Aardvark on April 27, 2011, 10:58:01 pm
Quote
spudit: Does it seem like we each have some daily capacity, say 10,000 units of lawfulness, with the usual human ranges? If so do we start to ration it and does the 100 units required to maintain though shalt not steal start coming up short when we throw in OSHA regs, speed limits and water your lawn on even numbered days only foolishness.

Some laws are put in place purely to generate "revenue" as the government calls it. In some places around NYC, one has to move one's car from one side of the street to the other on certain days of the week so a streetsweeper can go up and down one side of the street or the other. Now these are in areas where parking spaces are sometimes very hard (often impossible at night) to find. It's a great deal for the city. If you don't move your car, you get a ticket. If you do move the car, it's an incredible hassle. One either has to find a convenient parking place on the other side of the street, or drive around until the streetsweeper has passed. It's a great incentive to get rid of your car, or park it one of the local garages at about $12 a day, which provides a steady stream of taxes for the city. There is no way in the world a residential street needs a streetsweeper four times a week, but it, also, has a purpose: it makes the local union happy. The only loser is the poor schmuck who needs a car in the city.

When I spent a couple of weeks there, I couldn't believe that more people weren't pissed off about it. But the well-trained peasants were used to their oppression. They probably voted the same representatives into office every year.

spudit on April 27, 2011, 10:59:18 pm
Thanks. They were from a big regional chain. But 2 months ago, old news. Still have the batch info, I'll look. People freak about storage time way too fast; it's silly.

I'm fine, one damned robust lifeform, just lost a couple pounds and a couple rainy days after painting my ass off, though the onset within minutes with no bad smell, look, color or taste really threw me. I am a former cook and boy was I ever taught food safety, over and over, wasn't me. Now when I got giardia in 94, spent yet another week hiking the Continetal Divide Trail alone in total denial, 3 days resting and 2 more walking out to a Colorado ski town with train service, that was scary.

Mostly it was an example of the sort of situation so often described here. A bad thing and how do we handle it question. To me they are the nice couple at the store and I'm the guy on the boat with the storage unit across the way. We ultra rare nice folks, or so some here say, will settle it just fine between us. I'm curious about how it turns out. Maybe Holt is right about people?

But some, hopefully none here, would have dragged themselves to the ER for medication and documentation then crawled to a lawyer's office to get rich by screwing the other little guy too. Some would.
« Last Edit: April 27, 2011, 11:11:13 pm by spudit »
Vote Early and Vote Often
for EFT
have you voted today?

spudit on April 27, 2011, 11:06:03 pm
I believe it Aardvark, I've mentioned here my brothers who still think Chicago is America.
Vote Early and Vote Often
for EFT
have you voted today?

wdg3rd on April 27, 2011, 11:06:41 pm
Quote
J Thomas: I see. You trust the FDA about this. "The FDA has determined that certain steroids are safe".

I don't trust any agency completely, especially any agency run by this administration, but I do trust that steroids opponents would be doing their best to prove that FDA steroids from beef were bad for human beings. A lack of evidence over so many years is a good sign.
According to the FDA, sugar calms children.

It does.  You ever try to put up with a kid that wanted candy and wasn't getting it?
Ward Griffiths        wdg3rd@aol.com

Men will never be free until the last king is strangled with the entrails of the last priest.  --  Denis Diderot

J Thomas on April 27, 2011, 11:10:35 pm
You know perfectly well what the story was intended to convey -- you intentionally came up with various ways to misinterpret it to claim that it was unclear.

Bullshit.  You are incredibly sloppy, and this is far from the first time.  Further, you're now trying to make prostitutes look as disreputable as you have scientists.

I'm unclear that I have made scientists look disreputable.

Quote
There is a standard form for setting up a scenario, and that is to explicitly give the assumptions up front, followed by the nature of the scenario.  If a question comes up in the scenario that isn't answered by the assumptions, it is an unbound variable, and one may freely choose the worst possible case for the variable.

OK.

Person A knows that Person B has many sexual partners. Person A knows that Person B is carrying a serious STD. Person B when asked, refuses to get treatment or even testing to establish that the STD is real.

I say that in AnCap society Person A has no obligation to do anything. It is prudent under the circumstances for Person A to avoid having sex with Person B.

However, if Person A does not want to live among an epidemic which might reduce the economic productivity (and perhaps military readiness etc) of the area, it might be a good idea to do something.

What can be done according to ZAP about this?

I suggest several possibilities.

A. Call for arbitration. It could be argued that people do not have the right to intentionally be reservoirs of epidemic disease. An arbitrator might demand that Person B get tested, and if the tests are positive, to get treatment. On the other hand an arbitrator might say that it is nobody's business but Person B's, that sovereign individuals do have the right to be vectors of epidemic disease if they want to be.

B. Rather than wait for the delays of arbitration, use physical force to require testing, and when the tests are positive, treatment. This handles the public health problem about as rapidly as possible, which is a good thing. But Person A might then be open to lawsuit for initiating physical force. What would an arbitrator say? How much would the positive test results count in Person A's favor? I suspect that the arbitrator's answers might be very favorable if he was one of Person B's occasional sex partners who was exposed to the STD. But in other circumstances being one of Person B's sex partners might lead him to bias in favor of Person B.

C. Rather than do anything directly about Person B's refusal to get treatment, publish the truth. This has the advantage that many of Person B's sex partners who recognise the name or photo (as opposed to not exchanging names and wearing bags over their heads) will get tested themselves. Then they can announce their own status so that their own sex partners will know to get testing. Person B might still sue, and if I was arbitrating I would want a test done. If it's true, then Person A has every right to publish it. After successful treatment Person B can publish the new tests.

Quote
Is Ginger, in fact, a prostitute?

I don't care.

Quote
Does she advertise this fact (there are some ladies who are quite discreet about it, or UTR - "Under The Radar")?

I don't care.

Quote
Are there legal or cultural restrictions to prostitution where this occurred?

I don't care. But do these issues actually affect the proper ZAP approach? Maybe I ought to care. Do prevailing legal and cultural restrictions determine whether something is aggression or not? Are there actions which are not aggression in one culture but are aggression in another? That would complicate the ZAP a bit, wouldn't it?

Quote
It would be extremely unlikely that a prostitute would delay treatment and knowingly pass on an STD (unless they were seeking to be infected -- see "bug chaser"); that would hurt business quickly and dramatically.

If we assume that the people in our stories are reasonable, rational, cooperative, and acting consistently in their long-term best interests, then usually there isn't much of a story there. People cooperate and work out their problems without any need for third parties to get involved at all, and it's all peachy-creamy. Stories where there is some AnCap ZAP issue to resolve require that somebody be stupidly unreasonable and that others must find a way to deal with that. Otherwise there is no issue.

"What if a nation-state tries to invade an AnCap society and force them to do stuff?"

"Well, if the foreign army consists of reasonable people they will see that AnCap is so much better that they'll leave the army and join AnCap. And reasonable leaders in the foreign nation will see that they would be better off as private citizens in an AnCap area than leaders of a government, so they'll disband their government and be AnCap too." (This is not actually unreasonable. Just as in some ways modern welfare recipients live better than medieval kings.... If it's true that government takes 80%=90% of everything and wastes it, imagine a society with 5 to 10 times as much capital, and 5 to 10 times as much R&D etc. It might not take long for average citizens to be wealthier than previous national leaders.) But we sure can't expect people to believe arguments that depend on soldiers and politicians being reasonable!

Quote
Quote
I don't see why you insist on knowing all the details when it's the consequences that are interesting.

As I said, the consequences would probably be for the person posting the information to lose credibility.

A good reason to MYOB. ZAP says not to do aggression to stop epidemics. Arbitrators might reasonably ask why it's any of your business when you aren't getting infected. If you spread true information you can expect to make enemies and lose credibility. Maybe it's better to Mind Your Own Business. It Is Somebody Else's Problem. Epidemics are not the problem of anybody in particular. Let the free market handle them.
« Last Edit: April 27, 2011, 11:15:51 pm by J Thomas »

Rorschach on April 27, 2011, 11:16:22 pm
The purpose of laws is not to be obeyed, but to ensure that government officials can punish anyone at will.  Obeying the law does not make one less likely to be punished, nor does disobeying it make one more likely to be punished.

Consider also that the purpose of a great many laws - arguably the majority - passed to "regulate" commercial activites (supposedly for "the public good" or "consumer protection" or "market efficiency") are in fact nothing more than government thuggery perpetrated to preserve politically connected actors already established in their markets from competition by raising the entry costs to levels which newcomers cannot profitably sustain. 

Are you familiar with the "Breakages, Ltd." concept Heinlein mentioned in his short story "Let There Be Light" (1940)?
Agreed to both posts. When the population finally realized this, they got upset. The overabundance of punitive damages applied to anyone is one of the reasons the Roman Empire fell.

Rorschach on April 27, 2011, 11:25:52 pm
According to the FDA, sugar calms children.
It does.  You ever try to put up with a kid that wanted candy and wasn't getting it?
I have, and after the withdrawals went away the child was cured of ADHD. The child in question had actually been expelled from preschool due to behavioral issues. The sugar withdrawals appeared as cranky behavior though, not hyperactive behavior. In other words, sugar only appeased that kid, never calmed. After several days of absolutely no sugar, the child was calm and sweet all the time, the withdrawals only lasted a day or two. The most interesting thing about the FDA report is that they refused to acknowledge ANY hyperactive tendencies while under the influence of sugar.

Regarding the example of the woman who has an STD, here is my stance.
If she is a whore, she should be required to be labeled as infected when providing a commercial service. HOW is up to the culture.
If we have a truly free market economy, the treatment is unlikely to cost more than $50 and $10k is preposterous. In the US, a General MD needs to carry about $50k of malpractice insurance and needs to hire 2-4 people to interface with the insurance companies. This creates an additional $100-200k of overhead while doing nothing more than pill pushing and writing referrals. Add in the fact the insurance will on reimburse 40-60% of the time, taxes, the cost of the office, etc and your $5 pill is a $100 visit and a $50 pill minimum. The only reason for a $5k medical procedure is to pay off large companies or large equipment with the additional overhead of insurance, etc.

wdg3rd on April 27, 2011, 11:38:34 pm

Some laws are put in place purely to generate "revenue" as the government calls it. In some places around NYC, one has to move one's car from one side of the street to the other on certain days of the week so a streetsweeper can go up and down one side of the street or the other. Now these are in areas where parking spaces are sometimes very hard (often impossible at night) to find. It's a great deal for the city. If you don't move your car, you get a ticket. If you do move the car, it's an incredible hassle. One either has to find a convenient parking place on the other side of the street, or drive around until the streetsweeper has passed. It's a great incentive to get rid of your car, or park it one of the local garages at about $12 a day, which provides a steady stream of taxes for the city. There is no way in the world a residential street needs a streetsweeper four times a week, but it, also, has a purpose: it makes the local union happy. The only loser is the poor schmuck who needs a car in the city.


Bad news.  Just waiting for the sweeper to pass will not save you from a ticket if you are on that side of the street during any of the hours involved.  Whether the street is swept that month or not.  Parking is forbidden in front of my house (not by me) between the hours of 8am and noon on Wednesdays.  Typically, the street sweeper (and his faithful police escort) pass by by 0830.  However, if someone parks there before noon, there is every chance that some other example of police presence will stumble by and engage in a bit of municipal revenue enhancement rather than prevent or solve a real crime.  This is less than a dozen miles across the Hudson from Manhattan.

And if you think you can park anywhere in the Five Boroughs for $12 per day, I assume you mean the monthly rate in a neighborhood where I wouldn't risk getting out of the car and walking to a subway station to get where I actually needed to be.  (Too likely to be victimized or labeled a criminal for defending myself in a city where self-defense is illegal, especially self-defense with appropriate hardware, and possession of appropriate hardware illegal anyway).  Daily rates are easily a magnitude greater, especially if near anywhere you'd want to live, work or shop.
Ward Griffiths        wdg3rd@aol.com

Men will never be free until the last king is strangled with the entrails of the last priest.  --  Denis Diderot

wdg3rd on April 27, 2011, 11:47:33 pm
I'm fine, one damned robust lifeform, just lost a couple pounds and a couple rainy days after painting my ass off, though the onset within minutes with no bad smell, look, color or taste really threw me. I am a former cook and boy was I ever taught food safety, over and over, wasn't me. Now when I got giardia in 94, spent yet another week hiking the Continetal Divide Trail alone in total denial, 3 days resting and 2 more walking out to a Colorado ski town with train service, that was scary.

If you get in the situation again, a drug I take every day has been shown to be somewhat effective against giardia and similar parasites.  In fact, that's what the lab that discovered it was trying to do.  Due to side effects that are the very reason I take the drug, it has never been approved by the FDA for that purpose.  Google disulfiram or the trade name, Antabuse.
Ward Griffiths        wdg3rd@aol.com

Men will never be free until the last king is strangled with the entrails of the last priest.  --  Denis Diderot

SandySandfort on April 27, 2011, 11:53:09 pm
You know perfectly well what the story was intended to convey -- you intentionally came up with various ways to misinterpret it to claim that it was unclear.

Bullshit.  You are incredibly sloppy, and this is far from the first time.  Further, you're now trying to make prostitutes look as disreputable as you have scientists.

There is a standard form for setting up a scenario, and that is to explicitly give the assumptions up front, followed by the nature of the scenario.  If a question comes up in the scenario that isn't answered by the assumptions, it is an unbound variable, and one may freely choose the worst possible case for the variable.

Sorry, J Thomas, but NeitherRuleNorBeRuled is right. Your scenario and many others posited on this Forum are incredibly imprecise. They just wander all over the place, change terms, leave out relevant details. Writing is an art and a science. You cannot think logically and rationally, if you cannot write logically and rationally. So my advice is drop the "stream of consciousness" approach and fully communicate in a structured manner.

SandySandfort on April 28, 2011, 12:27:00 am
In practice, people do not have explicit contracts before having sex, which makes the zero aggression principle fairly useless in family matters.

Yeah, you said that before. What you have failed to do is give any logical reason why a failure to have a contract somehow obviates the ZAP. When a robber takes your money at gun-point, there is no contract either, but the relevance of the ZAP is patently obvious. What makes domestic situations different? That is the $64 question, you have failed to address. I am eliding most of your subsequent statements, because the are based on the rather silly notion that the ZAP requires contracts to be relevant. Please re-listen to the YouTube animation. Tell me where it claims that contract is a fundamental aspect of the ZAP. When you find it, please let us know at what minute and second we can find it on the video.

Now this is a telling admission:

You have surely noticed that women never consent in words to sex, and frequently protest all the way to the bedroom.

I have notices no such thing. As a libertarian fuddy-duddy, I require that the women with whom I am intimate, explicitly agree to it. This has never proven difficult. Usually, it is verbally explicit (your sad history of failure with woman to the contrary, not withstanding). Sometimes it is non-verbal, but clearly constitutes consent (or have I misinterpreted it when they have yanked my crank?). If they "protest all the way to the bedroom" (rare), well, it doesn't happen. "No" means "no." Man, your sex life must suck.

Quote from: SandySandfort link=topic=566.msg14498#msg14498
What does that mean? As an example, let's say I go into McDonald's, go up to the counter person and say, "Give me the Big Mac Combo with a diet Coke and super-size it." When the cashier gives me my order may I just walk away without paying?

Your analogy is inapplicable to sexual relationships and family formation.   Indeed, the very fact that you find yourself reaching for such an inappropriate analogy, demonstrates the irrelevance of the Zero Aggression Principle to sexual relationships and family formation. 

Huh? Again you state a conclusion, but I don't provide support for it.

I notice you failed to address my question about your personal experience as a patriarch. My working assumption is that you are young, single, gynophobic, sexually frustrated and clearly--based on your own words--more than willing to commit date rape. How am I doing so far?

spudit on April 28, 2011, 12:29:54 am
Thanks, Antabuse for giardia, whoda thunk.  I couldn't drink on the Cipro either so why not.
Vote Early and Vote Often
for EFT
have you voted today?

Rorschach on April 28, 2011, 12:53:35 am
In practice, people do not have explicit contracts before having sex, which makes the zero aggression principle fairly useless in family matters.
I either get full consent, or tease her until she initiates sexual relations. ZAP is the only way to handle sex IMHO. Anything else is called "rape" in my book. Now one thing I would like is a good disclosure set, and the ability for a person to selectively offer up their medical history relating to sexual matters, with a PGP key signing the documents from a doctor. In other words, verifiable medical history kept private until revealed. The technology is within our grasp, it is just about a month of programming work and a ton of law changes.

sams on April 28, 2011, 03:28:38 am
Are you mad bro ? Do you even fracking know me  ::)

I don't respond to pompous morons, make a point of shut the frack up.

Because I used the word conservative you go about giving me lectures about how totalitarian I am and give me the standard Atheist BS grand standing sermon, get a grip of fuck off.


I'd concluded my post above with the expression of my desire to see sams and his social/traditionalist "conservative" co-religionists make a logically supported case to the effect that the criminalization of man-boy sexual activities (or the less formal violent aggressions perpetrated against what he likes to call the "NAMBLOID" folk) is justified by actual objectively demonstrated harm done to anyone involved in such activities.

In response sams wrote (and I'm quoting him in his post's entirety):

You are either being a moron, so willing to have ''Online debate smack down'' orgasm that you are fracking confounding me with some else.

No fracking address my points or go get some fracking blow job and stop fantasying has Champion of liberty in a forum ... especially when you are behaving like a moron.

...thereby proving that sams' brain is, indeed, working on outdated software.


Great plot twist there EFT team, a strip tease show to distracts all the troops  ;D
« Last Edit: April 28, 2011, 03:49:03 am by sams »

Rorschach on April 28, 2011, 03:59:35 am
Don't forget that they are required to kick the guy while he's down. They chose a dominatrix style outfit, which will allow them to fulfill their part of the bargain to the letter without giving the UW the negative propaganda involving an "aggressive Ceres citizen" beating up the poor UW tourist. If the UW did air the video, it would only increase tourism to Ceres.

 

anything