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?
« Last Edit: April 26, 2011, 11:03:53 pm by spudit »
Vote Early and Vote Often
for EFT
have you voted today?

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.

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.
Vote Early and Vote Often
for EFT
have you voted today?

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.
Vote Early and Vote Often
for EFT
have you voted today?

Holt on April 26, 2011, 09:52:36 pm
I guess you mean just normal unregulated trade?
Proves nothing really.

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?
« Last Edit: April 26, 2011, 11:12:44 pm by spudit »
Vote Early and Vote Often
for EFT
have you voted today?

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.
« Last Edit: April 27, 2011, 12:33:28 pm by Aardvark »

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.


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

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).

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.

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)

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.
Vote Early and Vote Often
for EFT
have you voted today?

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.

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.

 

anything