream portions of the political spectrum. So it would be misleading to make the supporters of AnCap feel singled out in this regard.

And if the mainstream is insane, non-mainstream voices, even if they don't seem any better, may still have the odd good idea.
Title: Re: ZAP!!!
Post by: mellyrn on May 05, 2011, 07:00:54 am
Quote
I think it can be agreed that most people believe that when someone is minding his own business, not hurting others, he should not be the subject of deadly violence - and to subject such a one to deadly violence is wrong. That is what is meant by "the right to life".

Sounds like ZAP to me.

You begin, "I think it can be agreed" and then follow with what you no doubt consider a self-evident principle.  Well, I thought, "First, do no harm" (or "Do what you like so long as it hurts no one" or "No one has the right to initiate force against another" or however you want to say it) was equally self-evident.  I was foolish enough to wonder how we'd have a whole thread about it.

Now look at this thread:  12 pages (and no end in sight) of "But does thiiiiiis count?" like a bunch of little kids told, "Don't touch the vase" and poking at it with sticks and turning the fan on "high" and aiming the airflow. 

I need an emoticon for standing and clapping.  Look how much verbiage has been spent on one little guideline, the ZAP.  Now give all our yammering the force of law and multiply that by ten thousand, a hundred thousand.  The law books of government are the public version of this single thread.  Just as in the dandruff twist, any law that "protects" you can also be interpreted in a way that condemns you -- on the whim of whichever LEO decides to mess with you.

And you who insist on the necessity of government trust such a construct?  I have a phrase for you:  "compartmentalized thinking".
Title: Re: ZAP!!!
Post by: J Thomas on May 05, 2011, 09:30:23 am
I don't see a 100% fair solution that everybody can agree to, but it looks to me like the guys who say "I was here first so everybody has to let me do whatever I want" are part of the problem.

Prior appropriation is reasonable on moral or ideological grounds, as long as one does recognize that Indians have rights too, when one excludes from consideration the necessary basis for your objection.

It's reasonable on some moral grounds and not on others. i'm not clear how to balance out the competing rights.

Quote
You do remember seeing people use Malthusianism as a dirty word around here?

Oh, yes.

Quote
The idea that physical limits are as real, and as inescapable, on the Earth as a whole as they are, say, aboard the Apollo 13 Lunar Module... is annoying to those who (unfortunately, with good reason) see most talk of externalities as just an excuse to tax economic activity into the ground.

Sure. If the only alternative to pretending there are no limits until we smash full-speed into them, is to give control to authoritarian governments, then we're in a hell of a fix.

Quote
This is why, for example, I advocate nuclear power - while I see the externality of global warming as real, I also see the energy-conserving future of living off of the energy we get from windmills and other warm and fuzzy energy sources as bleak and unfree.

If we'd spent the last 40 years building the kind of nuclear power reaactors we had 40 years ago, we'd have even bigger problems now than we do without them. If now we can quickly build a lot of small, cheap, safe nuclear power plants, maybe we should tool up and do that. I'd like to spend another 4 to 9 years on design and testing to try to make improvements and be sure they work, on the assumption that's all the time we have left to do that. Also we could look at other kinds of power hoping something else workable shows up.

It bothers me that I don't see that being done much in the USA.

Quote
I think we need to be determined to survive as free men. And we need to unflinchingly acknowledge reality.

To keep the sort of freedom we've had since 1948, we need cheap energy. We might manage freedom that's worth having without that, but we probably won't. The USA is looking pretty bad for freedom just now, but maybe that could reverse as fast as it's advanced -- we might get significant political freedom back in 10 years if we work at it.

I'd like to acknowledge reality but the harder I look the fuzzier it gets. Not warm and fuzzy, just fuzzy. I want to accept reality, but she doesn't accept me -- the harder I chase her looking for solid proofs the faster she runs away.

Quote
Even uncomfortable and inconvenient realities - like, on the one hand, that global warming was real

It's pretty clear the climate is changing, and it would be stupid to think that human action doesn't affect it. The devil is in the details. What should we do about it all? Ideally the world would wait to burn fossil fuels until we found out what's going on, but there's no way governments will do that, and there's no way to do it without governments, so we'll just have to hope.

Quote
- and, like, on the other hand, that Nazi Germany and Communist Russia were real and out to enslave us, and so we actually needed to raise trillion-dollar defense budgets without waiting for voluntary donations.

It's reasonably clear what actually happened although we get giant arguments about some parts of that. Did it have to be that way? How would it have inevitably turned out if it was different? I'm pretty certain that Germany could not have won -- they didn't have enough soldiers. They didn't have enough soldiers to occupy all the western USSR even if they won that war, so in the long run they could not win. They didn't have enough of anything, but if they didn't run out of something else first they would have run out of soldiers, so -- lose. They pretty much knew it ahead of time, which was part of why they acted so crazy. They were desperate for a miracle they had no reason to hope for.

The Soviets had some trouble maintaining their empire, and the large it got the more trouble they would have had. In the short run having an implacable enemy helped them hold things together.

I don't know what we actually needed to do. What do we need now? Do we need a trillion-dollar military today? Nobody else thinks they do, unless we are running an arms race against the rest of the world combined.

Quote
Questioning the sanity of people, though, is... rude. And somewhat unfair too - since, while I may think that the views of those who favor AnCap are not entirely rational, the same applies to the voices I hear from the mainstream portions of the political spectrum. So it would be misleading to make the supporters of AnCap feel singled out in this regard.

And if the mainstream is insane, non-mainstream voices, even if they don't seem any better, may still have the odd good idea.

Agreed! Something along AnCap lines might be a very good basis for a fresh start. And we might need a fresh start within ten years. I don't see any alternatives that have much chance at this point, so something sort of AnCap might be the default at that point.

If not the real thing, then some sort of hypocritical approximation.
Title: Re: ZAP!!!
Post by: quadibloc on May 05, 2011, 10:00:11 am
Sure. If the only alternative to pretending there are no limits until we smash full-speed into them, is to give control to authoritarian governments, then we're in a hell of a fix.
I think we are in a terrible fix.

Not that fix, though. One that's slightly less bad.

There is an alternative. But we haven't found it yet. Or at least it's an alternative that no longer comes up in political discourse.

An obvious alternative would be an authoritarian government run by people wise enough to see the limits. But a government by Greens would send us back to the dark ages. Right - we'll take our cue from H. G. Wells! We'll have the scientists and engineers ruling the world!

Unfortunately, while scientists and engineers aren't quite as involved with trendy leftism as those in the arts faculties, they're apparently not immune - well, at least the scientists.

So if that's out, what is left?

Well, one could have a democracy that's also a republic. So, instead of being run by opinion polls, there would be warm bodies with brains in them between the electorate and the laws.

There is an elite consensus on some issues that has done better than popular sentiment - thus, Obama pulled the United States out of Afghanistan and Iran less quickly than promised (or, rather, will pull), thus the Supreme Court legalized contraception and integrated the schools (even if that last was implemented badly). But current U.S. politicians are not showing signs of being significantly more competent, or of deferring to those who are competent, on scientific and technical matters.

If that had been the case, then despite a public frustration with the costs of acknowledging and dealing with limits, they would be acknowledged and dealt with, because our elected representatives would be smart enough to know that there really isn't a choice. Without going to extremes and using limits as an excuse to throttle freedom.

Although I don't share the very low opinion of politicians prevalent here, though, I do fear that in general they are a venal lot not particularly concerned with preserving liberty. I just think the decline is slow enough that we still have 100 years left to turn it around - the American ideals of freedom do still count for something, even in Congress; it is not malice so much as that, in the day-to-day rush of events, alternatives to the steady and incremental accumulation of law and regulation are hard to see.
Title: Re: ZAP!!!
Post by: J Thomas on May 05, 2011, 10:47:29 am

Although I don't share the very low opinion of politicians prevalent here, though, I do fear that in general they are a venal lot not particularly concerned with preserving liberty.

They are involved in finding ways that government can solve problems. But no matter who you are, problems are harder to solve when the parts of the problem and the parts of the solution keep changing to suit themselves. If you're designing an electronic circuit and the capacitors and resistors keep changing their values at random.... If you're programming and the code changes itself whenever it wants to, not to further your goals but for some sort of goal of its own....

So the more freedom people have, the harder it is for government to solve problems for them. Preserving freedom is one goal among many, and freedom is opposed to all of the others.

It doesn't help that politicians tend to be lawyers. There are practical reasons for that -- lawyers can walk away from their practices for years and come back. And lawyers understand law better than most people and so are in a better position to create new law that complicates existing law. But learning legal logic tends to damage people's brains. I have to respect people who can do law and also think with real-world logic. It takes special competence to switch back and forth. But most lawyers are not that good and learning law ruins them for problem-solving.

You were suggesting using scientists and engineers for politicians, and then rejected them because you think too many of them have an ideology you dislike. I think one big advantage for using them is that some of them are used to using computer simulation and mathematical modeling. This skill promotes ways of thinking that are pretty new for humanity, which may have a lot of value. Far better to have them applying that than more lawyers applying legal thinking.

Quote
I just think the decline is slow enough that we still have 100 years left to turn it around - the American ideals of freedom do still count for something, even in Congress; it is not malice so much as that, in the day-to-day rush of events, alternatives to the steady and incremental accumulation of law and regulation are hard to see.

In a way, it's unfortunate that we never took the nuclear threat seriously. If we had given thought to surviving a nuclear attack, we would have tried to decentralize our cities. Spread out the people and the manufacturing. Build up lots of small towns. Then when we got fiber optics, go whole-hog into data transfer, teleconferencing, etc. People in big cities put up with so much, and they'd do it a lot less if they had more room. Subtle things like that make a giant difference -- and they look like externalities if you don't pay attention.

When you have a giant city that has 3 days worth of food on hand, you just can't allow much freedom. If anything goes wrong people get hungry and cranky. Lots of services have to be 95% reliable, or even 99% reliable. So to get a working AnCap I think it helps to abandon the giant cities and spread people out so they get some elbow room. That might not be necessary but it would help a whole lot.
Title: Re: ZAP!!!
Post by: sam on May 05, 2011, 01:15:56 pm
Should you really get an unlimited right to cut down rain forest because you did it before? I don't think so.

Assuming no one else is using the rain forest for any purpose that they would be inclined to defend by force, yes you should.

Now let us suppose the forest is most useful for wood.  Pretty soon, the point at which you run out of forest is in sight, whereupon everyone starts claiming remaining forest, and planting trees in cleared land, and claiming land in which they have planted trees.  Problem solved.

In fact, the amazon rain forest is not all that useful for wood, rather cleared land is most useful for soybeans and such.

Again, problem solved.
Title: Re: ZAP!!!
Post by: SandySandfort on May 05, 2011, 01:25:48 pm
Prior appropriation is reasonable on moral or ideological grounds, as long as one does recognize that Indians have rights too, when one excludes from consideration the necessary basis for your objection.

Danger Will Robinson! You guys are pontificating about something entirely different than what you think. "Prior appropriation" is a legal word of art. It has nothing to do with land allocation. It only refers to one theory of water rights.

The "prior appropriation" thread arose out of a post about water rights. If you want to talk about land allocation, use some other terminology, such as "finders keepers." Otherwise you are muddying the discourse at best, and being intellectually dishonest at the worst.

Also, please relate your posts to the ZAP. E.g., "When you shoot an Amarind and take his land, are you violating the ZAP?" Thank you for paying attention. :D
Title: Re: ZAP!!!
Post by: MacFall on May 05, 2011, 02:37:34 pm
And, certainly, such mechanisms in a community of people where aggression is accepted would lead to the aggressive imposition of community whims.  But what does that have to do with an AnCap community?
Now, that's an effective response... from an angle I didn't even think of.

Finding people you can trust as neighbors, though, solves a lot of problems under any political system - and, again, people with statist habits of thought might imagine that a requirement of the right kind of political system is to somehow dispense with that requirement. I can't refute the counterargument that this would be wishing for the impossible.

it seems to me that finding like-minded people to live among is the ONLY way to test a social theory, at least initially. Only after it has achieved some measure of success can it be properly tested against opponents (e.g., the introduction of aggressors into a society that is functionally stateless, in the case of the ZAP). The Free State Project has gone a long way toward convincing me of that fact. Even if we don't see it come to fruition in our lifetimes (despite the FSP's slogan of "Liberty in our lifetimes"), the question of whether or not a social theory bound to libertarian ethics is right or wrong is being gradually answered. Obviously I'm quite sure it's right, or I would not consider myself a libertarian. So for me, it's not about answering the question, but about proving what I already know to the rest of the world.
Title: Re: ZAP!!!
Post by: quadibloc on May 05, 2011, 03:35:56 pm
Assuming no one else is using the rain forest for any purpose that they would be inclined to defend by force, yes you should.
Does breathing count? Although, admittedly, phytoplankton make a much larger contribution to that.

In any case, the soil of the Amazon is not really suitable for any kind of conventional agriculture. Turning it into laterite for a very limited number of crops is an act of foolishness which it is not worth permitting.

Also, please relate your posts to the ZAP. E.g., "When you shoot an Amarind and take his land, are you violating the ZAP?" Thank you for paying attention. :D
Well, there was a thread back from "prior appropriation" in the mistaken sense it may have been understood by me and the ZAP.

The case of the American Indians is complicated.

In broad outlines, the ZAP certainly was violated.

People are living in peace, hunting and fishing, and surviving in that fashion. Reaching a deal to allow some farmers to live within their hunting territory, and produce more food by agriculture is legitimate.

But if one goes back to the first Thanksgiving, we find... that's what happened. The Pilgrim Fathers made friends with the Indians!

The real historical story is very messy. As I understand it, in broad outlines, it was like this:

First, settlers land in the New England states. There is some confrontation, but peace is achieved with the local Indians.

Second, the next tribe over is decimated by smallpox. They decide to practice prophylaxis by slaughtering the newcomers and burning their settlement. I suppose this violates the ZAP, but in itself it was a reasonable act to take in a desperate defense of survival. Unfortunately, having a poor understanding of the germ theory of disease, they took the women off as booty.

Third, settlers took a dim view of this and largely resolved to give the Vanishing American his name. This was an understandable reaction, but they violated the ZAP by attacking other Indian tribes that were not involved.

Then the U.S. government went and proclaimed itself ruler of the entire lower 48 from sea to shining sea. Thus, despite a peace treaty with the Cherokee, they were sent packing, on foot, in a march in which many died. Thus, the bison were slaughtered in the West to ensure that the Plains Indians would have no alternative but to go to reservations where they would be fed. I cannot pretend this was anything but a horrifying aggression.

However, back in those days, it really isn't clear that anyone knew any better. One can point to, oh, the Belgian Congo as an example of what happens when colonialism really gets out of hand.

And then look how the United States saved civilization three times running in the Great War, the Second World War, and the Cold War. It seems like it was useful to have it around. So, rather than praying to God to avenge America's crimes against the Native Americans and the Negro slave, I plead that the United States be given a dispensation to continue to exist that it might continue to guard us against the awful and horrible night of rule by Medvedev and Putin from Russia, or by the People's Republic of China, or by al-Qaeda.

I know this is selfish and cowardly of me, and it betrays me as a respecter of persons who thinks more of the fate of educated Americans or educated Israelis than, say, that of a poor peasant in Chile. But the way the world is, the suffering of the poor may someday come to an end - but it is when the great empires collapse that darkness comes and humanity loses the hard-earned progress it has built up over the ages.

A strong and free America may produce another Norman Borlaug - a defeated America will mean plague and famine for the whole world.
Title: Re: ZAP!!!
Post by: sam on May 05, 2011, 05:38:03 pm

Assuming no one else is using the rain forest for any purpose that they would be inclined to defend by force, yes you should.
Does breathing count? Although, admittedly, phytoplankton make a much larger contribution to that.

In any case, the soil of the Amazon is not really suitable for any kind of conventional agriculture.

That is political correctness, like the story that DDT poisons people and fails to poison malarial mosquitoes.  The Amazon soil is barren without fertilizer, but farmers add fertilizer, and get huge crops of soy beans and sugar cane.  If you are eating any soy products, they very likely came from what very recently used to be the Amazon rainforest, often rainforest recently and illegally seized by farmers in quiet defiance of the Brazilian government.  This soil supposedly unsuitable for agriculture is feeding a large part of the world.  If the laws were effectively enforced, there would be world wide famine in the poorer countries.

Just as the DDT and the  food to fuel laws are intended to reduce world population to “sustainable levels”, the opposition to farming the rainforest is also intended to reduce world population to “sustainable levels”.  The problem with traditional rainforest agriculture is that the soil has few nutrients and lots of pests - both of which problems are easy to remedy.

Turning it into laterite for a very limited number of crops is an act of foolishness which it is not worth permitting.

It only turns into laterite if you fail to add adequate fertilizer.  It turns into laterite on legal government farms, and on politically correct native farms, but not on illegal private farms run by settlers from outside, because the illegal farms employ more advanced forms of agriculture.  If you plow and fertilize, works fine.  If you plow and don't fertilize, the problem is not that it turns into laterite, but that your very first crop fails.

The greenies complain that the farmers are mining the soil by exhausting the nutrients, but they are not, because the problem is precisely that there are very few nutrients in rain forest soil to start with.  So private farmers always add nutrients as their very first step when they plant.  Far from destroying the rainforest soil as the natives do, and politically correct agriculture does, the pioneers are converting barren soil into rich soil.

Observe any strawberry farm.  A key step in growing strawberries is to thoroughly poison the soil with a short lived broad spectrum biocide that kills every living thing - weeds, seeds, animals, worms, bacteria, fungi and viruses.  Then when the poison has dissipated, add chemical fertilizers and strawberries.  They have been doing this for generations.  Greenies would have you believe that it exhausts the soild, but just look!  The soil is richer than ever.

Politically correct agriculture is part of the project to reduce human population to “sustainable” levels.  It is the rainforest, and greenie approved forms of agriculture, that destroy rainforest soil.

Greenies cause the deaths of tens of millions of people each year, through disease and hunger, and intend to reduce world population from billions to millions.  They object to farming the Amazon precisely because its barren unproductive soil is being turned fertile, and because it has become a major food bowl for the world.  Hating humans, they hate all living things that serve humans, and so prefer the Amazon to be as unproductive as it recently was.

Also, please relate your posts to the ZAP. E.g., "When you shoot an Amarind and take his land, are you violating the ZAP?"

When Daniel Boone shot Indians and took their land, he was not violating the ZAP, because he did not shoot Indians for their land, but for murder and torture - and the Indians murdered and tortured, much as the Palestinians did, for much the same reasons as the Palestinians, because other Indians sold their land.

To understand the story of the conflict between the pioneers and the Indians, need to read old books about Daniel Boone, rather than the politically correct histories.

The conflict between the pioneers and the Indians is exemplified by Daniel Boone, who always wanted a deal not a war, who, despite repeated and horrifying provocation, always sought peace - but peace and land.  The problem was that the Indian society was not such that it could sell land.  Daniel Boone could, and did, make a deal with some Indians, and other Indians would break that deal - for example by torturing death one of his children.

This repeated deal breaking led to repeated punitive actions, which acquired land by a means other than making deals, a last resort adopted reluctantly, and which Daniel Boone mostly opposed, despite having very great personal reasons to support such measures.
Title: Re: ZAP!!!
Post by: J Thomas on May 05, 2011, 06:34:26 pm

Assuming no one else is using the rain forest for any purpose that they would be inclined to defend by force, yes you should.
Does breathing count? Although, admittedly, phytoplankton make a much larger contribution to that.

In any case, the soil of the Amazon is not really suitable for any kind of conventional agriculture.

That is political correctness, like the story that DDT poisons people and fails to poison malarial mosquitoes.

That's misstated. The only people I've heard of that got poisoned directly by DDT had mistaken DDT for flour and cooked it into pancakes. DDT is bad for some fish and shellfish, and it poisons some of the invertebrates that some fish depend on. What got it a lot of publicity was killing off birds, particularly carnivorous birds.

Mosquitoes have been getting DDT-resistant pretty easily for a long time now, and I don't see why that would be in any way controversial.

Quote
The Amazon soil is barren without fertilizer, but farmers add fertilizer, and get huge crops of soy beans and sugar cane.

Well sure, if you're ready to add all the fertilizer your crops will need, then you can grow crops on any substrate that can drain and that isn't too poisonous or too rocky. Some Amazon land does drain, and isn't too poisonous, and doesn't turn to rock so bad. And it has plenty of water some years. And it doesn't get too cold except occasionally. So if you want to grow crops on really really bad soil then cleared Amazon rain forest is a possibility.

Quote
If you are eating any soy products, they very likely came from what very recently used to be the Amazon rainforest, often rainforest recently and illegally seized by farmers in quiet defiance of the Brazilian government.  This soil supposedly unsuitable for agriculture is feeding a large part of the world.  If the laws were effectively enforced, there would be world wide famine in the poorer countries.

I don't understand why not grow soybeans on other bad land instead? Is former rain forest the only worthless cropland available to dump huge amounts of fertilizer onto?

Quote
The problem with traditional rainforest agriculture is that the soil has few nutrients and lots of pests - both of which problems are easy to remedy.

If you say it's easy to remedy those in a cost-effective way, then -- well, OK, if you say so. I'm not going to put my investment money into it. You put yours into that, tell me in 20 years how it came out.

Quote
The greenies complain that the farmers are mining the soil by exhausting the nutrients, but they are not, because the problem is precisely that there are very few nutrients in rain forest soil to start with.

Well no, those quiet defiant farmers tend to cut down the trees and burn them to provide fertilizer. It's the big corporations that have the money for lots of commercial fertilizer. The subsistence and one-cash-crop farmers tend to not even pull out the trees that are valuable for timber first.

Quote
So private farmers always add nutrients as their very first step when they plant.

That little word "always" makes me suspect that you have only listened to one propagandist's story.

Quote
Far from destroying the rainforest soil as the natives do, and politically correct agriculture does, the pioneers are converting barren soil into rich soil.

The fertilizer doesn't stay in that soil long, does it? Don't you have to keep adding more each year you want some? How is that converting it into rich soil?
Title: Re: ZAP!!!
Post by: J Thomas on May 05, 2011, 07:00:58 pm

Danger Will Robinson! You guys are pontificating about something entirely different than what you think. "Prior appropriation" is a legal word of art. It has nothing to do with land allocation. It only refers to one theory of water rights.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prior-appropriation_water_rights#Prior_Appropriation_Theory_applied_to_other_goods

About half of the prior appropriation wikipedia article is devoted to other applications besides water.

They say that in the US west the same doctrine was applied to mining. The first one to find and exploit a mineral deposit got the rights to it.

And the first farmer to grow crops on public land got the rights.

And recently, they've come up with the idea that we can afford just so much pollution, and the businesses which have already produced that pollution have the right to it, and can sell pollution rights to others who want to pollute.

It isn't just water.

Quote
The "prior appropriation" thread arose out of a post about water rights. If you want to talk about land allocation, use some other terminology, such as "finders keepers." Otherwise you are muddying the discourse at best, and being intellectually dishonest at the worst.

I was just following common practice as demonstrated by Wikipedia.

Quote
Also, please relate your posts to the ZAP. E.g., "When you shoot an Amarind and take his land, are you violating the ZAP?" Thank you for paying attention. :D

It depends on whether he owns the land. If it's his land, then you are violating ZAP when you invade his land and shoot him. But if it's your land, he is trespassing and depending on how he behaves and whether he leaves promptly when you tell him to, you might easily have the right to shoot him.

So, does the first person to live on the land have full rights to all the land he lives on? If his lifestyle collecting nuts and berries that he never planted requires a square mile per family, does he have full rights to a square mile because he is so inefficient? You could have a productive farm on a 16th of that, producing far more than he does. Does he have the right to keep you off your share?

I don't have a good answer because I don't think prior appropriation is appropriate all by itself anyway.

When deciding what to do, somebody who is already operating a going concern should have a say because they are already doing something useful that might get disrupted. But they should not have the only say. This should apply to anything which might disrupt what they are already doing, whether it involves water rights or land rights or whatever else.
Title: Re: ZAP!!!
Post by: Rorschach on May 05, 2011, 09:34:40 pm
I think we've beat the Prior Appropriation bit to death. ZAP is great for homesteads, but you need a regulatory body for any sort of common resource management. Tragedy of the Commons must be avoided. ZAP is also great for bar scenes, but not so good for terrorism or a hostile economic takeover. ZAP doesn't apply to Kudzu or Line Cutting, but can be extended to many social situations with a lot of reliance on lawsuits and arbiters.
Title: Re: ZAP!!!
Post by: NeitherRuleNorBeRuled on May 05, 2011, 10:05:51 pm
Upon examination, most rights are alienable and untenable. For example, the right to life. Does that mean that we need to bankrupt everyone in order to provide every possible medical procedure possible? The right to life is not even recognized as such in the United States, there is no right to medical care. ER will provide *emergency* care, but I have no right to insulin. I'm actually legally prevented from getting insulin through the free market. How about the pursuit of happiness? That must be the worst legal fiction I've ever heard.

The right to life does not create an obligation in others  to support.

The right to property does not create an obligation in others  to provide it.

The right to pursue happiness does create an obligation in others to make you happy.

Title: Re: ZAP!!!
Post by: Austen.E on May 05, 2011, 10:48:50 pm
Hi all! I apologize for interjecting in a very interesting and heated discussion, but I cannot seem to determine a way to create a new thread to say 'hello' in so I will have to say it here (don't worry - I have some more relevant thoughts as well a bit further down). I found this comic a few weeks ago and have voraciously read it to catch up and now am frustrated by the 'slow' update rate of only once per day  ;) - absolutely love it as well as the forum discussions.

Have lurked about for a while reading some of the topics, and I think I am getting a handle on the dynamics here. One thing I would commend everyone on is the (relative) civility that everyone is using for these super-contentious topics! I haven't stumbled across any other AnCap related community - and finally decided to hop aboard and blather out some of my own no-doubt ridiculous opinions.

So, Hello there everyone! I'm very excited to be here!

DISCLAIMER: In the middle of final exams, so I'm deliriously tired and writing this in between papers. No guarantees of sensible logic or good grammar

Back on topic, I would like to propose a useful definition for what can be legitimately called a 'right.'

I think a right has to have three major conditions:

1) It must be able to be applied universally to all sentient entities (normally I'd say people but EFT is in the 'Future!' so I will keep it broader than that just in case)
2) It must exist naturally - so nothing that is constructed from or granted by social constructs or coercive monopolies
3) It imposes a duty on all others

The third is the most important, and combined with one would probably eliminate all positive rights (e.g. 'Right to Vacation' or 'Right to Healthcare') since imposing a duty on everyone to provide something for everyone else would lead to a bit of a pickle.

So we would be left with negative rights like 'Right to One's own Self' or 'Right to the Products of One's own Labor'. I would probably go as far as to say that it all boils down to a sort of fundamental right to property, so the ZAP would then be a simple guideline for how free people act in such a way that minimizes violation of that right.

Out of curiousness, are the author's channeling a bit of Rothbard here with that ZAP? Or are they more Friedman style utilitarianesque AnCaps?
Title: Re: ZAP!!!
Post by: SandySandfort on May 06, 2011, 12:02:52 am
Out of curiousness, are the author's channeling a bit of Rothbard here with that ZAP? Or are they more Friedman style utilitarianesque AnCaps?

Okay, here comes the name dropping. I met Murray Rothbard in San Francisco and we talked some, but only peripherally. Some of him may have rubbed off. I really admired Milton Friedman, but he wasn't AnCap at all. His son, Dave, and I have been at the same places at the same times and exchanged some chit-chat. He is much more hardcore than was his father and some of him may have rubbed off there as well.

My biggest influence, of course, was Robert Heinlein. I met him and Virginia once and I corresponded with Virginia over the years. (For an only slightly fictionalized version of the evening we met, buy my novella, The Resurrections of Robert A Heinlein; It's available on Amazon and elsewhere). He was my second father. Funny part is, he would probably not have responded positively to "market anarchy," but much in his real life was wholly consistent with him.

I love L. Neil Smith, even though his cat attacked me. Poul Anderson was a strong influence and we attended each other's parties. Harry Browne and Ayn Rand were also very influential in my intellectual development.

Frankly, utilitarian arguments are fine, but they are just gravy. The ZAP and related precepts are what guide my beliefs, my writing and how I live my life. Take from that what you will.
Title: Re: ZAP!!!
Post by: sam on May 06, 2011, 12:27:10 am


Assuming no one else is using the rain forest for any purpose that they would be inclined to defend by force, yes you should.
Does breathing count? Although, admittedly, phytoplankton make a much larger contribution to that.

In any case, the soil of the Amazon is not really suitable for any kind of conventional agriculture.

That is political correctness, like the story that DDT poisons people and fails to poison malarial mosquitoes.[/quote]

That's misstated. The only people I've heard of that got poisoned directly by DDT had mistaken DDT for flour and cooked it into pancakes. DDT is bad for some fish and shellfish, and it poisons some of the invertebrates that some fish depend on. What got it a lot of publicity was killing off birds, particularly carnivorous birds.



Mosquitoes have been getting DDT-resistant pretty easily for a long time now, and I don't see why that would be in any way controversial.

The word is “resistant”, not “immune”.  Even DDT resistant mosquitoes do not like the stuff.   http://www.medicalnewstoday.com/articles/79127.php (http://www.medicalnewstoday.com/articles/79127.php)

Fact is, if people spray themselves, their clothes, and their houses with DDT, what with killing some mosquitoes, and discouraging most mosquitoes, they are a lot less likely to get malaria.  And that is what really pisses off the greenies.  Humans surviving when nature is trying to kill them.

]If you are eating any soy products, they very likely came from what very recently used to be the Amazon rainforest, often rainforest recently and illegally seized by farmers in quiet defiance of the Brazilian government.  This soil supposedly unsuitable for agriculture is feeding a large part of the world.  If the laws were effectively enforced, there would be world wide famine in the poorer countries.

I don't understand why not grow soybeans on other bad land instead?

Its warm, there is plenty of water, and no one is using it for cattle, because the ground is apt to turn to stone if you do.  So if you want land, no one is defending it except the government and the indians.

If you say it's easy to remedy those in a cost-effective way, then -- well, OK, if you say so. I'm not going to put my investment money into it.

But lots of people are, often illegally - indeed, so many are that it is a major source of world food.  This has the greenies mighty pissed, and the question then is are they pissed because rainforest is being replaced by soybean, or are they pissed that soybean is feeding people?

I suspect the latter, because whenever alternative energy actually works, for example the Severn barrage, the greenies immediately discover eco grounds for objecting to it.  They only like energy sources that do not provide useful energy, and they only like food sources that fail to feed people.

You put yours into that,

Since the farms are mostly illegal, the only way to invest is to go there and farm.  One cannot invest from afar.

Quote
The greenies complain that the farmers are mining the soil by exhausting the nutrients, but they are not, because the problem is precisely that there are very few nutrients in rain forest soil to start with.

Well no, those quiet defiant farmers tend to cut down the trees and burn them to provide fertilizer.

Projection:

That is the indian slash and burn agriculture that the Greenies and the government love, and yes, it does destroy the soil.  That approach fails to fertilize the soil adequately to produce crops for export.  Soybeans are produced by modern methods, with chemical fertilizer and mechanical harvesters.  The ash supplies a reasonable amount of potash, some trace elements, and a small amount of phosphate, but for soy beans you need to add a lot more phosphate, and if you are adding phosphate, might as well toss in some more potash and some trace elements.  Modern farmers use truckloads of fertilizer, which you do not get from ash.  The fertilizer comes in in trucks, and the soybeans go out in trucks.  Farming the Amazon is not a paying proposition using traditional agriculture.  It is a paying proposition using modern agriculture - even when illegal.

It's the big corporations that have the money for lots of commercial fertilizer.

I know lots of farmers.  None of them are a big corporation, all of them use commercial fertilizer by the truckload.  Some of the old folks, who are scaling down their farming to hobby farm levels - well they still use truckloads of fertilizer, but it is only a pickup truckload.

The illegality makes it difficult for big corporations to invest in farming the amazon.  The amazon farmers are ordinary people.  In this era, ordinary people farm with truckloads of fertilizer and mechanical harvesters.  I know lots of ordinary people, family farmers, doing it, though I do not know any in the amazon.  These are people with chickens out the back, half a dozen farm dogs, and a few dozen cows, a vegetable patch, and as I drive down the long semi dirt track to their house to buy a jackfruit, driving slowly because I have to wait for cows to get off the driveway, I see hulking great farming machines parked in the dirt, that must weigh many tons each.

That is how family farming is done in the twentyfirst century.
Title: Re: ZAP!!!
Post by: sam on May 06, 2011, 12:29:50 am
I think we've beat the Prior Appropriation bit to death. ZAP is great for homesteads, but you need a regulatory body for any sort of common resource management. Tragedy of the Commons must be avoided.

The tragedy of the commons is easily avoided:  Privatize the commons.

When we were hunters, we started to run out of animals, so we privatized the cattle and became herders.  Then the grass ran out, and we privatized the land.  If it was not for governments stopping us, we would have privatized the oceans by now, and probably will soon do so regardless.
Title: Re: ZAP!!!
Post by: dough560 on May 06, 2011, 05:54:40 am
Quote
But murder is. And self-defense can be a matter of getting away with it when the laws are bad.

The U.N. Human Rights Committee does not recognize an individual right to self-defense.  Self Defense is not murder and is independent of existent law.  (This right existed prior to codified laws.)  While various jurisdictions deny the individual right of self defense; the right is retained on a societal level, exclusive to government.  England is a case in point as England follows UN Guidelines.  The U.S. does not.

Quote
General rules.  1.  A person within 21 feet of you can close that distance in 1.5 seconds or less.  A weapon in its' holster will not make it into play.  But if it does make it into play, it may be hard to miss at point blank range. Something for the attacker to think about.

Once an attacker is within your reaction loop, he has control of your actions.  The attacker initiates action to your reaction.  Standing there, attempting to meet the charge, means you loose.  You need to gain distance and time to bring an equivalent or superior weapon into play.  Doing so, you lengthen the duration of the incident, increasing your chances of survival.

Quote
 2.  The person attacking has skills equal to or greater than your own.  If your attacker believed you were his equal, there would not be an attack.  Attackers want a "sure thing".

Quote
Not always so, sometimes people attack against the odds, when they feel they have no better choice. But when it is so, somebody who looks like they have a weapon is less a sure thing than somebody who looks unarmed.

The object is to win.  With as little risk as possible.  If your attacker believes you are armed and he still attacks, it will be with the belief his tactics and tactical situation will neutralize your weapon.

Quote
  3.  Turing to run just means you'll be tired when the attacker catches you and the attack will come from the primary direction from which you will not be able to effectively defend.

Quote
It depends on their intention. If taking your wallet is the point, they see their loot running away. They might chase you down or they might possibly laugh and look for a sure thing with shorter legs. If they are "defending their honor" against what they take as your insults, etc, they might likely take it as a win if you run away. My experience is limited, but twice I did pretty well by running fast and around a corner, and then kick the first guy who came around it after me. The others clustered around him asking him what happened instead of chasing me, so it worked out in the short run. Once when it was only one guy chasing me I ran until we both started getting tired, then I ran up 4 steps up a stoop and then turned around and yelled and he ran away. I was about ready to kick him in the face but I hesitated and it turned out OK. That was back when I could run fast, though.

You were able to change the tactical situation and employ tactics which convinced your attackers you were too "expensive".  You forced them out of their action loop into a reaction loop, which you now controlled.

Quote
4.  Waving a weapon around as a threat means it will be taken away and used against you.  You have to communicate your intent and determination to use force,  to have any hope of an attacker retreating.

Quote
Agreed. Don't point a gun at somebody until you shoot him. Don't wave it around. Maybe it's good to keep it in your pocket along with your hand? But if you shoot you'll spoil your pocket....

Pockets are cheaper than your life or one of your family members or even a complete (defense of another) stranger's.  Smith and Wesson makes a hammer-less snub nosed revolver chambered in .38 special, 357 magnum and .44 special calibers.  It is designed and intended to be carried in and if necessary, shot through a pocket.  As a bodyguard, I carried a conventional .38 special snub nose on my ankle to backup my primary handgun of a .45 caliber pistol.

Quote
The trouble is, the first time it's always a big shock and people tend to freeze up or do something at random. So ideally people should not face violence the first time. Start with the second time. ;)

Don't I wish.  Just remember, sooner or later, everyone will "freeze".  Prior thought and training will tend to lesson the tendency and shorten the duration when it happens.

Quote
quadibloc.  Fraud is theft.  Whether the theft is by trick or force is immaterial.  The victim has been harmed with the theft of a period of the victim's life.  One way can get you dead very quickly.  The other could still get you dead, but you're more likely to end up in arbitration as your victim seeks restitution.

Quote
If somebody tells you they have an interesting story, and you listen to them and it turns out to be boring, is that theft? You'll never get back the time you wasted listening to them. And they'll never get back the time they wasted telling it to you. In that case nobody wins.

No, wasted time but not theft.  Theft/fraud have criminal intent to deprive you of your property.  Someone telling a bad story, has no criminal intent, unless its to facilitate a crime.

Quote
Is it only theft when they get something out of it, and you lose something? Or is it theft if you are harmed, regardless what they gain? Do you have to be harmed? Sandy has argued that you don't have to be harmed.

Even attempted crime causes harm.  A criminal tries and fails, it's still an attempt.  The Criminal Intent to harm was present.  The intended victim may not be aware of the situation.  But can still be harmed.  If the intended victim was not aware of the situation, the perpetrator does not have to worry about the intended victim's response.
Title: Re: ZAP!!!
Post by: mellyrn on May 06, 2011, 06:10:04 am
Quote
Intent to harm was present.

Intent is crucial.  I can think of a situation in which initiation of force -- attempted assault and battery, with a very real possibility of injury and even death -- is not only acceptable but actually required, and even so does not violate the spirit of the ZAP, because the intent to harm is not there.
Title: Re: ZAP!!!
Post by: mellyrn on May 06, 2011, 06:31:07 am
Quote
I think a right has to have three major conditions:

1) It must be able to be applied universally to all sentient entities (normally I'd say people but EFT is in the 'Future!' so I will keep it broader than that just in case)
2) It must exist naturally - so nothing that is constructed from or granted by social constructs or coercive monopolies
3) It imposes a duty on all others

I wonder if part of the fascination with vampires arises from a vampire's being a sentient entity whose "right" to live directly violates another sentient entity's similar "right".  (Vampires that can get by on just drinking blood, and buy it from a butcher's, or who can survive off animals, just don't have the same je ne sais quoi.)

Welcome to the party, Austen.E.

Quote
Tragedy of the Commons must be avoided.

Tragedy of the Commons, while the concept makes sense, still arose as a means, or an excuse, for the rich of 19thc Britain to control the poor.  When there were commons, if a local employer paid for shit or treated his workers badly, the local laborers could -- and did -- quit working and use the commons for hunting and foraging to feed and shelter their families.  When the commons were taken away, they were forced into dependence on whatever the local employer felt like dishing out.  It must have been humiliating at the time, but it's worked well in creating learned helplessness in the lower classes.
Title: Re: ZAP!!!
Post by: J Thomas on May 06, 2011, 06:57:20 am
I think we've beat the Prior Appropriation bit to death. ZAP is great for homesteads, but you need a regulatory body for any sort of common resource management. Tragedy of the Commons must be avoided.

Well, it doesn't have to be avoided. One alternative which is often used is to just use up the common resource until there isn't enough left that anybody cares about. Then whatever wreckage is left over can be privatized.

I haven't studied it in detail, but it looks to me like that's what happened to the Chesapeake bay. We had generations of watermen who made their living by collecting crabs, clams, etc from the bay, and we had expensive government attempts to keep them from overfishing. But of course there were more clammers than the bay could support, and so the government had the choice between telling some of them they had to do something else, or regulating it so that no one could make a living, or failing to regulate it. Rather than be unfair to the fishermen they let them take more than the system could sustain, and go broke.

http://articles.baltimoresun.com/1992-01-23/news/1992023145_1_watermen-clams-department-of-natural

Then when there weren't enough clammers left to be a political force, they let professionals lease the best-quality areas. All the shellfish in those areas belong to them, so in theory they will not over-fish their "herds". In practice, they buy sprat and let them grow and harvest them all. It's a chancy business because of the pollution and the epidemic disease, and sometimes it's hard to get bank loans to do it, but if you have the political connections to lease good areas it can be quite profitable. In a good year it can bring in over $60,000/acre. There are a lot of government subsidies available too, if you have connections.

http://www.trulia.com/blog/tony_mcmahon/2011/05/maryland_s_plan_to_boost_chesapeake_bay_oysters_will_require_alot_of_hanky-panky

Quote
ZAP is also great for bar scenes, but not so good for terrorism or a hostile economic takeover. ZAP doesn't apply to Kudzu or Line Cutting, but can be extended to many social situations with a lot of reliance on lawsuits and arbiters.

We may be overgeneralizing. There are people who advocate the Golden Rule. And there are people who advocate ZAP. Assuming you don't like to be aggressed on, ZAP is a weaker form of Golden Rule. In either case, you can't expect to base a whole legal theory on just one simple moral principle.

But ZAP would be useful anyway. When you hear about an arbitration result you don't like, you can tell people "Damnit, it's just wrong. This result violates the ZAP." And come up with some argument why it violates ZAP. If enough people believe you, maybe the next arbitration will come out different.
Title: Re: ZAP!!!
Post by: spudit on May 06, 2011, 08:36:00 am
Look at the ZAP as part of a barest minimal structure, a scaffolding to support whatever grows. No need to look for every single weakness now. No, start out with the simple don't steal, cheat or start fights concept, it is fine even if limited. Keep ZAP KISS, now there's a slogan Then live with it and within it and see what happens, what is needed or not. Every problem will have multiple solutions, pick one.

To borrow a concept and mix some metaphors, let a common law grow around it like barnacles on a bottle until we have a nice big reef. We don't know enough to do it all at once.
Title: Re: ZAP!!!
Post by: J Thomas on May 06, 2011, 08:43:54 am

Mosquitoes have been getting DDT-resistant pretty easily for a long time now, and I don't see why that would be in any way controversial.

The word is “resistant”, not “immune”.  Even DDT resistant mosquitoes do not like the stuff.   http://www.medicalnewstoday.com/articles/79127.php (http://www.medicalnewstoday.com/articles/79127.php)

That looks like it would be an interesting article, but the review didn't provide any link to the actual work. They did give the name of a publication, though. Here is the link:
http://www.plosone.org/article/info:doi%2F10.1371%2Fjournal.pone.0000716

Their emphasis was dramatically different from the review you provided. Their central point was that people usually think of mosquito control entirely in terms of killing mosquitoes, but that repellants and irritants are also important for persuading mosquitoes to stay out of homes. Their studies done entirely on one laboratory strain of DDT-resistant mosquito, showed that DDT had a better repellant effect on that strain than the other two insecticides they tried. So they suggest that insecticides be tested for repellant effect too and not just lethality.

Quote
Fact is, if people spray themselves, their clothes, and their houses with DDT, what with killing some mosquitoes, and discouraging most mosquitoes, they are a lot less likely to get malaria.

This study did not show that at all. It showed that portable huts designed to mimic some huts used in Thailand kept only 30% as many test mosquitoes if they were treated with DDT. They released 100 mosquitoes and after 7 hours only 30 or so of them were still in the hut, active. If 1% of mosquitoes carry malaria, and the ones with malaria behave the same, and houses get on average 100 mosquitoes per night, then the chance of getting malaria would be reduced by 70% per day. (They released their mosquitoes in the morning and not when their mosquitoes usually hunt.) If 10% of mosquitoes carry malaria, then DDT would reduce the number of infected mosquitoes from 10 to on average 3. (Assuming that fewer mosquitoes fly into houses with DDT while they hunt, as opposed to what they tested which was mosquitoes flying out of houses with DDT in the first 7 hours after escape from confinement in the morning.)

The bigger picture here is that a long time ago, DDT was very cheap, pretty much harmless to humans, and effective against insects. So naturally people over-reached and thought they could use it in massive quantities to eliminate mosquitoes entirely and with them malaria, yellow fever, etc. That did not work and it had some very bad consequences.

So naturally people over-reached from there, and decided DDT was harmful and must be eliminated even though it can still have some modest uses.

Quote
And that is what really pisses off the greenies.  Humans surviving when nature is trying to kill them.

No, it's just people acting like people normally do.

Quote
In this era, ordinary people farm with truckloads of fertilizer and mechanical harvesters.  I know lots of ordinary people, family farmers, doing it, though I do not know any in the amazon.  These are people with chickens out the back, half a dozen farm dogs, and a few dozen cows, a vegetable patch, and as I drive down the long semi dirt track to their house to buy a jackfruit, driving slowly because I have to wait for cows to get off the driveway, I see hulking great farming machines parked in the dirt, that must weigh many tons each.

That is how family farming is done in the twentyfirst century.

Ah. Where do you live? They grow jackfruit in southern and southeast asia, east africa and brazil, and maybe other places now.

Anyway, if it takes great hulking farming machines that weigh many tons each to do family farming now, doesn't that mean it takes rich people to do family farming now? Or is it people with collateral who are mortgaged to their eyeballs and the banks haven't foreclosed yet? Or something else?
Title: Re: ZAP!!!
Post by: J Thomas on May 06, 2011, 08:47:15 am
Look at the ZAP as part of a barest minimal structure, a scaffolding to support whatever grows.

That looks very good! I keep hearing people imply that unadorned ZAP is everything you need, and then they argue when I doubt that.

But clearly ZAP should be part of the foundation for a good system.
Title: Re: ZAP!!!
Post by: spudit on May 06, 2011, 09:01:18 am
Yep, ZAP as just one pipe in the scaffold, or is it a trellis.

Big chunks of the Ten Commandments, Bill of Rights, John Galt's radio address, The Moon is a Harsh Mistress, The Sermon on the Mount, bits and pieces of Confucious, John Locke, Tom Paine, let's try them all. Good enough to learn from is good enough for the real world.
Title: Re: ZAP!!!
Post by: J Thomas on May 06, 2011, 09:28:15 am
I think we've beat the Prior Appropriation bit to death. ZAP is great for homesteads, but you need a regulatory body for any sort of common resource management. Tragedy of the Commons must be avoided.

The tragedy of the commons is easily avoided:  Privatize the commons.

When we were hunters, we started to run out of animals, so we privatized the cattle and became herders.  Then the grass ran out, and we privatized the land.  If it was not for governments stopping us, we would have privatized the oceans by now, and probably will soon do so regardless.

This is the procrustean argument.

The ecosystem provided us with a lot of migrating birds. After a whole lot of their foraging area was turned into cropland, the birds ate crops and then flew away. And wherever they flew, people shot them and ate them. A transfer of wealth from farmers to whoever. The obvious solution is to shoot the wild geese and ducks etc into extinction, and then if people want to eat bird meat the farmers can raise chickens to sell to them.

Similarly, a lot of fish follow the currents around a whole ocean. They start out in fresh-water wetlands and then leave. How do you privatize them? Pay the wetlands owners to let them be born there? Sail around the ocean with them, protecting them from poachers until they are old enough to harvest? No, the easier approach is to fish out all the sellable fish from the oceans, and then raise fish in cages to sell.

Buffalo are far better adapted to the US plains than european or indian cattle. But it isn't easy to build a fence that a herd of buffalo can't get through, and then have a bad habit of going where they want and eating what they want. So it was easier to kill them off and then raise cattle which can't take the winters without human help, and can't digest the local grass as well, and suffer worse from local diseases etc etc etc, but which are far easier to own.

Once you decide that private ownership is the solution to all your problems, you limit yourself to ecologies and technologies which are easy to manage with private ownership.
Title: Re: ZAP!!!
Post by: J Thomas on May 06, 2011, 09:41:56 am
Quote
Intent to harm was present.

Intent is crucial.

This is the catholic moral view. Or maybe I should call it ethical. It's an important distinction which you should carefully work out between yourself and your god.

Quote
I can think of a situation in which initiation of force -- attempted assault and battery, with a very real possibility of injury and even death -- is not only acceptable but actually required, and even so does not violate the spirit of the ZAP, because the intent to harm is not there.

I tend to disagree, although I may agree with your examples. I don't see that you have any particular right to harm people just because you can make the case that you didn't intend to. You are responsible for the consequences of your own actions, whether you intended those consequences or not. It is your responsibility to foresee the consequences of your actions.

If you choose to do things which have the possibility of injury and even death, because you believe you are serving a higher good, and the result is injury and death, that is your responsibility whether or not you also prevented a worse result.

If you violate the ZAP and first-use force against someone because you think it will further a higher good, you are still responsible for your own actions.

As one possible outcome -- the people you violated ZAP against may have the right to damages from you, and the people you benefitted may choose to pay those damages. Needless to say, it is generally more practical to break the ZAP to help rich people than poor people, especially if you have a contract in which they promise to pay.
Title: Re: ZAP!!!
Post by: mellyrn on May 06, 2011, 10:01:15 am
Quote
Quote
I can think of a situation in which initiation of force -- attempted assault and battery, with a very real possibility of injury and even death -- is not only acceptable but actually required, and even so does not violate the spirit of the ZAP, because the intent to harm is not there.

I tend to disagree, although I may agree with your examples.

Only one example, hon -- a dojo.



As to intent, I do care whether the person stepping on my toe did so accidentally or intentionally.  I will respond quite differently to each.  I'm probably not alone in that.
Title: Re: ZAP!!!
Post by: SandySandfort on May 06, 2011, 10:16:24 am
There are people who advocate the Golden Rule. And there are people who advocate ZAP. Assuming you don't like to be aggressed on, ZAP is a weaker form of Golden Rule. In either case, you can't expect to base a whole legal theory on just one simple moral principle.

Actually, to be a legal theory, it must be simple. What I think you meant was legal system. The ZAP is not a legal system. It is the basic legal/moral/ethical theory that may potentially underlie a legal system. Spudit's "barnacle" post says it very well.

BTW, this is true of the Golden Rule as well. It could never be the whole of the law, just the basic principle from which specific instances could be addressed. Taken to the reductio ad absurdum level, the Golden Rule "fails" because some people would have done unto themselves, what others would definitely not want done unto theirselves. Just because a guy likes to be butt fucked, does not mean doing that to others would be appreciated. But in general, we know what the Rule means and it's a pretty good first approximation. The ZAP is a better first approximation, but it too needs to be applied rationally to any give factual set of circumstances.
Title: Re: ZAP!!!
Post by: quadibloc on May 06, 2011, 10:24:54 am
If you choose to do things which have the possibility of injury and even death, because you believe you are serving a higher good, and the result is injury and death, that is your responsibility whether or not you also prevented a worse result.

If you violate the ZAP and first-use force against someone because you think it will further a higher good, you are still responsible for your own actions.

As one possible outcome -- the people you violated ZAP against may have the right to damages from you, and the people you benefitted may choose to pay those damages. Needless to say, it is generally more practical to break the ZAP to help rich people than poor people, especially if you have a contract in which they promise to pay.
I don't think the ZAP and utilitarianism mix well.

As I noted quite some time ago, forcing someone to be content with "blood money", or otherwise require people to limit themselves to "reasonable" damages, is, in my opinion, just the sort of "initiation of force" that you need to have a state for.

Somebody cuts in front of me in line? Right. Out of the goodness of my heart, I forbear to use deadly force. However, afterwards, I sue him for one billion dollars. And, of course, he must pay - because there is only one defence in such a case. And he cannot produce a document, with my signature on it, that said that I would permit him to cut in front of me in line for a sum less than one billion dollars. That's what being sovereign over my rights and person means.

The role of an arbiter is to determine that a ZAP violation took place - to determine guilt or innocence, like a jury. The victim is then judge and executioner.

Because people are human and make mistakes, of course they may choose to live in a more reasonable society. I'm not saying that's a bad thing to make such a choice. I'm just saying that when you do that, you've done, by whatever fancy mechanism, whether it's multiple arbiters or community standards, just the sort of thing that you've claimed you abolished that nasty old "government" thing so that nobody could do that thing. Try to put a different name on it, but it's still initiation of force by somebody.

If you call it "minarchy" and you do it with your eyes open, that's one thing. But if you initiate force and say that it isn't "really" the initiation of force, you're setting yourselves up to be blindsided by someone who will make himself your government. (This won't work for every wannabe tyrant - the ideology that would be imposed would have to be one that the community wouldn't object to or even really notice at first. To impose an ideology that isn't harmonious with community desires requires a big army of thugs.)

If initiation of force is a really dangerous thing, but you need a little of it in order to allow the community to function, the way to deal with it is to keep it very closely guarded. To instead initiate force but pretend you aren't - as opposed to not initiating force at all, which is what I argue you're not doing, even though you claim that's what AnCap is going to be - is to leave this potent devil lurking in the corners, hidden and unsupervised. Ready to jump out at you when you least expect it.

Actually, to be a legal theory, it must be simple. What I think you meant was legal system. The ZAP is not a legal system. It is the basic legal/moral/ethical theory that may potentially underlie a legal system. Spudit's "barnacle" post says it very well.

BTW, this is true of the Golden Rule as well. It could never be the whole of the law, just the basic principle from which specific instances could be addressed.
Of course, that addresses my objection quite nicely. Recognize that your legal system, of necessity, has to violate the ZAP rather than embodying it perfectly, and then minimize and control those violations, and have as a goal to continue to reduce them - and you're all right.

But if instead the society takes the view that while the ZAP is not the whole of the law, the law as a whole, such as the arbitration mechanism, whatever it is, is still perfectly consistent with the ZAP... I suspect the society will be mistaken. And that will turn around and bite it.

And, no, I'm not confident that, at least, it will take more than 200 years to happen.
Title: Re: ZAP!!!
Post by: SandySandfort on May 06, 2011, 10:28:11 am
Look at the ZAP as part of a barest minimal structure, a scaffolding to support whatever grows.

That looks very good! I keep hearing people imply that unadorned ZAP is everything you need, and then they argue when I doubt that.

Perhaps you need to have your hearing checked.  ;)

I certainly would not have said such a thing, nor do I hear other supports saying such things. The implication seems to come from the anti-ZAPs (not you), who are injecting it as a way of "defeating" the ZAP.
Title: Re: ZAP!!!
Post by: SandySandfort on May 06, 2011, 10:33:31 am
I tend to disagree, although I may agree with your examples. I don't see that you have any particular right to harm people just because you can make the case that you didn't intend to. You are responsible for the consequences of your own actions, whether you intended those consequences or not. It is your responsibility to foresee the consequences of your actions.

Sure, but this is not a ZAP issue. Intent is a ZAP issue, unintended consequences of your acts are not. That comes under tort theory, not the ZAP.
Title: Re: ZAP!!!
Post by: quadibloc on May 06, 2011, 10:43:17 am
Sure, but this is not a ZAP issue. Intent is a ZAP issue, unintended consequences of your acts are not. That comes under tort theory, not the ZAP.
Negligence is not aggression, so the arbiters deal with it in a more kindly fashion? Sounds to me like you're initiating force and telling me what I have to put up with.

But rather than going off like that guy Ed gave advice to in the bar, because I really, really despise tree-spikers and the rest of the monkey-wrench gang, I'm willing to discuss this in a civilized fashion. Basically, what I'm going to propose is probably something like this - if you've got to do this kind of stuff, don't pretend you're not doing it, and don't impose Joe's Theory of Arbitration by fiat.

If you need to treat negligence in a different fashion than aggression to avoid somebody with a bomb trying to save the world from the Large Hadron Collider and so on... since that's an initation of force, even though it's a minor and edge-case one, put it to a vote. Know what you're doing rather than sweeping it under the rug.
Title: Re: ZAP!!!
Post by: SandySandfort on May 06, 2011, 10:44:27 am
Actually, to be a legal theory, it must be simple. What I think you meant was legal system. The ZAP is not a legal system. It is the basic legal/moral/ethical theory that may potentially underlie a legal system. Spudit's "barnacle" post says it very well.

BTW, this is true of the Golden Rule as well. It could never be the whole of the law, just the basic principle from which specific instances could be addressed.
Of course, that addresses my objection quite nicely. Recognize that your legal system, of necessity, has to violate the ZAP rather than embodying it perfectly, and then minimize and control those violations, and have as a goal to continue to reduce them - and you're all right.

Whoa Nelly! A ZAP-based legal system does not ever have to violate the ZAP. What I was discussing was the necessary discovery, interpretation and application of the ZAP with regard to specific factual situations. In all cases, the result must be consistent with the ZAP. No exceptions.

If you think you can come up with a situation in which a ZAP-based legal system would have to violate the ZAP, please elucidate. My guess is that you will be overlooking some crucial factor or definition.
Title: Re: ZAP!!!
Post by: J Thomas on May 06, 2011, 10:45:48 am
Quote
Quote
I can think of a situation in which initiation of force -- attempted assault and battery, with a very real possibility of injury and even death -- is not only acceptable but actually required, and even so does not violate the spirit of the ZAP, because the intent to harm is not there.

I tend to disagree, although I may agree with your examples.

Only one example, hon -- a dojo.

It gets classified as practice, with prior permission, not actually battery.

Once in a police methods class this great big young guy said he'd do the throw on me real gently. He did it so soft that I kind of slid down him and broke two ribs on his kneecap. I was limited to practicing hand moves for several weeks. The next meeting he broke somebody else's ribs. I never saw him again after that.

In an aikido class we learned an aggressive move where you slip behind somebody and push down on his shoulders to plant his feet in place, and then gradually switch to pulling him back while you step out of the way. The girl I practiced with wasn't sure it would work if uke didn't know to go with it, and neither was I. We agreed to try it a few times when the other didn't especially expect it. She did it to me and I didn't fall quite right but not really badly, and the throw worked perfectly. I did it to her a couple weeks later while she was talking to her boyfriend who was in the class, and she rolled very well and said she couldn't have resisted it. Then we agreed not to do that any more.

Once a big guy didn't want to stay down. He got what he later called "frisky" and I was concerned if I pushed too hard I'd damage his elbow. I was rattled and touched his neck gently with my foot, and he stopped moving. Afterward he got up and started telling the other students, "Did you see that? Did you see what he did? He put his foot on my throat!". It was something we'd never practiced, and he made it plain he did not find it acceptable. In that dojo, doing the regular practice was not considered in any way a violation of ZAP but putting your foot on somebody's neck was.

Quote
As to intent, I do care whether the person stepping on my toe did so accidentally or intentionally.  I will respond quite differently to each.  I'm probably not alone in that.

Sure. If he's hostile he'll probably do something else. It's a threat. But the damage he's already done is the same regardless of intent.

So there's a difference between hurting you, and hurting you with the threat to hurt you some more. But that doesn't make it OK to hurt you and act like it was an accident.
Title: Re: ZAP!!!
Post by: SandySandfort on May 06, 2011, 10:56:30 am
Sure, but this is not a ZAP issue. Intent is a ZAP issue, unintended consequences of your acts are not. That comes under tort theory, not the ZAP.
Negligence is not aggression, so the arbiters deal with it in a more kindly fashion? Sounds to me like you're initiating force and telling me what I have to put up with.

There are aspects of what is called "criminal neglect" that exist, but are not necessary for this discussion.

"Intent" is another word of art. For example, let us say you decide to punch a guy in the nose, but not in self-defense. You punch him with what would otherwise be a non-lethal blow, but he dies because he had an "egg shell" skull. You argue that even though you battered him, you did not intend to kill him, only hurt him. Sorry Buckwheat, you lose. You intended to harm him without right, so you are legally responsible for the consequences of your act, whether anticipated or not. So you may end up supporting his family for life.

So all of J. Thomas' "higher-good" crapola, is irrelevant. If you intentionally put forces into motion that you know, or should know, will batter innocent people, that is sufficient intent under the ZAP.
Title: Re: ZAP!!!
Post by: SandySandfort on May 06, 2011, 11:01:29 am
Once in a police methods class this great big young guy said he'd do the throw on me real gently. He did it so soft that I kind of slid down him and broke two ribs on his kneecap. I was limited to practicing hand moves for several weeks. The next meeting he broke somebody else's ribs. I never saw him again after that.

Blah, blah, blah. Blah, blah, blah.

Really J Thomas, you have to learn how to be succinct. To Mellyrn dojo post, all you have to say is, "assumption of risk." We do not need to hear your life history.

All your blabbering detracts from any point you may have under the word pile.
Title: Re: ZAP!!!
Post by: mellyrn on May 06, 2011, 12:14:05 pm
"Assumption of risk", but of course.  It remains that  martial-arts teaching is a violation of the letter of the ZAP, without being in any way a violation of the spirit of it.

And my point is aimed at the lawyers:  if you seek to compose a verbal expression of a right, a law, a principle that will cover all possible conditions and situations, you will write a code that only an immortal will be able to read, and you'll still fail.  Here, one needful addendum was the "assumption of risk" phrase -- and a clever-enough lawyer, with a likeminded judge, will prove it insufficient.

So I'm thinking that, seeing as how it all always comes down to arbitration (by arbiter, judge, or, heck, just the involved parties when they're both grownups) in some form anyway, nothing is gained by enshrining a guideline in the term "right" or "law".

And people do live, day-to-day, by the ZAP, whether they call it that or not, spell it out or not.  Ain't nobody arguing for the ?right? to hurt first -- well, except for the US govt and its "preemptive strike" policy, and "government" is an attempted end-run around the ZAP anyway.
Title: Re: ZAP!!!
Post by: sam on May 06, 2011, 01:17:21 pm
The object is to win.  With as little risk as possible.  If your attacker believes you are armed and he still attacks, it will be with the belief his tactics and tactical situation will neutralize your weapon.

I have been attacked with deadly force while well armed, by a person who simply did not believe I would use my weapon, regardless of the provocation.    This peculiar belief seems common among young criminals.  I conjecture it is a selection effect.  Those who believe that they will be met by deadly violence, avoid provoking deadly violence, so one's encounters with violent people is going to be disproportionately those with delusive beliefs about the effectiveness and safety of violence.

Similarly, states that start wars have delusive beliefs about the effectiveness of military force.
Title: Re: ZAP!!!
Post by: sam on May 06, 2011, 01:25:24 pm
As I noted quite some time ago, forcing someone to be content with "blood money", or otherwise require people to limit themselves to "reasonable" damages, is, in my opinion, just the sort of "initiation of force" that you need to have a state for.

Most previously existent anarchic or semi anarchic societies gave people the option of blood for blood - they provided a wide set of circumstances where you could kill offenders without paying blood money, and even if those circumstances did not apply, you could always kill the offender, publicly announce you had done so, and pay blood money for him.  A lot of the sagas gain their drama from people taking that option.
Title: Re: ZAP!!!
Post by: quadibloc on May 06, 2011, 02:20:33 pm
If you think you can come up with a situation in which a ZAP-based legal system would have to violate the ZAP, please elucidate. My guess is that you will be overlooking some crucial factor or definition.
No doubt I am overlooking something. But I will admit that I'm not quite claiming that ZAP is a paradox - I am not so much saying that a legal system has to violate the ZAP, as that the kind of "reasonable" ZAP-based legal systems apparently advocated here involve a choice to not follow the ZAP completely.

I'm assuming that the ZAP prohibits the "initiation of force".

Taxes and conscription are examples of the initiation of force. So is gun control. So is the enforcement of laws that say flush toilets have to have such small tanks that they clog easily.

So government regulation, in addition to highway robbery and so on, violates the ZAP.

So, when the Government of Canada says that a woman who uses bear spray to prevent herself from being raped is a criminal, that violates the ZAP.

Now, then. For one example which does come close to saying the ZAP is paradoxical... someone is convinced that the Large Hadron Collider is going to make a microscopic black hole that will eat the world. So he decides to blow it up.

In point of fact, he is deluded, and so he is the one who is violating the ZAP. But who gets to decide what is reality? Whoever has that power could make a mistaken decision, and violate the ZAP that way.

For another example, I presume that in any reasonable society, the fact that you've been delayed in getting to an appointment by a jaywalker... doesn't give you the right to do to the jaywalker the sort of things that one might consider appropriate to do to Rhonda.

Again, this hardly seems like it breaks the ZAP - it seems like it upholds it. But whoever or whatever has the power to set that kind of limit can turn around and, for example, give members of criminal gangs impunity to terrorize the population... as long as they're under 18. Because it isn't "reasonable" to hold the little dears fully responsible for their actions.

I'm not trying to say that AnCap can't work here. I think the best way to decide these edge cases is likely to be in a town hall meeting - but what you really, really mustn't do is say "oh, well, these things don't matter much; I'll let Joe here take care of them, because he seems to understand the ZAP really well".

My claim is that imposing reasonable limits to liability, or to punishment for aggression; determining what actions do or do not cause or threaten unjust injury - and other things like that, are, inherently, impositions that, at least in a strict technical sense, constitute initiations of force. Someone is saying - use these rules instead of those rules for picking an arbitrator, for example.

So to keep an AnCap system healthy, I think it has to be recognized that these are little initiations of force that could have the potential to grow into something bigger - if the danger isn't recognized. Review them at town hall meetings instead of letting some arbiter make them up as he goes along, be conscious that these things are impositions that should be minimized - and it will be just fine.

With an armed populace, of course, the kind of insidious takeover that leads to a bunch of armed thugs imposing an ambitious arbiter's will is going to be stopped at the point of its becoming visible. Instead, I see the danger as one of the same kind of slow decay that our representative democracies have - with popular consent, the rules of "reasonable" arbitration get more extensive, until eventually something a lot like government is imposed by popular demand... without people realizing what they were doing to themselves, because they were told this was all 100% in accordance with the ZAP.
Title: Re: ZAP!!!
Post by: J Thomas on May 06, 2011, 02:46:35 pm

I don't think the ZAP and utilitarianism mix well.

Agreed, not at all. You can agree to things you think will be good for other people and bad for you, but it has to be your own personal choice.

Quote
As I noted quite some time ago, forcing someone to be content with "blood money", or otherwise require people to limit themselves to "reasonable" damages, is, in my opinion, just the sort of "initiation of force" that you need to have a state for.

Somebody cuts in front of me in line? Right. Out of the goodness of my heart, I forbear to use deadly force. However, afterwards, I sue him for one billion dollars. And, of course, he must pay - because there is only one defence in such a case. And he cannot produce a document, with my signature on it, that said that I would permit him to cut in front of me in line for a sum less than one billion dollars. That's what being sovereign over my rights and person means.

Well, as I understand the theory, you can talk to him and make your demand. If he pays, then it's done.

If you let it go to arbitration then you promise to go by the arbitrator's answer. You can still do anything you want but if you break your word you may have consequences.

You can do anything you want without arbitration, but if you do things that other people think are unreasonable you may have consequences from that.

Anywhere there are other people, you can get consequences from other people for your own choices.

So I think Jack Sparrow got it right.
Quote
The only rules that really matter are these: what a man can do and what a man can’t do.

You have the freedom to do any of the things you can do. You do not have the freedom to do any of the things you can't do. That's pretty much end-of-story. Except that after you do whatever you choose, other people have the freedom to do any of the things they can do also. ZAP is a philosophical argument about what they ought to let you get away with and what they oughtn't to let you get away with. They can choose to follow ZAP if they want to.

Quote
The role of an arbiter is to determine that a ZAP violation took place - to determine guilt or innocence, like a jury. The victim is then judge and executioner.

I don't think many people accept that. Because they don't want to.

Quote
Try to put a different name on it, but it's still initiation of force by somebody.

You do whatever you choose, that's in your ability. Your understanding of ZAP may help you predict what other people will choose to do in response. Sometimes. Other people will not always follow ZAP, which is why you might get shot in the back at any moment somebody is behind you. There's nothing you can do to prevent that, but usually it won't happen. You might not always follow ZAP. After that, other people might not act predictably, but the prediction is they might do something you won't like.


Title: Re: ZAP!!!
Post by: quadibloc on May 06, 2011, 02:57:27 pm
You can do anything you want without arbitration, but if you do things that other people think are unreasonable you may have consequences from that.

Anywhere there are other people, you can get consequences from other people for your own choices.
I'm raising a different issue, though.

People are, in certain cases, expected to go to arbitration because attempting to deal with the situation by themselves directly will be taken as a violation of the ZAP - because it's hard to tell about things after the fact, and the immediate necessity of self-defense is not there.

That's fine and dandy - I'm not saying it's "bad".

What I'm saying is that since the rules for arbitration, whatever they are, can only be imposed by an initiation of force, this needs to be recognized. If it isn't, instead of the community deciding on any change to those rules, in, say, a town-hall meeting, eventually the arbiters will be left to make "minor, technical" changes to those rules.

And, after a while, because no one ever thought that imposing those kinds of rule on people was also an initiation of force, some combination of the community and the arbiters is now imposing enough rules that one has a government - although no one yet calls it that - which has already gone beyond even a minarchy. Every little change seemed reasonable at the time.

If it is consciously and openly acknowledged that a requirement for arbitration derives from a limited community power to initiate force, which it is desired to use to the minimal extent possible, people will be careful. But you can't expect people to be careful of a danger which isn't even acknowledged.
Title: Re: ZAP!!!
Post by: J Thomas on May 06, 2011, 03:13:24 pm
If you think you can come up with a situation in which a ZAP-based legal system would have to violate the ZAP, please elucidate. My guess is that you will be overlooking some crucial factor or definition.

For one example which does come close to saying the ZAP is paradoxical... someone is convinced that the Large Hadron Collider is going to make a microscopic black hole that will eat the world. So he decides to blow it up.

In point of fact, he is deluded, and so he is the one who is violating the ZAP. But who gets to decide what is reality?

Here's a more reasonable version of that -- say that lots of people get to have small nuclear reactors which are usually perfectly safe, but which, through malice or incompetence could be turned into bombs. I say it's wrong to tell people they can't have these reactors because they might not be completely safe.

At the same time, I claim the right to demand that anybody who has them and fiddles with them must be competent to repair them. It is absurd to say I have no right to complain about anything he does with his own reactor on his own property until after he blows himself up and takes me with him.

Is it a real danger? If most people think I'm just a crackpot, then probably I should move to my own asteroid and just stay away from them until somebody explodes one and proves me right. If lots of people share my concern then we should be allowed to deal with the threat one way or another, whether our demands for public safety are a technical violation of ZAP or not. Prove you know what you're doing or convince us you will not fool around with your reactor.

Quote
Someone is saying - use these rules instead of those rules for picking an arbitrator, for example.

You don't have to agree with somebody else's rules for that, if you can agree with your opponent about what the rules should be. If the two of you can't agree, you might try using both sets of rules at once, and reject everybody who is disqualified under either ruleset, and see whether they agree about somebody. If you can't find an arbitrator then you give up the benefits of arbitration. And it's possible that the wide collection of other people who might give you consequences might give worse consequences to the guy who insisted on his own special rules for picking an arbitrator, rather than the one who accepts the usual rules. But no guarantees.
Title: Re: ZAP!!!
Post by: dough560 on May 06, 2011, 03:47:07 pm
KISS.

ZAP is a guiding principle.  Basis for a legal system.  

Arbitration is an agreement to settle a dispute.  How the dispute is settled depends on the individuals who entered into a contract to do so.  The arbitrator is a facilitator having no POWER to enforce a decision.  Settlement depends on the individuals and "implied self interest" to uphold their contract.

I can see an arbitrator posting the contract, testimony and decision to an open access data base.  Along with the results of the resolution.  Other arbitrators may (Not have to.) refer to these postings for guidance in resolving other disputes.  Regardless of prior resolutions, each dispute stands alone.  The settlement is facilitated by the arbitrator, agreeable to the involved parties.  Similar contracts do not have to have identical results, but must be acceptable to the litigants.  For in each   case, they are the only ones who matter.

Professional associations will establish requirements for membership and skills verification.

J Thomas.  The home reactor is an extreme example, but not unrealistic.  There will always be some fool somewhere who is out to save a dime or thinks he knows more than the experts.  The fool eventually screws-up and causes problems for everybody.  How would you (your methods affecting only you) try to minimize potential damage? Remember, you don't have the right to force your standards on another, but may establish a group to which your standards make sense.  Also remember you do not have the power to force your group's standards on the general public.  If you both survive the stupidity, then its a matter for arbitration.  If you don't, it doesn't matter and with any luck his stupidity means he won't be around to cause further problems.
Title: Re: ZAP!!!
Post by: J Thomas on May 06, 2011, 03:49:09 pm

People are, in certain cases, expected to go to arbitration because attempting to deal with the situation by themselves directly will be taken as a violation of the ZAP - because it's hard to tell about things after the fact, and the immediate necessity of self-defense is not there.

I dunno. Arbitration should give you a certain amount of cover. An arbitrator you both agreed to, tells you what to do and you do it. If you get a bad result, well, you agreed to it ahead of time and it isn't anybody's fault except your own. Or if people think this arbitrator gave you a bum deal then they'll be less likely to choose him for an arbitrator later.

Now, say the arbitrator says that somebody owes you his printing press but he doesn't hand it over. Who's going to enforce that decision? You have a choice. You can tell anybody who'll listen that your debtor has refused to pay his debts and blacken his reputation. Or you can go collect, yourself.

So you show up at his place with some sort of flatbed to take the printing press. Will he resist? It's your property that he's keeping from you, the arbitrator said so. If he resists and you kill him it's his fault. If he kills you, that's his fault too.

But if you decide without arbitration that he owes you his printing press (or something else weighing several tons that isn't easy to maneuver) and you go onto his property to take it and he resists, whose fault is it then? You could then agree on an arbitrator to decide, assuming you both survive.

If one of you decides not to accept arbitration, and then a murky situation develops where it isn't clear who's right? The one who refused arbitration probably will get a lot of the blame.

If no arbitrator thinks it's important enough to rule about, but then you get into a big fight, whoever started the fight or escalated it is to blame.

But nothing is getting enforced. It's all the implicit threat of reactions by future socially-responsible individuals who are likely to think they stand to lose by interacting with crazy people. What if you do lots of crazy things that make you seem bold and courageous and the sort of guy people write folk songs about? Maybe it won't hurt you at all. Who knows?

Quote
What I'm saying is that since the rules for arbitration, whatever they are, can only be imposed by an initiation of force, this needs to be recognized.

The central rule is that you promise to abide by whatever your arbitrator decides. Then there may be various customs for choosing arbitrators, which you do not have to follow. Any selection method that the parties to the dispute can agree on is OK.

It looks to me like that's it. Anybody can be an arbitrator if the disputants agree on him. He doesn't have to follow any precedents when he makes his decision. The disputants don't actually have to follow his decision but there *might* be consequences to them from not doing so.

My immediate thought for a way that could fail, is the society could develop customs that reduce the freedom of arbitrators so they feel obliged to give certain results which might not particularly fit ZAP etc. And then there could arise a bunch of people who enjoy murder, who do elaborate setups to kill people who have refused arbitration or refused to accept the result. So you accept arbitration or get killed (by amateurs). You accept the result of arbitration or you get killed. The arbitration is unjust and unfair and there's nothing you can do about it.

I don't see anything that requires it to go that way, that's just one bad possibility.
Title: Re: ZAP!!!
Post by: J Thomas on May 06, 2011, 04:06:18 pm

J Thomas.  The home reactor is an extreme example, but not unrealistic.  There will always be some fool somewhere who is out to save a dime or thinks he knows more than the experts.  The fool eventually screws-up and causes problems for everybody.

Yes, it can happen. With a lot of reactors and a lot of fools, it *will* happen.

Quote
How would you (your methods affecting only you) try to minimize potential damage? Remember, you don't have the right to force your standards on another, but may establish a group to which your standards make sense.  Also remember you do not have the power to force your group's standards on the general public.

My view is that if there have not been enough accidents to get people other than me concerned, my best bet is to be a hermit. Go somewhere far enough away from the other fools (besides myself) that I survive.

If there have been enough accidents, people will not put up with more. They will insist that fools who lack the proper skills must not fool with reactors near them, and they will enforce it by whatever methods come to mind, and if they don't come up with a method that satisfies ZAP then ZAP be damned.

ZAP is not a suicide pact.

I made up a story where the reactors were always safe, unless somebody fooled with them. Given that story, people might agree to buy only reactors which broadcast an alarm whenever anybody starts to fool with them. So before you do, you announce to everybody that you're about to, and you say whatever you think will reassure them, and if any expert is not reassured he might offer to assist you. Or if he thinks you're a fool he might warn you not to, or else.

It could be argued that if you threaten to make changes to your reactor and someone does not think you are competent to do that, you are in fact threatening to blow them up and so you are violating ZAP.

Quote
If you both survive the stupidity, then its a matter for arbitration.  If you don't, it doesn't matter and with any luck his stupidity means he won't be around to cause further problems.

This is a reductio ad absurdum. I've heard this argument for allowing drunk drivers to drive. The more we let them drive the more they'll kill themselves off and stop being a bother for the rest of us. But too often they kill innocents with them. It's a whole lot worse for reactor fools. If we lose 1000 innocent AnCaps to kill one fool, it's too bad a ratio. Let them do that kind of thing on their own isolated rocks, and not close to other people.
Title: Re: ZAP!!!
Post by: NeitherRuleNorBeRuled on May 06, 2011, 04:44:17 pm
"Intent" is another word of art. For example, let us say you decide to punch a guy in the nose, but not in self-defense. You punch him with what would otherwise be a non-lethal blow, but he dies because he had an "egg shell" skull. You argue that even though you battered him, you did not intend to kill him, only hurt him. Sorry Buckwheat, you lose. You intended to harm him without right, so you are legally responsible for the consequences of your act, whether anticipated or not. So you may end up supporting his family for life.

Sandy, I suggest you are stating this too strongly.  While some (legal) systems may not differentiate between intent to harm vs. intent to kill, I can certainly conceive of other systems which do make such a differentiation without internal contradiction.  I can even conceive of such systems being compatible with ZAP.

I suspect that you have an unstated assumption, such as "Assume a system derived from English Common Law", and that not stating it muddies the waters a bit.
Title: Re: ZAP!!!
Post by: sam on May 06, 2011, 08:06:38 pm
Now, then. For one example which does come close to saying the ZAP is paradoxical... someone is convinced that the Large Hadron Collider is going to make a microscopic black hole that will eat the world. So he decides to blow it up.

In point of fact, he is deluded, and so he is the one who is violating the ZAP. But who gets to decide what is reality? Whoever has that power could make a mistaken decision, and violate the ZAP that way.

In Saga period iceland, edge cases were resolved by killing people who needed killing, and then paying blood money for them – or at least that is what happens in the sagas, which may not be typical of everyday life.

Sandy Seyfourt doubtless has a more peaceable and legalistic theory of how edge cases might be resolved, but I don't believe it.

One stabilizing effect in Saga period iceland is that people who kept using violence right at the boundary of what was legally OK usually got away with it, but became feared and unpopular, so when someone finally killed the man who was stretching the boundaries, there was not a whole lot of enthusiasm for prosecuting and punishing the killer, even though killing the man who was pushing the boundaries of what was legal was clearly illegal, while the violence of the man pushing the boundaries was arguably legal.

Sandy's theory is that edge cases will be arbitrated, and the possibly capricious and hair splitting arbitration accepted.  My theory is that edge cases can get you killed, so people will decline to try them out.
Title: Re: ZAP!!!
Post by: sam on May 06, 2011, 08:17:53 pm
Here's a more reasonable version of that -- say that lots of people get to have small nuclear reactors which are usually perfectly safe, but which, through malice or incompetence could be turned into bombs. I say it's wrong to tell people they can't have these reactors because they might not be completely safe.

At the same time, I claim the right to demand that anybody who has them and fiddles with them must be competent to repair them. It is absurd to say I have no right to complain about anything he does with his own reactor on his own property until after he blows himself up and takes me with him.

Is it a real danger? If most people think I'm just a crackpot, then probably I should move to my own asteroid and just stay away from them until somebody explodes one and proves me right. If lots of people share my concern then we should be allowed to deal with the threat one way or another, whether our demands for public safety are a technical violation of ZAP or not. Prove you know what you're doing or convince us you will not fool around with your reactor.

Your grounds might be justified - but people are always inventing grounds to exercise power over other people.  So your argument should not be accepted until there have been a lot of nuclear accidents, and these accidents have produced demonstrable, rather than hypothetical harm.

If we allow people to sue for hypothetical injury, we wind up, as in the US, with lots and lots of court cases in which evidence is produced similar to that produced in witch craft trials, where a supposed authority in witch smelling pronounces guilt and discovers invisible injuries..

Consider the recent Japanese reactor accident.  If you flew from New York to Japan, then hung around at the gates of the reactor building, you would get a lot more radiation from your flight than from the reactor.  Similarly, Chernobyl killed no more people than coal mining accidents that happen all the time.

Even if your fears turn out to be entirely justified, if you are able to sue for hypothetical harm, there will be, as in the US, ten thousand civil lawsuits that are completely unjustified.
Title: Re: ZAP!!!
Post by: SandySandfort on May 06, 2011, 09:06:07 pm
What I'm saying is that since the rules for arbitration, whatever they are, can only be imposed by an initiation of force, this needs to be recognized.

You have not been paying attention. Let's do it by the numbers:

1. You and your neighbor, Mr. Rogers, get into a dispute as to exactly where the line is between your property and his. It is not a beautiful day in the neighborhood.

2. You and he grouse about it for a couple of weeks and tempers begin to rise.

3. You suggest you settle it by arbitration and you both agree to abide by the arbiter's decision.

4. You and Rogers kick it around for awhile and decide that Captain Kangaroo, who lives up the road, is a mutually acceptable arbiter. Other people have found him to be wise and honest. So the often use the services of Kangaroo Court.

5.Capt. Kangaroo agrees to decide your land dispute for 5 grams of gold to be paid 50/50 up front by you and Mr. Rogers. He visits your properties and listens while you and Mr. Rogers state your reasons for placing the line where you each think it should be.

6. Capt. Kangaroo asks who planted the hedge separating your two properties. You both agree that it was the work of Mr. Rogers with the help of Mr. Greenjeans, who laid the line for the hedge. "Did you object at the time of the planting?" asks Kangaroo. "No," you admit. "I thought it was about where the property line was at the time. It wasn't until later that I remembered the old fence line being closer to Rogers' house, before we agreed to remove it."

7. Capt. Kangaroo ponders for a moment and says, "Well, Mr. You, the time to raise the issue was back when Mr. Rogers started planting the hedge. So you are estopped from complaining now under the equitable doctrine of laches. I am setting the property line 10 centimeters towards your house from the centerline of Mr. Rogers' hedge. This does not, however, create an easement for the continued growth of Roger's hedge. You may cut any branches or roots that extending beyond this property line.

8. You are pissed and decide to not honor his ruling. In your opinion, the hedge lies on your property. So in a pique you cut the hedge down.


Now, there are all sorts of remedies Mr. Rogers can seek, but whatever he does, Captain Kangaroo is out of it. He did his job, he got paid and the rest is up to you and Mr. Rogers who had agreed to abide by the ruling of the Kangaroo Court. We can discuss Mr. Rogers' options, but with regard to Captain Kangaroo, he has no power to initiate force to get you to comply to his ruling (unless you both had agreed to that; in which case he would have undoubted charged a lot more). If his moral suasion was not sufficient, it's no skin off his ass if you don't comply.

So, your statement was in error due to your assumptions about how arbitration would work in a free society. However, the question of enforcement is still in play. I would encourage you to take some time and think through what Mr. Rogers might, and might not, do in light of the ZAP.
Title: Re: ZAP!!!
Post by: SandySandfort on May 06, 2011, 09:18:16 pm
I suspect that you have an unstated assumption, such as "Assume a system derived from English Common Law", and that not stating it muddies the waters a bit.

Actually, I have stated it numerous times. English Common Law is redundant. All common law was derived from English legal principles (too bad they lost touch with it in England). The differences between English common law, Anglo-American common law, Anglo-New Zealand common law, etc. are few, though there are some major exceptions. Libel/slander being a big one.

For the purposes of reading and discussing EFT, just assume Anglo-American common law, as it is probably the least statist of the common laws.
Title: Re: ZAP!!!
Post by: spudit on May 06, 2011, 10:17:18 pm
If I understand Sandy's explanation, could the arbiter be considered a profesional stating an expert opinion?

He says right or wrong on this issue, the MD says the lump is just a lump, the building inspector says you have dry rot, the lawyer says you can't sue IBM with a $300 budget and hope to win. Now do you freak out about the lump anyway, ignore the rot and try to win a war of attrition against IBM with pocket change. That is your call.
Title: Re: ZAP!!!
Post by: SandySandfort on May 07, 2011, 01:16:13 am
If I understand Sandy's explanation, could the arbiter be considered a profesional stating an expert opinion?

He says right or wrong on this issue, the MD says the lump is just a lump, the building inspector says you have dry rot, the lawyer says you can't sue IBM with a $300 budget and hope to win. Now do you freak out about the lump anyway, ignore the rot and try to win a war of attrition against IBM with pocket change. That is your call.

I'm not entirely sure what you are asking, but as is often case in arbitration today, the arbiter is often selected by the litigants because he has expertise in the field in question. Assuming, for example, that two land owners on a hill have a dispute. Soil subsidence from the higher owner causes damage to the lower owner's property, I would think that a civil engineer or geologist would make better rulings than Captain Kangaroo. Anyway, that decision would be up to the two parties.

Having said that, if the litigants both want Captain Kangaroo, that is nobody's concern but their own. 
Title: Re: ZAP!!!
Post by: sam on May 07, 2011, 02:47:42 am
People are, in certain cases, expected to go to arbitration because attempting to deal with the situation by themselves directly will be taken as a violation of the ZAP - because it's hard to tell about things after the fact, and the immediate necessity of self-defense is not there.

That's fine and dandy - I'm not saying it's "bad".

What I'm saying is that since the rules for arbitration, whatever they are, can only be imposed by an initiation of force, this needs to be recognized.

In recently existent anarchic and near anarchic societies, people frequently failed to go to arbitration, and instead dealt with the offender themselves.  In debatable cases, the family, friends, employer, or associates of the offender might then themselves respond, or go to some form of arbitration, or ...

In short the rules about going to arbitration were not enforced as such.  Often, people helping themselves would do so by killing the offender, the family of offender would go to an arbitrator, and the arbitrator would commonly rule that this was excessive, or premature, and require them to  pay blood money to the family of the offender, but the blood money was seldom so great as to very potently discourage this practice.

The crime was not ignoring the arbitrators, the crime was settling a matter by deadly violence that could have, and should have, been settled with money.
Title: Re: ZAP!!!
Post by: J Thomas on May 07, 2011, 06:05:40 am

One stabilizing effect in Saga period iceland is that people who kept using violence right at the boundary of what was legally OK usually ....

Sandy's theory is that edge cases will be arbitrated, and the possibly capricious and hair splitting arbitration accepted.  My theory is that edge cases can get you killed, so people will decline to try them out.

Your theory is that people will not do edge cases because it can get you killed, and your evidence for your theory is that in Iceland people did try edge cases and there's some reason to think maybe it usually got them killed.

Your argument refutes itself.
Title: Re: ZAP!!!
Post by: spudit on May 07, 2011, 08:31:48 am
My botched attempt at simplification was unclear and overly complex; I blame "those people" once again because we know how they are.

 
Title: Re: ZAP!!!
Post by: GlennWatson on May 07, 2011, 08:34:33 am
I have only seen one other message board in my life that rivaled the intellectual power of this board.  Well done to all involved. Your breadth of knowledge is impressive.
Title: Re: ZAP!!!
Post by: spudit on May 07, 2011, 08:45:25 am
Gosh and golly.
Title: Re: ZAP!!!
Post by: J Thomas on May 07, 2011, 10:07:07 am

It is absurd to say I have no right to complain about anything he does with his own reactor on his own property until after he blows himself up and takes me with him.

Your grounds might be justified - but people are always inventing grounds to exercise power over other people.  So your argument should not be accepted until there have been a lot of nuclear accidents, and these accidents have produced demonstrable, rather than hypothetical harm.

It depends. If one accident takes out a tenth of the population on Ceres, should they wait for 10 accidents? I think one is enough. One is enough even if it only kills 1% of the population. Maybe less.

Quote
Consider the recent Japanese reactor accident.  If you flew from New York to Japan, then hung around at the gates of the reactor building, you would get a lot more radiation from your flight than from the reactor.

I doubt your factoid. You say a lot of things like this and I've reached the point I will believe each of them after it is documented from a reputable source.

Quote
Similarly, Chernobyl killed no more people than coal mining accidents that happen all the time.

Ditto. You're referring to coal mining accidents worldwide that happened that year? Or what?

Quote
Even if your fears turn out to be entirely justified, if you are able to sue for hypothetical harm, there will be, as in the US, ten thousand civil lawsuits that are completely unjustified.

I am not at all interested in suing for hypothetical damages. I don't want him to pay me for the right to risk my life and property. I don't want him to pay me because he has taken excessive risks. I want him not to do it.
Title: Re: ZAP!!!
Post by: quadibloc on May 07, 2011, 12:29:07 pm
Arbitration is an agreement to settle a dispute.  How the dispute is settled depends on the individuals who entered into a contract to do so.  The arbitrator is a facilitator having no POWER to enforce a decision.  Settlement depends on the individuals and "implied self interest" to uphold their contract.
Arbitration, under government, as an alternative to the courts, always works like that.

I'm thinking of the other case.

Someone murdered your wife, and unfortunately he didn't make an error in victim selection. Now, five years later, evidence has been pieced together, and you claim that Joe is the murderer. But you can't just shoot him - that's not immediate self-defence; you would be treated as a violator of the ZAP if you did so.

Presumably, there is, in such a case, a system which will compel him to subject to the penalty for his ZAP violation based on the evidence - one that won't allow him to choose one of his buddies as arbitrator. I'm assuming that people being able to get away with murder routinely isn't considered an improvement on our present system, and so there is in fact a condition under which people are compelled to be subject to some form of arbitration.

It can even be as simple as people who are liked and well-respected in the community having a license to kill, as long as it seems like they did have a good reason.
Title: Re: ZAP!!!
Post by: J Thomas on May 07, 2011, 01:45:37 pm

Someone murdered your wife, and unfortunately he didn't make an error in victim selection.

I'm not clear what "error in victim selection" means. He waited until every variable seemed to be in his favor, and he killed her, and when he attacked at his initiative with every possible advantage, she didn't kill him first?

Quote
Now, five years later, evidence has been pieced together, and you claim that Joe is the murderer. But you can't just shoot him - that's not immediate self-defence; you would be treated as a violator of the ZAP if you did so.

Presumably, there is, in such a case, a system which will compel him to subject to the penalty for his ZAP violation based on the evidence - one that won't allow him to choose one of his buddies as arbitrator. I'm assuming that people being able to get away with murder routinely isn't considered an improvement on our present system, and so there is in fact a condition under which people are compelled to be subject to some form of arbitration.

It can even be as simple as people who are liked and well-respected in the community having a license to kill, as long as it seems like they did have a good reason.

You say he killed your wife. You ask him to go through arbitration. This is a serious concern if he did do it, so he really ought to look at ways to clear his name. The arbitrator looks at the evidence and decides that yes, he did it or no, he didn't do it or that the available evidence does not really decide the issue. And then the arbitrator takes it from there.

Suppose he says that no, he isn't willing to arbitrate. He doesn't want or need anything to do with you. Then if you kill him and somebody objects, you can present your evidence to them that he killed your wife. And if he kills you and someone objects, he can present his evidence that you had some irrational bee in your bonnet and you were after him.

Now try this one. He says that yes, he killed her, and he doesn't want to talk about it -- he doesn't think he owes anybody anything for it. Go away. You look up his stats, and he has killed more than 30 people in fair fights. He's very very good with a gun or a knife. You consider the possibility of hiring somebody to duel with him, but no professional duelist is willing to do the job for any price. He is walking around killing people whenever he wants to, and he has a reputation that results in him getting great service in restaurants and bars and whorehouses etc. There are dozens of people who want to kill him but they're all afraid to. Is there anything wrong with this? If nobody is willing to try to kill him because they think they'll lose, doesn't that mean he can do whatever he wants?

Well, yes. But it's easy to kill anybody if you don't try to make it a fair fight. Like, say he gets a room in a hotel. If somebody sets the CO2 scrubber a little bit too high, he will stop breathing and fall unconscious. People treathe when they get enough CO2 to tell them it's time to breathe, not when they don't have enough oxygen. Any place he's alone, in a spacesuit if he ever wears one, in a vehicle or ship, in a bathroom, anybody who has access to the CO2 scrubber can kill him. Anywhere the air is scrubbed, which is everywhere except Terra.

If he hires somebody to do maintenance on his spaceship, there must be ten thousand ways to kill him that way, and lots of them would leave a serviceable ship for salvage. Does he do his own maintenance, using parts he buys? Ditto.

Does he eat at restaurants? Anybody who has access to his food before he eats it can poison him.

A bit harder if he takes a hostage with him wherever he goes, and makes her taste his food, and breathe his air, and sleep in his bed. Somebody innocent that nobody wants to kill.

But in an ecosystem where every part depends on human machinery? A lot of people are ready to kill somebody without a fair fight? Easy.
Title: Re: ZAP!!!
Post by: quadibloc on May 07, 2011, 02:52:51 pm
But in an ecosystem where every part depends on human machinery? A lot of people are ready to kill somebody without a fair fight? Easy.
My complaint wasn't that vengeance would be impossible. But if arbitration is supposed to supply justice, how can it do that without being imposed in a way that constitutes an initiation of force? Or you may be right that arbitration doesn't fill that role - but it seemed to me that AnCap advocates were saying that it did.

After all, that Harris fellow got dealt with through arbitration, didn't he?
Title: Re: ZAP!!!
Post by: J Thomas on May 07, 2011, 04:18:25 pm
But in an ecosystem where every part depends on human machinery? A lot of people are ready to kill somebody without a fair fight? Easy.
My complaint wasn't that vengeance would be impossible. But if arbitration is supposed to supply justice, how can it do that without being imposed in a way that constitutes an initiation of force? Or you may be right that arbitration doesn't fill that role - but it seemed to me that AnCap advocates were saying that it did.

After all, that Harris fellow got dealt with through arbitration, didn't he?

I don't exactly see that he did. He got captured. It was established that he gave the orders, and he didn't deny responsibility. The people who had him tied in a chair told his surviving victim to decide what to do with him, and she decided.

It doesn't look anything like arbitration to me. He initiated force. He lost, and found himself tied up and shot. He didn't agree to any of it. People who were able to apply force to him chose to do so.
Title: Re: ZAP!!!
Post by: SandySandfort on May 07, 2011, 05:32:41 pm
But in an ecosystem where every part depends on human machinery? A lot of people are ready to kill somebody without a fair fight? Easy.
My complaint wasn't that vengeance would be impossible. But if arbitration is supposed to supply justice, how can it do that without being imposed in a way that constitutes an initiation of force? Or you may be right that arbitration doesn't fill that role - but it seemed to me that AnCap advocates were saying that it did.

After all, that Harris fellow got dealt with through arbitration, didn't he?

The ZAP and arbitration are two different things. Arbitration can exist independent of the ZAP, but it is also wholly consistent with the ZAP.

If I believe to a moral certainty that someone intentionally murdered my wife, he is a dead man, no matter how much time has passed. Yes, battery, as it exists today, has requirements of immediacy, but that aspect contemplates operating in a regimen where agencies with a monopoly on the initiation of force exist, i.e., states. For the ZAP to work in a stateless society, the only agencies of force are individuals. So offing Harris, Rhonda's special cadre and the murderer of my wife are not beyond the normal, day-to-day situations where an arbitration solution is sufficient to make someone whole.

So I say, shoot the bastard and deal with his next of kin in arbitration, if they think what I did was wrong. Just as their is no statute of limitations for murder under state jurisdictions, I see no conflict with the ZAP for killing a murderer, no matter how much time has passed.

With regard to the long-ass articles about assault and battery I cited, I only offered them as--shall we say--second approximations. Clearly, they would have to have some minor tweaks under ZAP than exist under a state.

I am not equivocating, merely saying that the nuances will be different, but that current concepts of assault and battery are better than Neil's "initiation of force interpretation. There will always be new wrinkles to iron out. That is where arbitration, operating under common law principles, can help define and clarify the application of the ZAP to real-life situations.
Title: Re: ZAP!!!
Post by: sam on May 07, 2011, 05:48:13 pm

One stabilizing effect in Saga period iceland is that people who kept using violence right at the boundary of what was legally OK usually ....

Sandy's theory is that edge cases will be arbitrated, and the possibly capricious and hair splitting arbitration accepted.  My theory is that edge cases can get you killed, so people will decline to try them out.

Your theory is that people will not do edge cases because it can get you killed, and your evidence for your theory is that in Iceland people did try edge cases and there's some reason to think maybe it usually got them killed.

Your argument refutes itself.

Those events that became sagas, became sagas because unusual and extraordinary.
Title: Re: ZAP!!!
Post by: sam on May 07, 2011, 06:20:21 pm
It is absurd to say I have no right to complain about anything he does with his own reactor on his own property until after he blows himself up and takes me with him.

Your grounds might be justified - but people are always inventing grounds to exercise power over other people.  So your argument should not be accepted until there have been a lot of nuclear accidents, and these accidents have produced demonstrable, rather than hypothetical harm.

It depends. If one accident takes out a tenth of the population on Ceres, should they wait for 10 accidents? I think one is enough.

But we have not had a civilian nuclear accident on earth that takes out a tenth of the population of the town where the accident occurred, and are not likely to, yet nonetheless have a great pile of litigation.

The bias is always to go after imaginary witches, not to spare actual witches, which bias has to be resisted, and the only resistance likely to be effectual is to kill power hungry people who go this path.

Consider the recent Japanese reactor accident.  If you flew from New York to Japan, then hung around at the gates of the reactor building, you would get a lot more radiation from your flight than from the reactor.

I doubt your factoid.

You live in world of demon haunted darkness, where the demons can only be appeased or driven off by burning hundreds of millions of witches, possibly billions of witches.

According to NPR, usually a source of unending panic and alarm about the activities of demons and witches, radiation at the plant's main gate is 0.647 milliserverts per hour.  http://www.npr.org/blogs/health/2011/03/20/134658088/radiation-data-near-nuclear-plant-offers-little-cause-for-concern (http://www.npr.org/blogs/health/2011/03/20/134658088/radiation-data-near-nuclear-plant-offers-little-cause-for-concern) By comparison, when you take a flight, you get about 0.04 milliserverts per hour from cosmic rays, so standing at the main gate is fifteen times worse than flying.  So someone who flies to Japan from New York, and then wanders up to the main gate to take a look, and hangs out at the main gate for half an hour or so, is likely to get more radiation from his flight than from the nuclear power plant.

You say a lot of things like this and I've reached the point I will believe each of them after it is documented from a reputable source.

But I usually do document them from a reputable source, for example the climategate files or the Chilean Chamber of Deputies, and yet, just like Sandy Sandford, you find no source can ever be sufficiently reputable, except a source that possesses characteristics that no real world source could ever possess.

You, and Sandy, have this worldly religious beliefs, and so are forced to again and again reject this worldly evidence.

Similarly, Chernobyl killed no more people than coal mining accidents that happen all the time.

Ditto. You're referring to coal mining accidents worldwide that happened that year? Or what?

Chernobyl killed sixty people.  Thousands of people die every year in coal mining accidents.

People have been trying to get alarming cancer statistics from the vicinity of Chernobyl, and have come up empty.

If Chernobyl has elevated cancer rates in its vicinity, as is frequently alleged, somehow no one has been able to produce persuasive epidemiological evidence for it, the only epidemiological evidence being a high risk of thyroid cancers among children that were under four at the time of the incident or conceived but not yet born – leading to the deaths of nine children from thyroid cancer!  Nine!  Nine!  Nine! That is the worst anyone has been able to come up with for a great horrible horribly disastrous Chernobyl cancer epidemic disaster.

Nine!

At this point you will, like Sandy, demand a reputable source for the absence of deaths.

No.  On this issue, just as Sandy has to produce a nineteenth century law criminalizing sex with ten year olds, and I don't have to produce a law legalizing it, (laws generally say what is illegal, not what is legal) you have to produce some cancer deaths that can plausibly be attributed to Chernobyl.  Producing the absence of deaths is impossible.  The evidence that Chernobyl did little harm is the abysmal failure of the catastrophe industry to come up with any plausible evidence of great harm.  The evidence that Chernobyl did little harm is the absence of evidence of great harm.
Title: Re: ZAP!!!
Post by: SandySandfort on May 07, 2011, 06:23:55 pm
I don't exactly see that [Harris] did [get an arbitration]. He got captured. It was established that he gave the orders, and he didn't deny responsibility. The people who had him tied in a chair told his surviving victim to decide what to do with him, and she decided.

It doesn't look anything like arbitration to me. He initiated force. He lost, and found himself tied up and shot. He didn't agree to any of it. People who were able to apply force to him chose to do so.

Exactly. It was an execution, not a trial. Incidentally, this is what got a NYC-ensconced, so-called, ZAP advocate*, Perry Metzger frothing at the mouth. He thinks that stateless societies will (or should) all fall into line when applying the ZAP and settle most (all?) differences by Xeer or similar informal legal systems. Since he mis-characterized Harris and Young's executions as trials, he told me it was murder and basically that this is not the way anarchy works. He even wrote a pitiful little Just So Story showing how it should have been done. It was awful and completely trivialized the deaths of de Leon and the Roses.

* Though he says he advocates the ZAP, he made a couple of, not-so-veiled threats against me, that would constitute the initiation of force under the ZAP. The reason for his threats was that I jokingly said I might have to introduce an opinionated New Yorker in an upcoming arc. He sputtered accusations that I would be mocking him with a "sock puppet" and defaming his good name, yadda, yadda, yadda. So he made his threats and then threw me off a list that he hosts on his server for what he assumed I was going to do on an entirely different list! Hell hath no fury like a geek scorned. ::)

And now you know... the rest of the story.  ;)


 
Title: Re: ZAP!!!
Post by: J Thomas on May 07, 2011, 06:42:37 pm

One stabilizing effect in Saga period iceland is that people who kept using violence right at the boundary of what was legally OK usually ....

Sandy's theory is that edge cases will be arbitrated, and the possibly capricious and hair splitting arbitration accepted.  My theory is that edge cases can get you killed, so people will decline to try them out.

Your theory is that people will not do edge cases because it can get you killed, and your evidence for your theory is that in Iceland people did try edge cases and there's some reason to think maybe it usually got them killed.

Your argument refutes itself.

Those events that became sagas, became sagas because unusual and extraordinary.

You did originally state a disclaimer that the sagas may not have represented Icelandic society. Then you claimed from the sagas what Icelandic society was like. Now you say it wasn't that way.
Title: Re: ZAP!!!
Post by: J Thomas on May 07, 2011, 06:46:17 pm
It is absurd to say I have no right to complain about anything he does with his own reactor on his own property until after he blows himself up and takes me with him.

Your grounds might be justified - but people are always inventing grounds to exercise power over other people.  So your argument should not be accepted until there have been a lot of nuclear accidents, and these accidents have produced demonstrable, rather than hypothetical harm.

It depends. If one accident takes out a tenth of the population on Ceres, should they wait for 10 accidents? I think one is enough.

But we have not had a civilian nuclear accident on earth that takes out a tenth of the population of the town where the accident occurred, and are not likely to, yet nonetheless have a great pile of litigation.

I hope that Ceres won't have US 1970-style nuclear power plants.

My hypothetical example involves lots of small nuclear plants that are completely safe when left alone, that can become unsafe if fiddled with by somebody who isn't competent to adjust them.

That has nothing to do with accidents in ancient nuclear plants on Terra.
Title: Re: ZAP!!!
Post by: sam on May 07, 2011, 07:04:48 pm
Exactly. It was an execution, not a trial. Incidentally, this is what got a NYC-ensconced, so-called, ZAP advocate*, Perry Metzger frothing at the mouth. He thinks that stateless societies will (or should) all fall into line when applying the ZAP and settle most (all?) differences by Xeer or similar informal legal systems. Since he mis-characterized Harris and Young's executions as trials, he told me it was murder and basically that this is not the way anarchy works. He even wrote a pitiful little Just So Story showing how it should have been done. It was awful and completely trivialized the deaths of de Leon and the Roses.

So Perry complains your depiction of anarchy is not legalistic enough, and I complain it is far too legalistic.

Title: Re: ZAP!!!
Post by: sam on May 07, 2011, 07:12:48 pm
Someone murdered your wife, and unfortunately he didn't make an error in victim selection. Now, five years later, evidence has been pieced together, and you claim that Joe is the murderer. But you can't just shoot him - that's not immediate self-defence; you would be treated as a violator of the ZAP if you did so.

Well actually you can just shoot him, and in the sagas, people were apt to do so.  A court case will then probably ensue.  In saga period Iceland, if you killed him furtively, you would probably lose the ensuing case.  If, however, you killed him openly and in public, and publicly announced the reason and evidence, confidently campaigned in the court of public opinion before campaigning in the court of law, probably win it.
Title: Re: ZAP!!!
Post by: sam on May 07, 2011, 07:23:15 pm
You did originally state a disclaimer that the sagas may not have represented Icelandic society. Then you claimed from the sagas what Icelandic society was like. Now you say it wasn't that way.

Obviously Icelandic sagas are more dramatic than icelandic everyday life.  But the background society is, equally obviously, the background society that Icelanders took for granted.  The Sagas are extraordinary events taking place  in the ordinary everyday world that Icelanders took for granted.

Thus, characters in Sagas themselves take blood vengeance rather than legal action for monetary damages far more often than was ordinary.  But the legal consequences of oneself taking blood vengeance are what the ordinary real life consequences of taking blood vengeance were.
Title: Re: ZAP!!!
Post by: J Thomas on May 08, 2011, 12:03:59 am
You did originally state a disclaimer that the sagas may not have represented Icelandic society. Then you claimed from the sagas what Icelandic society was like. Now you say it wasn't that way.

Obviously Icelandic sagas are more dramatic than icelandic everyday life.  But the background society is, equally obviously, the background society that Icelanders took for granted.  The Sagas are extraordinary events taking place  in the ordinary everyday world that Icelanders took for granted.

Thus, characters in Sagas themselves take blood vengeance rather than legal action for monetary damages far more often than was ordinary.  But the legal consequences of oneself taking blood vengeance are what the ordinary real life consequences of taking blood vengeance were.

I tend to agree with you. The sagas might not be representative but we have nothing else to go on, and I'd like to believe we can learn something from them. It makes sense to speculate from them.

But as an argument for reality they're kind of weak. It could be a lot like somebody in the 27th century figuring out the US justice system from surviving cop shows and lawyer shows.
Title: Re: ZAP!!!
Post by: sam on May 08, 2011, 03:13:46 am
Obviously Icelandic sagas are more dramatic than icelandic everyday life.  But the background society is, equally obviously, the background society that Icelanders took for granted.  The Sagas are extraordinary events taking place  in the ordinary everyday world that Icelanders took for granted.

Thus, characters in Sagas themselves take blood vengeance rather than legal action for monetary damages far more often than was ordinary.  But the legal consequences of oneself taking blood vengeance are what the ordinary real life consequences of taking blood vengeance were.

I tend to agree with you. The sagas might not be representative but we have nothing else to go on, and I'd like to believe we can learn something from them. It makes sense to speculate from them.

But as an argument for reality they're kind of weak. It could be a lot like somebody in the 27th century figuring out the US justice system from surviving cop shows and lawyer shows.

Other than improbable scrupulous honesty and law abiding character of cops and judges on those shows, and the improbable tendency of cops to vigorously investigate, and investigate by the book, twenty seventh centurians would get a reasonably accurate account.  They would correctly learn what was legal, and what was illegal, though they would imagine everyday life to be a lot more violent than it actually was.
Title: Re: ZAP!!!
Post by: J Thomas on May 08, 2011, 07:37:10 am


But as an argument for reality they're kind of weak. It could be a lot like somebody in the 27th century figuring out the US justice system from surviving cop shows and lawyer shows.

Other than improbable scrupulous honesty and law abiding character of cops and judges on those shows, and the improbable tendency of cops to vigorously investigate, and investigate by the book, twenty seventh centurians would get a reasonably accurate account.  They would correctly learn what was legal, and what was illegal, though they would imagine everyday life to be a lot more violent than it actually was.

I am not a lawyer, so when I heard lawyers chuckling over the idea of people thinking they knew something real about law from Perry Mason and later TV shows, I tended to think they were right.

You are a lawyer, so I should know not to trust you.
Title: Re: ZAP!!!
Post by: J Thomas on May 08, 2011, 07:47:18 am

Incidentally, this is what got a NYC-ensconced, so-called, ZAP advocate*, Perry Metzger frothing at the mouth. He thinks that stateless societies will (or should) all fall into line when applying the ZAP and settle most (all?) differences by Xeer or similar informal legal systems. Since he mis-characterized Harris and Young's executions as trials, he told me it was murder and basically that this is not the way anarchy works.

That is wrong on so many levels....

Quote
He even wrote a pitiful little Just So Story showing how it should have been done. It was awful and completely trivialized the deaths of de Leon and the Roses.

* Though he says he advocates the ZAP, he made a couple of, not-so-veiled threats against me, that would constitute the initiation of force under the ZAP.

He threatened physical force against you? That sounds out of character, from what you've said of him.

Quote
The reason for his threats was that I jokingly said I might have to introduce an opinionated New Yorker in an upcoming arc. He sputtered accusations that I would be mocking him with a "sock puppet" and defaming his good name, yadda, yadda, yadda. So he made his threats and then threw me off a list that he hosts on his server for what he assumed I was going to do on an entirely different list! Hell hath no fury like a geek scorned. ::)

Well, that isn't so bad. If he has the right to throw people off lists, and there are decent alternative lists, then it's all settled.

Quote
And now you know... the rest of the story.  ;)

It sounds like he isn't worth your attention, apart from being an important guy who can throw people off lists. But you got a story out of it.
Title: Re: ZAP!!!
Post by: quadibloc on May 08, 2011, 09:13:41 am
So I say, shoot the bastard and deal with his next of kin in arbitration, if they think what I did was wrong. Just as their is no statute of limitations for murder under state jurisdictions, I see no conflict with the ZAP for killing a murderer, no matter how much time has passed.
Actually, come to think of it, neither do I.

The reason I think there's a need for arbitration is that his next of kin might sincerely believe that he is innocent.

Societies where there are multiple ethnic, linguistic, or religious groups - even when they're living together in peace most of the time, but who still have a little bit of a lingering "us" and "them" mentality - are at particular risk of the skewed-perception problem. (Of course, people usually end up living in societies like that, on the knife-edge of genocidal mob violence, because of state-imposed territorial expansion.)

So we're used to societies having to do something about the blood-feud problem... ever since Hammurabi. So, since I was expecting arbitration to do something that states had been doing all along through the initiation of force, naturally I expected the arbitration system to involve some initiation of force.

If one is going to rely on self-selection and so on to ensure the blood-feud problem either does not arise, or at least isn't fatal to the society - occasionally people do bad things or stupid things anywhere - then indeed I suppose that arbitration or customary law rules don't have to "solve" it.
Title: Re: ZAP!!!
Post by: SandySandfort on May 08, 2011, 11:43:30 am
It sounds like [Perry] isn't worth your attention, apart from being an important guy who can throw people off lists. But you got a story out of it.

I always knew that Perry was humor impaired and imbued with an unwarranted belief in his own superiority. Basically he is a one-trick pony, but has done very well doing that one trick. Beyond that, though, he is an emotional infant. Yes, he isn't worth my attention, but telling the story was fun. ;D
Title: Re: ZAP!!!
Post by: SandySandfort on May 08, 2011, 12:07:22 pm
So I say, shoot the bastard and deal with his next of kin in arbitration, if they think what I did was wrong. Just as their is no statute of limitations for murder under state jurisdictions, I see no conflict with the ZAP for killing a murderer, no matter how much time has passed.
Actually, come to think of it, neither do I.

The reason I think there's a need for arbitration is that his next of kin might sincerely believe that he is innocent.

Good point, but by taking vengeance first, that arbitration would come after the murder is killed. That would be fine by me. If someone not directly involved in the dispute, wants to take me to arbitration, I would be there. (Given the scenario, what would I have to lose?)

However, you raised a problem that could arise from this strategy:

... the blood-feud problem...

Declaring your willingness to submit to arbitration is the first step in preventing a feud, but as you suggest, the murderer may come from a culture that takes altruistic punishment seriously and his family or whomever may be willing to risk their own lives to take yours.

One could forestall that by agreeing to accepting outlawry should you lose at arbitration. That would pretty much ensure a death penalty if the arbiter decided that you killed an innocent man.

I can think of several other steps one might take, but my guess is that blood feuds would be rarer in the Belt than in 19th Century America. We remember the Hatfields and the McCoys not because they were the norm, but because they were an aberration. The US justice system did not implode because of the actions of a couple of families of inbred, mouth-breathers. Neither would arbitration in a ZAP-based market anarchy.
Title: Re: ZAP!!!
Post by: spudit on May 08, 2011, 02:34:38 pm
The lighter side of the ZAP.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H4sZ2A04GrY&feature=player_embedded
Title: Re: ZAP!!!
Post by: sam on May 08, 2011, 03:59:12 pm
So we're used to societies having to do something about the blood-feud problem... ever since Hammurabi. So, since I was expecting arbitration to do something that states had been doing all along through the initiation of force, naturally I expected the arbitration system to involve some initiation of force.

Iceland had blood feuds, but these were infrequent (cultural and racial homogeneity doubtless helped), and tended to end.  One the sagas depicts such a feud.  Family A hits Family B, Family B hits Family A, with a bag of silver dollars going back and forth on every hit, and the clan patriarchs moaning to each other about their inability to control their womenfolk.

Every hit was followed by the patriarchs settling the matter out of court, for money, but more hot headed members of the clan failed to accept the settlement.  (These patriarchs bemoaned the fact that they were not very patriarchal)
Title: Re: ZAP!!!
Post by: quadibloc on May 08, 2011, 04:06:23 pm
I can think of several other steps one might take, but my guess is that blood feuds would be rarer in the Belt than in 19th Century America.
Oh, indeed.

The mental block I have, and the mistake I keep making, is this: I assume that the ZAP is being presented as a moral imperative, which dumps me into the following syllogism -

if the ZAP is a moral imperative, applicable and compulsory in all times and places,
then it is possible to impose peace in the Middle East without resorting to the initiation of force.

The absurdity of the conclusion presumably matches the magnitude of my misconception.
Title: Re: ZAP!!!
Post by: sam on May 08, 2011, 05:43:05 pm
if the ZAP is a moral imperative, applicable and compulsory in all times and places,
then it is possible to impose peace in the Middle East without resorting to the initiation of force.

To explain your point in ways less likely to be misunderstood:

Compelling people to comply with the zero aggression principle is not aggression.  Can some people in the middle east compel most other people in the middle east to comply with the zero aggression principle without themselves committing aggression?

Since mentioning Jews in this context causes some people in this forum to lose their heads, let us instead consider Sunni and Shia.

Muqtada al-Sadr was quelled by Iraqi army troops, and militias tolerated by or associated with the Iraqi army, burning, raping, and massacring Shia's under his authority, while more moderate Shia's looked the other way, and the US army provided a safe haven for these forces to organize and regroup.  Could any other means have been effectual?  Certainly no other means were effectual.
Title: Re: ZAP!!!
Post by: SandySandfort on May 08, 2011, 05:56:19 pm
The mental block I have, and the mistake I keep making, is this: I assume that the ZAP is being presented as a moral imperative...

Interesting question. Remember, words have meaning. "Moral" has a lot of baggage, so I try to use "ethical" instead, but that does not get us out of the woods. Far more ambiguous is the word "imperative." That sounds like something you have to do. The ZAP, is more like much of the Ten Commandment and the Bill of Rights. It is written in the negative. It is less about what you must do, than about what you must not do.

Since we are using human language, it is not possible to cover every possible situations where and when force may be initiated. It will always be a best fit approximation of an underlying principle. Just as Newtonian mechanics represent reality to a very high degree, it is not an ultimate description of reality. Relativity takes care of some edge cases very well, but it too is not an ultimate description of reality. Quantum mechanics clears up some even more arcane issues about reality, but maybe string theory or something else will inch us a bit closer to reality. You never get to your goal of total knowledge, but by successive approximation, you do get ever closer.

So, a good starting place in ethics is the Golden Rule. It works a very high percentage of the time in the real world. The fact that everyone is unique leads to edge cases such as S&M, however. The ZAP clears up those cases quite handily, but issues about what is "force" and degrees of response and how long we may take to respond, etc. are still at issue. I brought in the common law concepts of assault and battery in attempt to give a better approximation of the application of the ZAP. This brought up edge issues about time, degree and the use/application of voluntary dispute resolution. And so it goes.

I am certain that though the ZAP is a work in progress, it is very good statement of an underlying principle of human interaction. This is no different than believing that there are underlying physical laws of the universe, even though all we have ever done is describe successive approximations that work within a range of circumstances.

... which dumps me into the following syllogism -

if the ZAP is a moral imperative, applicable and compulsory in all times and places,
then it is possible to impose peace in the Middle East without resorting to the initiation of force.

The absurdity of the conclusion presumably matches the magnitude of my misconception.

I don't know if your conclusion is is absurd, but I see one big error in your second premise. "Imposing peace" is an oxymoron. At least if by "imposing" you mean "initiating force." (If you mean something else, please be more specific.) Otherwise, it is like positing a an irresistible force existing in the same universe as an immovable object. It is a contradiction at the most fundamental level.

In any case, I hope the concept of the ZAP as a process of successive approximation helps make things clearer. There will always be edge cases that cause us or arbiters to further examine, define and distinguish the ZAP as it applies now and after.

One final thought. If you lived the rest of your life, operating under the first approximation of the ZAP (or even the Golden Rule, for that matter), there will be very few, if any, clarifications needed to live a highly ethical life.
Title: Re: ZAP!!!
Post by: J Thomas on May 08, 2011, 07:04:05 pm
The mental block I have, and the mistake I keep making, is this: I assume that the ZAP is being presented as a moral imperative...

Interesting question. Remember, words have meaning. "Moral" has a lot of baggage, so I try to use "ethical" instead, but that does not get us out of the woods. Far more ambiguous is the word "imperative." That sounds like something you have to do. The ZAP, is more like much of the Ten Commandment and the Bill of Rights. It is written in the negative. It is less about what you must do, than about what you must not do.

And that doesn't get us out of the woods either.

I have noticed this about Quadribloc. He usually cares mostly about what's right. Like, he concludes that we should support Israel because no matter how bad Israel is, the arabs are worse. He thinks because the Nazis were worse than us, we were right to do whatever it took to stop them. It's worth it to give up our civil liberties, because Al Qaeda is so bad. Etc. He seems in general to give unqualified support to the good guys, regardless how good they are, provided they fight somebody worse.

His ZAP issue is not to decide what we must do, or what we must not do. His issue is how far should we go to force other people to live by ZAP. If you don't force other people to go along then it's only an individual ethical framework, not nearly enough to organize a society. To make it the basis for a whole society, you need ways to force everybody to follow ZAP whether they want to or not. But ZAP claims not to do that....

Quote
So, a good starting place in ethics is the Golden Rule. It works a very high percentage of the time in the real world. The fact that everyone is unique leads to edge cases such as S&M, however.

Let's see. S&M is an edge case because people take not the same role but complementary roles. The one who wants to be whipped finds somebody who wants to whip him. Not the golden rule, unless they are both "switches". So it isn't the Golden Rule but instead a case of "Do unto other as as they want you to, while they do unto you as you want them to." Is that it?

Quote
I am certain that though the ZAP is a work in progress, it is very good statement of an underlying principle of human interaction.

It looks like a very good principle to me, that many ethical people will follow. The rough edges can probably be worked out over time, and there's no particular reason to think they'll come out the same way in different circumstances.

Quote
... which dumps me into the following syllogism -

if the ZAP is a moral imperative, applicable and compulsory in all times and places,
then it is possible to impose peace in the Middle East without resorting to the initiation of force.

The absurdity of the conclusion presumably matches the magnitude of my misconception.

I don't know if your conclusion is is absurd, but I see one big error in your second premise. "Imposing peace" is an oxymoron. At least if by "imposing" you mean "initiating force." (If you mean something else, please be more specific.) Otherwise, it is like positing a an irresistible force existing in the same universe as an immovable object. It is a contradiction at the most fundamental level.

He's looking for some approach to unify a whole lot of people. What if you have a ZAP society, and then it gets a lot of immigration and more than half the population winds up not following the ZAP? You can try to peacefully persuade them while they live their own way. There's nothing to say that *can't* work. But if it doesn't? You can move somewhere they won't go. Or you can live as a ZAP minority in a nonZAP society. Most people don't swallow this dilemma. They look for methods to force other people to do it their way.

Quote
One final thought. If you lived the rest of your life, operating under the first approximation of the ZAP (or even the Golden Rule, for that matter), there will be very few, if any, clarifications needed to live a highly ethical life.

Sure, but people tend not to settle for just living a highly ethical life. They want to prevail too. They want their philosophy to take over the world. If you have a society where everybody follows the ZAP, and you are threatened by a society where they don't, how can you protect yourself? If it turns out that you can protect yourself without an aggressive authoritarian army, then good! But if the only way you find to protect your ZAP society is to draft people into an army where the sergeants bark the orders and the soldiers obey, then what can you do? You can give up ZAP by having the army, or you can give up ZAP by losing the war. Or in the worst case you can do both, you can have the army and watch it lose....

It would be pleasant to believe that there is some strategy that always wins. Follow the right approach and nobody will ever beat you up, nobody will ever conquer your society, etc. I can't say a philosophy has failed if it does not give that guarantee.

But if I was certain of the premises, I would say that AnCap must fail. If they cannot protect themselves without a central authority, and they definitely will be attacked by a force they cannot protect themselves from, then they cannot survive. But I don't believe those are inevitable. They will probably happen some times and places and not others. So AnCap societies will probably sometimes survive and sometimes not, like everything else.
Title: Re: ZAP!!!
Post by: SandySandfort on May 08, 2011, 11:16:50 pm
He's looking for some approach to unify a whole lot of people. What if you have a ZAP society, and then it gets a lot of immigration and more than half the population winds up not following the ZAP? You can try to peacefully persuade them while they live their own way. There's nothing to say that *can't* work. But if it doesn't? You can move somewhere they won't go. Or you can live as a ZAP minority in a nonZAP society. Most people don't swallow this dilemma. They look for methods to force other people to do it their way.

Historically, immigrants assimilate. People coming to America dropped their "o" in the ocean, changed the way they dressed and learned English. I see the Belt being no different.

More important, those immigrants all come from societies with their own variations of the ZAP (and the Golden Rule). Since those variations aren't stated overtly, they tend to be fuzzier and contradictory, but they are there. Why? Because they really are a part of human nature. One of the first words kids learn and use is "mine!" Every kid says, "He started it!" These are basic human concepts. What disturbs me is there are people on this Forum--presumably human--who act as though the ZAP is some arcane theory whipped up by fringe political weirdos. It is just a restatement of a basic concept in all societies.

Sure, but people tend not to settle for just living a highly ethical life. They want to prevail too. They want their philosophy to take over the world.

Some people want all sorts of things. Most people want to live in peace more than they want "world domination." You watch too much TV. In any event, "prevailing" is best achieved by first surviving. So avoiding starting trouble with the neighbors is a better strategy for prevailing.

If you have a society where everybody follows the ZAP, and you are threatened by a society where they don't, how can you protect yourself?

We've addressed this issue before. Create a militia and repel the invaders. Remember the ensconced defender has a 3 to 1 advantage over an invader, as well as much greater motivation.

If it turns out that you can protect yourself without an aggressive authoritarian army, then good! But if the only way you find to protect your ZAP society is to draft people into an army...

Do you have any reason to believe that is how it will turn out? If not, why bother discussing it? This sort of runaway speculation is your great error. I see no reason to junk the ZAP because of some unrealistic, unsupported assumption.


Title: Re: ZAP!!!
Post by: sam on May 09, 2011, 12:21:57 am
He's looking for some approach to unify a whole lot of people. What if you have a ZAP society, and then it gets a lot of immigration

Historically, immigrants assimilate.

Historically, immigrants were assimilated.  Not the same thing.  There was massive statist coercion pressuring them to assimilate - government schools that taught what was thinly disguised anglo saxon progressive protestantism up to around 1940 or so, and modern progressivism since.  Unfortunately, modern progressivism has proven less effectual as a tool of assimilation, perhaps because of its lack of moral self confidence.  Observe that Mexicans in California are not assimilating.

What tends to happen over and over again is you get a highly capitalist state, which becomes highly prosperous.  Lots of people flood in from neighboring poverty stricken anti capitalist nations, brought in either as cheap labor, or cheap votes, or, as in California and the Ivory Coast, something of both.  They bring their anti capitalism with them, and vote to make society just like the one they fled.

An anarcho capitalist society will not have the problem of politicians bringing in cheap votes, won't have the problem of people voting against capitalism, or voting against  their neighbors property rights.  But it will have the problem of groups that do not accept property rights, freedom of contract, and freedom of trade.  Such groups have to be coerced.  And since they will organize and act collectively, will have to be coerced collectively.

Now I would not regard such coercion as aggression.  They started it by opposing property rights, attempting to redistribute property, or violating freedom of contract, but I am pretty sure you would.regard it as aggression, if people who oppose property rights as a group, are met with force as a group.

Consider the comparatively capitalist market oriented Christians on the Ivory coast.  How do you say they should have dealt with anti market, anti capitalist (and anti Christian) Muslim immigrant majority?

People coming to America dropped their "o" in the ocean, changed the way they dressed and learned English.

In most of California, people are not learning English.
Title: Re: ZAP!!!
Post by: sam on May 09, 2011, 12:38:01 am
I have noticed this about Quadribloc. He usually cares mostly about what's right. Like, he concludes that we should support Israel because no matter how bad Israel is, the arabs are worse. He thinks because the Nazis were worse than us, we were right to do whatever it took to stop them. It's worth it to give up our civil liberties, because Al Qaeda is so bad. Etc. He seems in general to give unqualified support to the good guys, regardless how good they are, provided they fight somebody worse.

Otherwise, the bad guys win.  War is hell.  You have to do what it takes.
Title: Re: ZAP!!!
Post by: J Thomas on May 09, 2011, 05:39:31 am

More important, those immigrants all come from societies with their own variations of the ZAP (and the Golden Rule). Since those variations aren't stated overtly, they tend to be fuzzier and contradictory, but they are there. Why? Because they really are a part of human nature. One of the first words kids learn and use is "mine!" Every kid says, "He started it!" These are basic human concepts. What disturbs me is there are people on this Forum--presumably human--who act as though the ZAP is some arcane theory whipped up by fringe political weirdos. It is just a restatement of a basic concept in all societies.

If there's nothing new or different involved, why would you expect a different result?

Quote
If you have a society where everybody follows the ZAP, and you are threatened by a society where they don't, how can you protect yourself?

We've addressed this issue before. Create a militia and repel the invaders. Remember the ensconced defender has a 3 to 1 advantage over an invader, as well as much greater motivation.

We have discussed this with no particular result. I myself believe that who wins wars depends partly on military technology. Sometimes it took extremely expensive knights with extremely expensive horses. Sometimes it took large numbers of infantry who were individually cheap. If the wars of the time require stuff you don't have, then you lose.

So I expect that some centuries a quickly-organized militia can win, while other centuries it can't. That's a workable approach when it works, and when it doesn't you need some other approach. I say, if you get an AnCap society going, the possibility that you might lose a war is no reason to give up. Any other system you set up might also lose a war.... But it looks to me like Quadribloc thinks the USA as currently organized won WWII etc, and it's our responsibility to win every war no matter what it takes to do so, because we are the good guys and if we ever lose a war then it means the bad guys win. So if we became an AnCap society that didn't win wars all over the world, that would be a bad thing.

Quote
If it turns out that you can protect yourself without an aggressive authoritarian army, then good! But if the only way you find to protect your ZAP society is to draft people into an army...

Do you have any reason to believe that is how it will turn out? If not, why bother discussing it? This sort of runaway speculation is your great error. I see no reason to junk the ZAP because of some unrealistic, unsupported assumption.

I don't know how it will turn out. If I thought that there was no possible way for an AnCap society to survive, if for example I thought that it would inevitably be conquered quickly by some neighboring militarist nation, then I'd say don't bother.

But I don't know that it must fail and I don't know that it must "succeed".  I think Quadribloc is playing with the idea that it must inevitably fail, and that's why he keeps bringing it up.

When you say things like
Quote
We've addressed this issue before. Create a militia and repel the invaders. Remember the ensconced defender has a 3 to 1 advantage over an invader, as well as much greater motivation.
it sounds to me like you are saying that this solution must inevitably succeed. And that prompts reasonable people to disagree.

But so what if victory isn't inevitable? If there's a fighting chance, then just maybe it's worth putting your life, fortune, and sacred honor into shifting the balance. And if some nervous nellies are afraid maybe it will fail -- OK, that's their right.
Title: Re: ZAP!!!
Post by: SandySandfort on May 09, 2011, 11:58:19 am

More important, those immigrants all come from societies with their own variations of the ZAP (and the Golden Rule). Since those variations aren't stated overtly, they tend to be fuzzier and contradictory, but they are there. Why? Because they really are a part of human nature. One of the first words kids learn and use is "mine!" Every kid says, "He started it!" These are basic human concepts. What disturbs me is there are people on this Forum--presumably human--who act as though the ZAP is some arcane theory whipped up by fringe political weirdos. It is just a restatement of a basic concept in all societies.

If there's nothing new or different involved, why would you expect a different result?

What is new is the specificity of the ZAP. The Golden Rule and similar, were aphorisms and little more. They were recommended codes of personal conduct. As far as I know, they were never the basis for social system or even dispute resolution. See below for more about the ZAP vs. everything else.

When you say things like
Quote
We've addressed this issue before. Create a militia and repel the invaders. Remember the ensconced defender has a 3 to 1 advantage over an invader, as well as much greater motivation.
it sounds to me like you are saying that this solution must inevitably succeed.

You are trying to create a strawman. Re-read what I wrote. I made no such claim. I merely described what people in a market anarchy would probably do. After that, they might win and they might lose.

All I was saying is that there are ways to prepare to defend against national aggression beside drafting the fruit of your loins to kill and be killed to protect you. When you are free and then draft people against their will to fight "for freedom," you have already lost.

So what distinguishes the consistent application of the ZAP from every other theory of human interaction? ZAP is the only positive-sum game on the planet. When two people trade without coercion, they both win.

All other systems, to the extent they permit the initiation of force, are negative-sum strategies. War being the biggest example. Nobody has ever "won" a war; they just lost less than the other guy. Eventually the tables turned and they ended up losing whatever gains they thought they had won. In the end, everyone is worse off.

In EFT did Ceres "win" the war of the worlds? No. They kept their freedom, but they already had that. People died, property was destroyed and wealth was squandered. That is not winning.

In WWII, tens of millions died, many more millions suffered unimaginable horrors, the destruction was almost incomprehensible and the monetary cost was incalculable. But the Allies "won," right? Bullshit, all that happened was that the world was made safe for communism and little tin-pot dictators around the globe. Of course, that has cost the Americans trillions of dollars ever since, preparing for war with the commies, but America "won," right?

Title: Re: ZAP!!!
Post by: quadibloc on May 09, 2011, 12:00:08 pm
If it turns out that you can protect yourself without an aggressive authoritarian army, then good! But if the only way you find to protect your ZAP society is to draft people into an army...

Do you have any reason to believe that is how it will turn out? If not, why bother discussing it? This sort of runaway speculation is your great error. I see no reason to junk the ZAP because of some unrealistic, unsupported assumption.
It's unfortunate Mr. Thomas is bearing the brunt of your annoyance with my sloppy thinking.

While the ZAP is an approximation to the basic moral principles by which people usually live most of their lives, though, the rest of the world may see no reason to junk government, conscript armies, and aerial bombardment of civilians... because of an unsupported assumption that doing so wouldn't lead, in short order, to a worst-nightmare scenario of living under Nazism, Communism, or whatever.

It seems to me that AnCap works just fine on the sparsely populated frontier, but on the crowded Earth where rival ethnicities are jammed together, at population densities that require intensive agriculture... if stealing land from the next tribe over is your only hope of escaping a sixteen-hour day on the farm, people are going to be tempted. That's where government came from, and technological advance hasn't gotten us out of that fix yet, even if conditions even in some of the Third World are better than in ancient Egypt.

And so the "solution" isn't trying to adopt AnCap on a crowded world of rapacious governments where it is suicidal, but rather creating the breathing room where a more civilized way of living together than government is possible. So it seems to me that it makes more sense to persuade people to work on cheap access to space, or to promote population control, than to directly advocate AnCap.
Title: Re: ZAP!!!
Post by: evan on May 09, 2011, 12:09:44 pm
And so the "solution" isn't trying to adopt AnCap on a crowded world of rapacious governments where it is suicidal, but rather creating the breathing room where a more civilized way of living together than government is possible. So it seems to me that it makes more sense to persuade people to work on cheap access to space, or to promote population control, than to directly advocate AnCap.
Seasteading, anyone?
Title: Re: ZAP!!!
Post by: J Thomas on May 09, 2011, 01:43:46 pm

While the ZAP is an approximation to the basic moral principles by which people usually live most of their lives, though, the rest of the world may see no reason to junk government, conscript armies, and aerial bombardment of civilians... because of an unsupported assumption that doing so wouldn't lead, in short order, to a worst-nightmare scenario of living under Nazism, Communism, or whatever.

Well, you may be right. Maybe a whole lot of Americans will refuse to give up their giant expensive armies and even more expensive air forces. Maybe as the expenses mount they will get more desperate and increasingly like the nazis or the communists or whoever it is they're afraid of.

But so what?

Quote
It seems to me that AnCap works just fine on the sparsely populated frontier, but on the crowded Earth where rival ethnicities are jammed together, at population densities that require intensive agriculture... if stealing land from the next tribe over is your only hope of escaping a sixteen-hour day on the farm, people are going to be tempted. That's where government came from, and technological advance hasn't gotten us out of that fix yet, even if conditions even in some of the Third World are better than in ancient Egypt.

Well, that can happen. But it doesn't happen very often. If the intention is to get the other nation's cropland so your farmers can do the farming, there aren't a whole lot of examples in the 20th century. It was rare that we had more than one genocide going on at a time, across the whole world. In the old days there was the option to conquer foreigners and make them your slaves -- they could help with the farming and get one set of rags to wear a year etc. When the famines came the least valuable slaves got worked to death. But that isn't practical any more so if you want to take somebody's food you pretty much need to kill them.

Quote
And so the "solution" isn't trying to adopt AnCap on a crowded world of rapacious governments where it is suicidal, but rather creating the breathing room where a more civilized way of living together than government is possible.

Both might work. Remember too that AnCap is an ideology, like christianity or communism. It promises material wealth. Christianity took over the Roman Empire and perhaps destroyed it from within. It's hard for me to be sure what really happened, but I can see Romans as feeling like they had to be tougher than anybody else because everybody else was out to get them. And then a bunch of Christians weren't out to get them, and that knocked their stuffing out.

If enough people take up AnCap that will severely weaken the governments they come from. And it could spread.

"Hey, we need a strong army so we can take over the land next door and be rich." (That hasn't worked well in the last century or so, has it? It seems like it's worked a lot better to do currency manipulation etc to suck wealth from nations on a mostly-free market.)
"No wait, we can get rid of our government and be richer than we would if we took over the land next door."
"What if we get rich and then they take us over. We need to sacrifice for an army that will protect us from the people next door."
"Oh look, the people next door gave up their government and their army and they're getting rich."
"Well, do we conquer them and take their stuff, or do we do it too?"

If it works, if getting rid of the government actually makes most people rich, that's a powerful boost to an ideology. The communists claimed they could do it in 2 generations and they didn't deliver. If AnCap can demonstrate they can do that, the ideology might spread real fast.

Quote
So it seems to me that it makes more sense to persuade people to work on cheap access to space, or to promote population control, than to directly advocate AnCap.

Do all three. We don't know that we'll ever have a viable economy in space. There's a whole lot of wealth out there, spread very very thin through a gigantic amount of nothing. It's worth trying for, but no need to make that the only arrow in your quiver.
Title: Re: ZAP!!!
Post by: SandySandfort on May 09, 2011, 05:01:19 pm
And so the "solution" isn't trying to adopt AnCap on a crowded world of rapacious governments where it is suicidal, but rather creating the breathing room where a more civilized way of living together than government is possible. So it seems to me that it makes more sense to persuade people to work on cheap access to space, or to promote population control, than to directly advocate AnCap.

Fortunately, it is not an either-or situation. However, I am not in the business of persuading anybody about anything. I live my life as an example put in a plug for the ZAP, space development and other things I value. I'm tried to show how to bring a highly profitable private space development industry to Panama at zero cost to Panamanians (and almost zero cost to space developers, but that is another story). The government types I did talk to, didn't have a clue and, believe it or not, the rocketeers were stuck in a cold war mentality. Oh well, I do what I can.
Title: Re: ZAP!!!
Post by: spudit on May 09, 2011, 07:40:54 pm

Seasteading, anyone?

Works for me.
Title: Re: ZAP!!!
Post by: NeitherRuleNorBeRuled on May 12, 2011, 05:05:14 pm
I suspect that you have an unstated assumption, such as "Assume a system derived from English Common Law", and that not stating it muddies the waters a bit.

Actually, I have stated it numerous times. English Common Law is redundant. All common law was derived from English legal principles (too bad they lost touch with it in England). The differences between English common law, Anglo-American common law, Anglo-New Zealand common law, etc. are few, though there are some major exceptions. Libel/slander being a big one.

Aside from the fact that English Common Law is most certainly not redundant (cf. Icelandic Common Law), it is not at all clear that everyone in this forum is assuming it as a basis for discussion.

Personally, I find English common law to be rather poor -- it relies far too much on precedents, has no reasonable mechanism for replacing older models with improved models as understanding improves, and it creates a need for arcane specialists to utilize it effectively.  Other forms of Natural Law do not suffer from these problems, and would IMHO make a superior basis for AnCap societies.

Attorneys tend to object to this since it is a threat to their livelihood; some object consciously, while others do so simply out of the group mentality.  I strongly suggest that this has resulted in a blind spot in your thinking, Sandy.

I again suggest that the use of English Common Law is an unstated assumption, and further an unsupported assumption.  It is certainly not necessary for ZAP, and it is not at all clear that it is desirable as such a basis for a ZAP-based society.
Title: Re: ZAP!!!
Post by: quadibloc on May 12, 2011, 06:23:17 pm
I again suggest that the use of English Common Law is an unstated assumption, and further an unsupported assumption.  It is certainly not necessary for ZAP, and it is not at all clear that it is desirable as such a basis for a ZAP-based society.
That may well be true. I still haven't looked up Xeer law to know anything about it.

But those who are thinking of English Common Law as an ideal are probably not thinking about what precedents have done to it since Blackstone. It would have to be modified, of course, by what we have learned of human equality since then - but the best of English Common Law hearkens back to the Magna Carta.
Title: Re: ZAP!!!
Post by: SandySandfort on May 12, 2011, 07:22:00 pm
Aside from the fact that English Common Law is most certainly not redundant (cf. Icelandic Common Law), it is not at all clear that everyone in this forum is assuming it as a basis for discussion.

Point taken. In English speaking countries, "common law" almost invariably refers to the English common law, but you are right; I stand corrected. (However, when you see me write "common law." know that I mean "English Common Law" unless I specifically say otherwise.)  :)

Personally, I find English common law to be rather poor -- it relies far too much on precedents, has no reasonable mechanism for replacing older models with improved models as understanding improves, and it creates a need for arcane specialists to utilize it effectively.  Other forms of Natural Law do not suffer from these problems, and would IMHO make a superior basis for AnCap societies.

For starters, it is light years ahead of civil law. Personally I find it astonishingly ease to understand and use. No specialists are needed. Even polymath poseurs can probably figure it out. Your claim that it, "has no reasonable mechanism for replacing older models with improved models as understanding improves," seems completely backwards to me. If you want, we can explore that. However, for the purposes of EFT, the Common Law is the starting point for dispute resolution in the Belt.

Now what could happen is that if you could advocate some other Natural Law basis for dispute resolution in the Belt, I would entertain having it offered in the Belt as a competitive technique. Hell, I've already conceded trial by combat and throwing the I Ching. I l say, "let a hundred flowers bloom." (Unlike Mao, though, I mean it.)  :)

Attorneys tend to object to this since it is a threat to their livelihood; some object consciously, while others do so simply out of the group mentality.  I strongly suggest that this has resulted in a blind spot in your thinking, Sandy.

None of your assumptions apply to me. Heck, I am way more in favor of the Common Law than most lawyers. However come up with something better and it might make its way into EFT.

In fact, I'll make you this offer. If you make a good case for some other form of dispute resolution, with proper links and so forth, I will write a story featuring it. Who knows, maybe even some "overfed, long-haired leaping gnome," will be the arbiter...