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.

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.

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.

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

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.

spudit on May 07, 2011, 08:45:25 am
Gosh and golly.
Vote Early and Vote Often
for EFT
have you voted today?

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.

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.

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.

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?

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.

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.

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.

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 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.
« Last Edit: May 07, 2011, 08:14:51 pm by sam »

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.  ;)


 

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.