Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

SoylentNews is people

posted by martyb on Monday December 04 2017, @08:24PM   Printer-friendly
from the getting-shafted dept.

For decades, people in the US have been given a song and dance by the telecoms about how tax cuts, surcharges, and a long list of other expenses are necessary for telecoms to "invest" in infrastructure. The concessions are granted again and again, but the investments are never actually made. In all, US taxpayers have paid $400 Billion in taxes and Internet surcharges for fiber optic upgrades that never happened.


Original Submission

 
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
Display Options Threshold/Breakthrough Mark All as Read Mark All as Unread
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
  • (Score: 3, Interesting) by Thexalon on Tuesday December 05 2017, @01:20AM (58 children)

    by Thexalon (636) on Tuesday December 05 2017, @01:20AM (#605448)

    Get the government out of the business of allocating resources

    Every single government that has ever existed is in the business of allocating resources, because that's the way anybody does anything.

    For example, let's say you want government to do the bare minimum that most libertarians are OK with having government do: Enforce some basic criminal laws like prohibitions against murder and robbery, and help to enforce contracts. Well, to do that, you need to allocate the resources to have some people whose job it is to catch the criminals so they can be punished and/or force those on the receiving end of civil judgments to actually pay their bill. If you don't do this, then there ain't no such thing as the government.

    Now, the anarcho-capitalists think "Well, we don't even need that. Let's just get rid of the court system entirely. Everyone will simply adopt gold as the medium of exchange, and business will carry on without regulations." The thing is, that only works until somebody has the idea of "Hey, I have better weapons and am a better shot than other people, so I'm going to demand that everybody give me gold or I'll shoot them!" At which point you in relatively short order get a feudal system. Or somebody is charismatic enough to go with "Hey everybody, this guy is threatening to shoot everyone if we don't give them gold! Why don't you let me lead a posse to take him out?", followed by "Hey, my posse got the bad guy, but there's this other bad guy who's been stirring up trouble, can I get that guy too?", followed by "Hey, if you guys just give me gold every month, me and my posse will take out the bad guys in your area for you!" And now you have a police force.

    --
    The only thing that stops a bad guy with a compiler is a good guy with a compiler.
    Starting Score:    1  point
    Moderation   +1  
       Interesting=1, Total=1
    Extra 'Interesting' Modifier   0  
    Karma-Bonus Modifier   +1  

    Total Score:   3  
  • (Score: 1, Redundant) by Scrutinizer on Tuesday December 05 2017, @08:28AM (57 children)

    by Scrutinizer (6534) on Tuesday December 05 2017, @08:28AM (#605548)

    The key thing you're overlooking there in your otherwise rather compelling argument is that your example posse is operating using funds obtained voluntarily.

    I see nothing incompatible with individual authority being the maximum any organization can legitimately possess and a private, paid police force that only operates at the request of its customers (and within the realm of individual authority - force only used in response to the initiation of force or fraud).

    Modern police forces extort their operating expenses out of the population under threat of lethal force.

    • (Score: 2) by GreatAuntAnesthesia on Tuesday December 05 2017, @12:26PM (56 children)

      by GreatAuntAnesthesia (3275) on Tuesday December 05 2017, @12:26PM (#605591) Journal

      Right. And when the posse runs out of bad guys to shoot, what's to stop them manufacturing bad guys to keep themselves in work and in power? What's to stop them turning from a posse into a protection racket? Once they have amassed enough gold, what's to stop the racketeers then diversifying their control - perhaps buying the local media? When some concerned do-gooder sees what's wrong and steps in (maybe forms a posse of his own) then what's to stop the first posse from branding their rivals as terrorists / traitors / communists to the public and then shooting them dead? Once the local citizenry is suitably cowed, they can extend their reach in to the next town, and the next.

      In other words, once they have a little bit of power, what's to stop them extending and abusing that power? Power begets power, money begets money. Before you know it, you'll have the whole country in the iron fist of some sociopath with a silly moustache and a chest full of unearned medals.

      • (Score: 1) by redneckmother on Tuesday December 05 2017, @01:30PM

        by redneckmother (3597) on Tuesday December 05 2017, @01:30PM (#605610)

        Interesting points.

        Before you know it, you'll have the whole country in the iron fist of some sociopath with a silly moustache and a chest full of unearned medals.

        ... s/silly moustache/goofy orange wig/

        --
        Mas cerveza por favor.
      • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday December 05 2017, @01:32PM (3 children)

        by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday December 05 2017, @01:32PM (#605611)

        National governments exist in anarchy.

        There has never been, and there never will be, One World Government.

        What has kept Tyranny in check is competition; that is the truest, most robust separation of powers. Even the most anti-capitalist regimes have been kept in check through necessary competition amongst themselves.

        What capitalism does is recognize the value of such competition, and makes it more peaceful by explicitly trying to cultivate a cultural respect for voluntary interaction, where "voluntary" is defined by the enforcement of contracts that are negotiated in advance of interaction; this is an iterative, evolutionary process—society evolves under capitalism according to variation (supplier competition) and selection (consumer choice). There's no need for a Dear Leader; there's no need for an Intelligent Designer. Given enough time, the capitalist organizations would be strong enough to maintain that culture without people having to think too much about it.

        • (Score: 4, Insightful) by GreatAuntAnesthesia on Tuesday December 05 2017, @02:31PM (2 children)

          by GreatAuntAnesthesia (3275) on Tuesday December 05 2017, @02:31PM (#605634) Journal

          A simplistic platitude which addresses none of the concerns I raise.

          1 - THERE WILL NEVER BE A ONE WORLD GOVERNMENT. Did I say that there would? Break free of your copy-pasta and try thinking.

          2 - Evolution, survival of the fittest. Yes, these things can be applied to businesses and societies and so on and it all sounds so nice, so natural. Almost makes me want to hug a lentil.
                    However anyone who understands evolution also understands that evolution does not always steer change towards what we humans would regard as "better". Things only ever evolve towards "more fit to survive in its current environment". If you create an unregulated dog-eat-dog environment, then you can be sure that evolution will produce a big, mean, cannibalistic dog.

          3 - Evolution has no understanding of long-term consequences. Evolution will quite happily produce something that devours all available resources and then starves to death. Any capitalist organisation with a fifty year plan to mitigate global warming or some other great environmental crisis will be out-competed and killed in the short term by those that don't give a shit. See also: Tragedy of the commons.

          4 - You also fail to take into account that evolution is a dumb process, while people are smart enough to game it to their own advantage and the detriment of others. They can restrict variation by either eliminating or co-opting the competition. They can manipulate selection by suppressing knowledge, misinforming customers and using psychological hacking (aka advertising) to make people select against their best interests.

          5 - Capitalist organisations, with a few notable exceptions, aren't interested in maintaining culture. Mostly they are interested in accumulating power, maximising profits and driving consumption.

          • (Score: 2) by Thexalon on Tuesday December 05 2017, @10:17PM (1 child)

            by Thexalon (636) on Tuesday December 05 2017, @10:17PM (#605853)

            1 - THERE WILL NEVER BE A ONE WORLD GOVERNMENT. Did I say that there would? Break free of your copy-pasta and try thinking.

            Such a world government would form under exactly one circumstance: The discovery of space aliens. Fairly quickly, one of two things would happen:
            1. The various national governments would join together to defend Earthicans from the invading space aliens.
            2. The various national governments would join together to beat, rob, enslave, and otherwise dominate the space aliens.

            And that would be true whether the space aliens had actually come to present some kind of threat, or had come as more of a "Hey, how are you, nice to meet you, would you like to trade?"

            --
            The only thing that stops a bad guy with a compiler is a good guy with a compiler.
            • (Score: 2) by GreatAuntAnesthesia on Wednesday December 06 2017, @10:10AM

              by GreatAuntAnesthesia (3275) on Wednesday December 06 2017, @10:10AM (#606062) Journal

              3 - the various national governments would band together, taking on unprecendented levels of emergency powers while promising to protect the people of Earth from the alien threat. Then they'd secretly sign a deal with our new Interstellar Overlords, condemning the vast majority of the human population to toil in the alien sugar mines while a select few live in sheltered luxury.

      • (Score: 3, Interesting) by Spook brat on Tuesday December 05 2017, @08:07PM (50 children)

        by Spook brat (775) on Tuesday December 05 2017, @08:07PM (#605790) Journal

        You're asking the wrong question. The relevant questions here are:
        1) How does the Patreon Posse respond to one or more people simply not making their donations, for whatever reason (indigence, stubbornness, etc)?
        2) Assuming that such a system of voluntary payment exists, what social pressure is reasonable to convince new community members to join the compact? [1]

        Our Anarcho-Capitalist poster has never proposed a reasonable method for making sure their proposed society grows beyond the first generation or gracefully accepts visitors/new residents. From experience I can assure you their reply to how we stop the posse from becoming a group of bandits is "competition", since they don't understand game theory.

        [1] this includes teenager reaching age of majority as well as immigrants and tourists/other visitors

        --
        Travel the galaxy! Meet fascinating life forms... And kill them [schlockmercenary.com]
        • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday December 06 2017, @12:11AM (49 children)

          by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday December 06 2017, @12:11AM (#605908)

          Those questions are irrelevant, as the status quo version of the "pateron posse" already exhibits the worst potential behavior of the PP, which is that they extract others' money they feel entitled to under threat of lethal force. We already have the worst-case "PP scenario" happening right now; it can only stay the same or get better from this point.

          The "Anarcho-Capitalist" poster doesn't NEED to provide a "forever plan" for coercing new people to join up. That's the very essence of voluntary interaction. If you prefer that social interactions be mandatory and enforced at gunpoint, congratulations: you're a slavery advocate. Reality is harsh and doesn't care about your feels. A spade is still a spade.

          • (Score: 2) by NotSanguine on Wednesday December 06 2017, @02:10AM (23 children)

            by NotSanguine (285) <NotSanguineNO@SPAMSoylentNews.Org> on Wednesday December 06 2017, @02:10AM (#605946) Homepage Journal

            The "Anarcho-Capitalist" poster doesn't NEED to provide a "forever plan" for coercing new people to join up. That's the very essence of voluntary interaction. If you prefer that social interactions be mandatory and enforced at gunpoint, congratulations: you're a slavery advocate. Reality is harsh and doesn't care about your feels. A spade is still a spade.

            That's absolutely right. And when my set of "voluntary interactions" voluntarily decide that our way is the right way -- the only way -- and your set of "voluntary interactions" doesn't agree, then from my perspective, you become a threat to *everyone* and must be destroyed or we're all doomed.

            I don't want to kill you and yours and take your stuff, it's just that you're so *wrong*. And if you don't agree with me, you are being coercive because we can't reach the obvious voluntary agreement: that you're wrong and I'm right. And so you force me to kill you and take your stuff.

            The obvious response would be "Rational, intelligent actors will just voluntarily choose not to interact with those who disagree and won't come to a rational, reasonable resolution of the disagreement."

            The rub is that not all humans are rational, intelligent or reasonable. In fact, some are irrational, delusional and completely sociopathic.

            If my group believes that in order for the world to prosper, or even survive, each male requires six pre-pubescent girls to use for pleasure and procreation. And not having these things is an existential threat. As such, we need to procure those girls. It's a matter of life and death.

            We want you to join us and share in our voluntary interaction utopia. But each member *must* provide girl babies. At least one every five years. Or we're all doomed. Unfortunately, we don't have enough women (yet) to be self-sufficient. So we attempt to enter into a voluntary agreement with your group.

            Your group is (and properly so) horrified at the prospect and won't negotiate as long as my group insists on that point. So now you're not willing to negotiate in good faith, and since this is an existential issue, you force us to kill you and your men and take your women.

            This is just off the top of my head, so I'm sure I'm missing some important details. However, the point (if it isn't clear enough already) is that delusional, psychotic, sociopathic and just plain nasty people exist. And some can be negotiated into voluntary agreements, but many can't.

            And that's the crux of the problem with anarcho-capitalism. Humans are too varied in their beliefs, mental health, levels of knowledge, intelligence, empathy and ethical standards to ensure that voluntary agreements are always possible. What's more, humans are too numerous to allow groups of any size to separate themselves from the rest of humanity to avoid these issues.

            And if I and my compatriots share beliefs and practices that are critical, existential issues for us, and you don't (and won't) share them, then within our cone of delusion, we really have no choice but to utterly destroy anyone who won't play along. And we (in our minds) aren't evil, bloodthirsty or cruel. We just need to make sure we can survive. To that end, if you need to forfeit your life, property and/or family because you won't voluntarily agree to do things that violate the beliefs and practices that are critical and existential to *you*, then so be it.

            TL;DR: in areas with more than a few thousand humans, systems like anarcho-capitalism will inevitably devolve into warring factions that will murder, maim and destroy until there is a single victor. That's not the sort of world in which I want to live. Thanks, but no thanks.

            --
            No, no, you're not thinking; you're just being logical. --Niels Bohr
            • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday December 06 2017, @05:34AM (21 children)

              by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday December 06 2017, @05:34AM (#606003)

              For someone so obsessed with dictionary meanings at least insofar as it pertains to your moniker, you'd think you'd know the most common meaning of the word "voluntary".

              A voluntary interaction does not occur unless all parties are willing participants. If someone tries to force the participation of an unwilling party, well, as they say, "there's your problem right there". That tiny issue torpedoes your entire straw man. This sort of bad-faith "argument" is an example of what I previously referred to in regards to your having gone off the rails of reason.

              TL;DR: I understand you believe that living as a slave in a society based on slavery is the best way to live. I vehemently disagree.

              • (Score: 2) by NotSanguine on Wednesday December 06 2017, @06:51AM (20 children)

                by NotSanguine (285) <NotSanguineNO@SPAMSoylentNews.Org> on Wednesday December 06 2017, @06:51AM (#606014) Homepage Journal

                A voluntary interaction does not occur unless all parties are willing participants.

                That was, in fact, exactly my point.

                It's a beautiful idea. We all work to create a society based on agreeing on the things that matter to us. It would be just wonderful!

                The problem, as I stated (and illustrated) is that not all humans are reasonable, rational people, even if they believe themselves to be so.

                And when you attempt to engage in negotiations with the goal of achieving an agreement/contract with which all parties are satisfied, but one (or more) of the parties is delusional, psychotic, sociopathic or just plain selfish, it all falls apart.

                Your tl;dr appears to be a non-sequitur. Would you mind explaining how your (incorrect) assertion that I am a slave is in any way related to the otehr thoughts you expressed?

                --
                No, no, you're not thinking; you're just being logical. --Niels Bohr
                • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday December 06 2017, @07:34AM (19 children)

                  by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday December 06 2017, @07:34AM (#606026)

                  Delusional, psychotic, sociopathic, or just plain selfish people will almost certainly run out of willing participants to engage them in a society where all interactions are to be voluntary. If they try to force interaction over the other's wishes, well, that's absolutely no different than the behavior of a mugger, fraudster, or rapist today. Very few will mourn the death of a would-be rapist killed at the feet of the would-be victim. Think what you will about human nature, but in spite of the Milgram experiment [wikipedia.org] suggesting that people tend to obey those they perceive to be authority figures at any cost, it also highlights average folks' unwillingness to harm others. One potential solution to the problem of malicious authority figures is to demolish the very concept of a legitimate authority figure who possesses authority (e.g. the right to use power/force) greater than a single typical individual.

                  As for what you see as a non-sequitur, it is absolutely core to what is the foundation of practical social reality. Focusing on the USA exclusively for the moment, where did the current federal government obtain its power? The historical answer is via delegates at the Philadelphia Convention and from absolutely no other source - not the Declaration, not the Articles, etc. Delegation is an interesting concept: one takes a thing one possesses and hands it over to another. Stated another way: one cannot delegate what one does not already possess. If I can't take half of your production for my own self, neither can I delegate that task to, say, the IRS. If I cannot kidnap you at gunpoint and lock you in a cage over your ingestion of plant material, neither then can I delegate authority to do the same to the Drug Enforcement Agency.

                  Were I to attempt to steal from you or kidnap you under what authority I have as an individual, I'd rightly be called a thief and a kidnapper. If I kidnap people enmasse for arbitrary reasons (using power no lone individual has authority to use) and benefit from their captivity, well, a common term for that is "slaver". If a person lives their life under the power of a slaver, they're most likely a slave. There's no need for leg irons, chains, and whips when the livestock self-reports every few years for their papers, arranges to have their produce delivered to the owner, and doesn't cause too much disruption among the other livestock.

                  • (Score: 2) by NotSanguine on Wednesday December 06 2017, @09:21AM (6 children)

                    by NotSanguine (285) <NotSanguineNO@SPAMSoylentNews.Org> on Wednesday December 06 2017, @09:21AM (#606050) Homepage Journal

                    History (recent history too) is littered with Delusional, psychotic, sociopathic, or just plain selfish people that had/have enormous power and resources.

                    Actually a majority of voters in the several states ratified the constitution, not just the delegates. It almost didn't pass.

                    What's more, over the past 240+ years, we've expanded the franchise and now all citizens over the age of 18 *can* participate in selecting those who will represent us in our towns, counties, states and national governments. We do this by voluntary agreement. I'm not sure where you live, but I am, most certainly, free and able to function in our society without coercion, violence or the threat of violence.

                    Do I agree with everything the subset of the population we've selected to manage the issues which are too big for any one person to deal with? Not even a little. In fact, I've been pretty disappointed with my fellow Americans for quite some time, as their *voluntary* choices for those people don't live up to my standards.

                    As for your anarcho-capitalist notions, except in small communities, it's unworkable (please name one society with more than, say, 5,000 people that has *ever* successfully managed its affairs without delegating authority to a subset of its population) not to designate (in the case of the US, by democratic means) a subset of the population to address all the issues, problems and infrastructure.

                    What's that? we can come to voluntary agreements with service providers to handle that for us? Wait. That's delegation, isn't it? You're selecting (by different means than we do currently) a subset of the population to handle the issues that a single person is unable to do him or herself.

                    Why is your method any better than the one we use now? I think the consequences of such a structure would be much worse.

                    Clearly we're not going to agree on this. What's more, the vast majority of us "slaves" (I chuckle every time I see that -- at least you're amusing), don't think your anarcho-capitalist ideas have enough merit to try out here.

                    That's not to say there isn't a place for capitalism and market economics. It's a very powerful and useful set of tools. However, it's not the answer to *every* issue.

                    Do you really feel as if you're enslaved in the United States (assuming you are in the US)? If so, that's horrible. Unfortunately fpr you, as I mentioned the vast majority of the population doesn't agree. As such, you have a lot of convincing to do if you want voluntary agreement on *your* ideas about self-government.

                    And that's fine. Shout it from the rooftops! Publish books and articles. Make your voice heard! That's another wonderful thing about the US, you can speak your mind and say just about anything and that's just fine. In fact, many (even if they don't agree with you, including myself) would stand up if anyone tried to silence you.

                    Given that it's highly unlikely that your vision of society will come to pass in the United States anytime in either of our lifetimes, especially if you feel you're being oppressed, stolen from and under the constant threat of violence by armed thugs, perhaps you and some other like-minded folks can go and make it work somewhere.

                    I guarantee that if you can be successful, you will be much happier and freer than you feel now. I know I'd be really unhappy here if I felt as you did.

                    Assuming you're an American citizen or a legal resident, you may come and go as you please. As such, perhaps you could make the effort at actually implementing the society you say you want.

                    I understand that these folks [seasteading.org] think much the same way you do. Perhaps a voluntary agreement could be negotiated between you and each of the other people who wish to participate. It may well be your best chance to realize your political dreams.

                    Note that I am not advocating any action on your part. Rather, I'm making you aware (if you're not already) that there are folks that aren't just talking about the sort of society you say that you want, they're trying to create it. I wish them the best and hope they succeed. And whether you choose to join them or not, I have no *personal* axe to grind with you.

                    The concept of anarcho-capitalism is, like the concept of communism are fabulous ideas that, if implemented as their proponents imagine it could be, would make for wonderful societies. Unfortunately, history has shown that successfully implementing such societies on any scale is likely a pipe dream. That's sad.

                    I do admire the concepts, but I believe they are incompatible with any society larger than a few thousand people.

                    As I said, we're not going to agree about this. But I wish you all the best and I hope that you find a place for yourself where you don't feel threatened, used, enslaved and afraid. I wouldn't wish that on anyone.

                    I've repeated myself several times over the past eight or nine posts, mostly to give you a chance to recognize that just because someone disagrees with you, they aren't necessarily evil or scheming to take your life or property.

                    I won't continue to repeat myself, mostly beacause having the same discussion over and over again is pretty boring, because I'm not interested in chanigng your mind, nor do I wish to impost my thoughts and ideas on you. All the same, this *is* a discussion site, so I'm discussing.

                    Don't take that as an admonition for you to do *anything*. I have no interest in telling you what to do or say or think. You are free to do all of those things in the United States. I'd like to keep it that way.

                    As he often does, Robert Heinlein warned us [goodreads.com] about trying to change our society in ways that won't be functional:

                    ...No attempt was made to determine whether a voter was socially responsible to the extent of his literally unlimited authority. If he voted the impossible, the disastrous possible happened instead - and responsibility was then forced on him willy-nilly and destroyed both him and his foundationless temple.”

                    --
                    No, no, you're not thinking; you're just being logical. --Niels Bohr
                    • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday December 06 2017, @10:33AM (1 child)

                      by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday December 06 2017, @10:33AM (#606071)

                      You touched on a multitude of subjects; please grant me the consideration to focus on the ones I see as most fundamental, rather than to assume I'm ignoring points you raised that I don't address here.

                      Why is your method any better than the one we use now? I think the consequences of such a structure would be much worse.

                      I look to foundational principles grounded in verifiable reality first, and then damn the consequences. While I won't directly debate with you whether or not the consequences of "my method" would be worse than what we have now, you almost certainly are right to at least some extent: living life as a free person in a society that completely rejects slavery almost certainly will be harder/more difficult/worse in some aspects than life as kept human livestock. I consider that question irrelevant in light of the severe gravity of the immorality of slavery.

                      We do this by voluntary agreement. I'm not sure where you live, but I am, most certainly, free and able to function in our society without coercion, violence or the threat of violence.

                      You made the claim, but I believe I can demonstrate it to be false. Can you produce and sell - with full disclosure of contents and quality - any product you so desire to any willing customer? Can you sell bronze or tungsten handgun bullets? Can you sell straight, unmolested, unprocessed cow's milk? Can you sell morphine? Can you sell sexual services? Can you sell a new make of four-wheeled vehicle designed for use on paved roads that does not contain explosives? Can you sell any of your own body organs?

                      You may actually be able to answer "yes" to some of the above, depending on where you live inside the USA. That you may need to scrunch your brow to think about under what circumstances any of the above might be allowed for you to do is evidence in support of my point: you are NOT FREE to operate as a free person within the USA. You are prohibited - under threat of deadly force - from participating in voluntary trade in all or most of the above examples. That raises the question of where the authority to prohibit such activities comes from, and that is why I mentioned both delegation and the Philadelphia Convention.

                      Authority is the ability to justifiably use power or force. Use of a gun against a human is force. I do not have the authority to use force against you to take your wallet, but I do have the authority to use force against you if you were to attack me. Where does this sort of authority come from? I argue that it is a natural consequence of having exclusive and sole ownership of the sack of meat in which I live; likewise identically for you and your body. I have no authority to extract your tooth, kidney, or a fraction of the pay you receive for the work you use your body to perform; likewise identically for you to I. Authority does not grow in scope with an increase in numbers (power obviously DOES increase, but that's a separate issue); if I wished to kidnap you and keep you in a cage, attempting to do so myself would rightly find me being called a criminal kidnapper. The situation with authority does not change if I were to recruit 5, 500, or 5,000,000 people into my kidnapping gang: I could never have enough people with me to give myself the authority to kidnap you.

                      This is where the problem for the USA's federal government comes in. It claims as its sole source of authority the US Constitution, created at the Philadelphia Convention under the authority of the Convention delegates. The delegates in turn had their own authority, and the authority of the voters who elected the delegates. Note, however, that authority does not increase in scope even with increased numbers of participating individuals. The maximum authority that a single voter could delegate away to a delegate was all the authority they had as a lone individual. Following that premise, the maximum authority the Convention delegate could wield was also no greater than that of a single individual. As such, the utmost maximum authority that the US Constitution has over unwilling others is no greater than the authority possessed by a lone, typical human being. Any use of force beyond that of a single individual's is literally, by definition, criminal.

                      I have no authority to demand under threat of lethal force that you abstain from possessing arbitrary plant material, and due to that fact, neither can the DEA possess authority that I do not have myself to be able to delegate to them. The DEA is literally a criminal organization.

                      It doesn't matter the consequences that follow from this reasoning. If the facts and logic are sound, then the factual result is that the USA has an almost entirely criminal federal government that is operating and profiting from literal human slaves it manages as livestock. That some humans may find their presumed-legal manacles comforting does not change reality.

                      the vast majority of us "slaves" (I chuckle every time I see that [...])

                      A decade ago, so did I. I subsequently had occasion to dig down to the legal and historical foundation of the USA, and then I found that I was no longer laughing.

                      • (Score: 2) by NotSanguine on Wednesday December 06 2017, @08:58PM

                        by NotSanguine (285) <NotSanguineNO@SPAMSoylentNews.Org> on Wednesday December 06 2017, @08:58PM (#606395) Homepage Journal

                        You made the claim, but I believe I can demonstrate it to be false.

                        Wrong. And unconvincing.

                        I am free, no matter what rules surround me. If I find them tolerable, I tolerate them; if I find them too obnoxious, I break them. I am free because I know that I alone am morally responsible for everything I do.

                        --
                        No, no, you're not thinking; you're just being logical. --Niels Bohr
                    • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday December 06 2017, @10:39AM (2 children)

                      by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday December 06 2017, @10:39AM (#606076)

                      I'm not interested in chanigng your mind

                      I'm interested in trying to change your mind. I'm also interested in having my mind changed. The vehicle by which I wish to accomplish both is the same: reasoned discussion using logic and facts.

                      • (Score: 2) by NotSanguine on Wednesday December 06 2017, @09:03PM (1 child)

                        by NotSanguine (285) <NotSanguineNO@SPAMSoylentNews.Org> on Wednesday December 06 2017, @09:03PM (#606400) Homepage Journal

                        I'm interested in trying to change your mind.

                        Here's a tip for you -- repeating the same, unconvincing (and unsupported by any facts or history) arguments over and over is a poor method for convincing others.

                        --
                        No, no, you're not thinking; you're just being logical. --Niels Bohr
                        • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday December 07 2017, @03:48AM

                          by Anonymous Coward on Thursday December 07 2017, @03:48AM (#606626)

                          I laid out my argument along with supporting facts and reasoning. Your response [soylentnews.org] was

                          Wrong. And unconvincing.

                          There's not much to work with there in terms of continuing a reasonable discussion.

                          Since the idea has been fleshed out for examination and no flaws have been written about in response, it seems like the idea has survived another round of public tempering and remains valid for discussion for future related topics.

                    • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday December 08 2017, @03:40PM

                      by Anonymous Coward on Friday December 08 2017, @03:40PM (#607227)

                      From your link [goodreads.com], the full quote referenced from Robert Heinlein's Starship Troopers is:

                      “Both for practical reasons and for mathematically verifiable moral reasons, authority and responsibility must be equal - else a balancing takes place as surely as current flows between points of unequal potential. To permit irresponsible authority is to sow disaster; to hold a man responsible for anything he does not control is to behave with blind idiocy. The unlimited democracies were unstable because their citizens were not responsible for the fashion in which they exerted their sovereign authority... other than through the tragic logic of history... No attempt was made to determine whether a voter was socially responsible to the extent of his literally unlimited authority. If he voted the impossible, the disastrous possible happened instead - and responsibility was then forced on him willy-nilly and destroyed both him and his foundationless temple.”

                      Heinlein is describing a situation where effectively unlimited authority is being used with no matching voter responsibility. After reading the full quote and giving it some thought, I realized that Heinlein's statement is in agreement with my principle [soylentnews.org] that the maximum legitimate authority that can be wielded by a government whose powers are delegated to it by the governed is no greater than the authority of a lone, typical individual. Sure, Heinlein may have have been grasping about for a way to assign more responsibility to the voters, but my approach is in harmony with Heinlein's reasoning by "decreasing authority" rather than increasing responsibility to what he and I seem to think are impossible levels. Thanks for being the vehicle to bring this to my attention.

                  • (Score: 3, Interesting) by GreatAuntAnesthesia on Wednesday December 06 2017, @10:36AM (11 children)

                    by GreatAuntAnesthesia (3275) on Wednesday December 06 2017, @10:36AM (#606074) Journal

                    > all interactions are to be voluntary.

                    You keep saying this as though it's an easy and obvious thing but fail to explain just how you will implement or enforce it.

                    If I go and impose an "involuntary interaction" on somebody, what is anybody going to do about it? Shoot me? What if I have a band of buddies with more guns than the aggrieved party? What then?

                    What if I get into a disagreement with somebody else about a deal that went bad. He says I acted in bad faith somehow, I say it was the other way around. At least one of us has taken careful measures to hide incriminating evidence. Who will arbitrate? Who will enforce the decision of the arbitrator? If you don't believe this kind of shit will happen, then what the hell do you think we have courts for? Have you never watched Judge Judy to see just how stupid, petty, mean, mendacious and irrational people can be?

                    Your lengthy and passionate monologues amount to little more than "But when everybody has magical wishing ponies, all of our problems will disappear. WHY CAN'T YOU SEE THAT?"

                    • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday December 06 2017, @10:55AM (10 children)

                      by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday December 06 2017, @10:55AM (#606083)

                      If I go and impose an "involuntary interaction" on somebody, what is anybody going to do about it? Shoot me?

                      Yes.

                      What if I have a band of buddies with more guns than the aggrieved party? What then?

                      Same as the above. (In case you hadn't noticed, technology keeps making more [youtube.com] and more [youtube.com] power available to the individual.)

                      What if I get into a disagreement with somebody else about a deal that went bad.

                      You settle it in a mutually-agreeable manner. If you can't all agree, then there is no settlement. I take it you haven't participated in much private business; this is an existing significant problem. The practical solution in a purely voluntary society - like today - is to limit your exposure and risk so that if/when you DO encounter a bad actor, you can survive the problem and move on. You mentioned "Judge Judy" [wikipedia.org]; did you not realize that it is an example of private, voluntary arbitration in action?

                      • (Score: 3, Informative) by GreatAuntAnesthesia on Wednesday December 06 2017, @12:37PM (9 children)

                        by GreatAuntAnesthesia (3275) on Wednesday December 06 2017, @12:37PM (#606110) Journal

                        >>If I go and impose an "involuntary interaction" on somebody, what is anybody going to do about it? Shoot me?
                        >Yes.

                        I see. And you don't see any problem at all with people running around shooting one another at their own discretion, with no consequences and no oversight of any kind? Don't you think bad people will take advantage of this and use it as an opportunity to kill folks that stand in their way? All they need is a little planning in advance to frame the killing as justified and the right provocation and they can literally get away with murder.

                        > In case you hadn't noticed, technology keeps making more [youtube.com] and more [youtube.com] power available to the individual.

                        Right, but the bad guys are individuals too. All the individual power available to the decent folk is also available to those who would trample all over them. The difference, of course, is that the bad guys have the advantage of being more sneaky, more ruthless and completely unrestrained by all the social niceties (don't murder, don't threaten, don't blackmail, don't cheat) that would hamper ordinary folk who just want to get on with their own lives.

                        As for Judge Judy: Whatever authority she has over the cretins on her show is ultimately derived from the government. They sign a contract to abide by Judy's decree, but that contract itself is worthless unless backed by the law. If Judy tells JimBob he has to pay Dezrey $800 for rolling her pickup into a ditch when he was fooling around in the cab with her stepmother, and JimBob STILL refuses to pay, what can Dezray do? The Judge Judy contract is only any good if Dezray waves it under the nose of a REAL judge with a REAL police force with the power to make JimBob keep his promise.

                        Your reasoning is circular. You are saying that someone who doesn't respect a voluntary contract can be brought into line by use of another voluntary contract. And if that fails, then let's just have ourselves a good old-fashioned gunfight and hope the good guy wins.

                        • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday December 06 2017, @12:57PM (8 children)

                          by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday December 06 2017, @12:57PM (#606115)

                          All they need is a little planning in advance to frame the killing as justified and the right provocation and they can literally get away with murder.

                          So, same as with today, except we're paying a lot more for the same "service"?

                          All the individual power available to the decent folk is also available to those who would trample all over them.

                          You grossly overlook the scale of people willing to commit evil behavior versus peaceable individuals. If evil people were equated to antimatter and peaceable people to matter, the change in population numbers would not be statistically noticeable as the pairs were annihilated. How many crates of DARPA EXACTO systems slipped into North Korea would it take to generate a mortal threat to Kim-whatever? Would any particular North Korean feel particularly threatened by Kim-whatever's possession of a bunch of EXACTOs of his own?

                          The Judge Judy contract is only any good if Dezray waves it under the nose of a REAL judge with a REAL police force with the power to make JimBob keep his promise.

                          Your vaunted courts don't even have the power you think they have. There is no US civil court power that can force a person to honor a contract. At worst, title-able assets will have liens placed, garnishments may be applied for, but these and like measures are all counterable with no additional recourse available. OJ has not been forced to pony up the $30+ million dollars in the decades-old civil wrongful death suit [time.com] he lost.

                          The real power in contracts as well as social interaction both today and in a voluntary society is the threat of shunning. Once word gets around, no one wants to associate with lying scum.

                          You've been sold a bill of good labelled "civilization", my friend.

                          • (Score: 2) by GreatAuntAnesthesia on Wednesday December 06 2017, @02:47PM (7 children)

                            by GreatAuntAnesthesia (3275) on Wednesday December 06 2017, @02:47PM (#606142) Journal

                            If the police in the US are routinely committing murder and getting away with it (and I believe they are) then Id argue that that is better than EVERYBODY committing murder and getting away with it. What's more the police are at least in theory accountable. Looking at the generala trend in the news it looks like they won't be getting away with it much longer - public outrage is reaching a point that they won't be able to suppress / ignore much longer.

                            I don't know what a DARPO EXACT is but I know you don't need an equivalent number of good vs bad people for the bad people to do a lot of harm. One bad person can do a disproportionate amount of damage once they get their hands on power. And sticking your fingers in your ears and saying "LALALA POWER DOESN'T EXIST ANY MORE I'VE BANNED GOVERNMENTS LALALA VOLUNTARY CONTRACTS" won't change the fact that people will still have ways of gaining power and abusing it.

                            "All that is required for evil to triumph is for good to do nothing." And if history teaches us anything, it's that most people will do absolutely nothing about a tough problem until it is right in their face and completely impossible to ignore. Some people won't even react then. A clever, unprincipled person with a plan could very quickly rise from nobody to the level of local warlord in your world before anyone got organised enough to put up credible resistance. Then you're right back to a governmental system, and maybe then you'd really get to see what "slavery" is all about.

                            I can't speak for US courts, but over here a judge can (and will) drag someone back to court and charge them for contempt of court if they fail to do a the judge ordered. And yes, the police will drag them in if they fail to turn up.

                            Civilisation is messy and imperfect and full of copromise, but it's a hell of a lot better than the apocolyptic warring feudal state you propose.

                            • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday December 06 2017, @03:18PM (4 children)

                              by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday December 06 2017, @03:18PM (#606153)

                              The DARPA EXACTO [youtube.com] is a small weapons system featuring a .50 caliber rifle, matching cartridge with optical sensors and moving parts, and presumably a laser target designator, all used to fire a "homing bullet" to greatly increase the accuracy of rifle fire against distant and/or moving targets. It is the next technological step to the commercially-available Tracking Point small weapons system which has everything EXACTO has but with a built-in targeting computer to fire an unguided bullet. Both were previously linked to [soylentnews.org].

                              I pursue unpleasant truths over comfortable fantasies. I'm ill-equipped and unwilling to try to out-speculate you. If you can instead identify a flaw in my assertion that even with unbelievably-high standards of living, effectively all people in the Western world and elsewhere are literal slaves [soylentnews.org], I'd be very happy to learn about it.

                              • (Score: 2) by GreatAuntAnesthesia on Wednesday December 06 2017, @04:39PM (3 children)

                                by GreatAuntAnesthesia (3275) on Wednesday December 06 2017, @04:39PM (#606194) Journal

                                > If you can instead identify a flaw in my assertion that even with unbelievably-high standards of living, effectively all people in the Western world and elsewhere are literal slaves, I'd be very happy to learn about it.

                                A slave is someone who is forced to work without being paid, and without the freedom to leave that work. That's the definition.
                                We work, and are renumerated. We can spend our wages wherever we like (with a few exceptions) and we have the freedom to quit our jobs or renegotiate our terms of employment.
                                We might complain about wages or wealth disparity or local employment laws or whatever, but we are not slaves.

                                • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday December 06 2017, @04:56PM (2 children)

                                  by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday December 06 2017, @04:56PM (#606206)

                                  The dictionary definition is less stringent than yours. That the restrictions placed on you are on balance lighter than most of human history is irrelevant to the matter of others claiming ownership of your body and what you can do with it.

                                  1. One who is owned as the property of someone else, especially in involuntary servitude.
                                  2. One who is subservient to or controlled by another: his boss's slave.
                                  3. One who is subject to or controlled by a specified influence: a slave to alcohol; a slave to an irrational fear.
                                  4. One who works extremely hard.
                                  5. One who acts out the role of the submissive partner in a sadomasochistic relationship.

                                  I realize that my posting as AC can make following cross-thread conversations more difficult, but I have already addressed this in another of my replies to you elsewhere [soylentnews.org].

                                  • (Score: 2) by GreatAuntAnesthesia on Wednesday December 06 2017, @05:43PM (1 child)

                                    by GreatAuntAnesthesia (3275) on Wednesday December 06 2017, @05:43PM (#606227) Journal

                                    Yeah, I'm not buying it. Your definition 1 is the definition of a slave. Definitions 2-4 are metaphorical. Definition 5 is something entirely unrelated to this discussion.

                                    And I just don't accept that someone limiting some of my rights is them taking ownership of me. Not even part-ownership. If you want to argue that we are not completely free, then I'll agree. If you argue that we aren't free enough, then I'll listen. But hijacking the word "slave" is just hyperbole. It reminds me of the linguistic arguments in copyright threads around words like "theft" and "piracy". These words are freely bandied about by certain parties in order to give emotional weight to their arguments but words have meanings, especially in a legal context, and you can't just change their definitions on the fly.

                                    • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday December 07 2017, @01:56AM

                                      by Anonymous Coward on Thursday December 07 2017, @01:56AM (#606543)

                                      My argument to you [soylentnews.org] in fact did use definition #1 of slavery by giving several examples of activities I think illustrate the principles of ownership exerted against everyone in the USA (and also most of the world).

                                      Beyond that, I can think of nothing more compelling to write in response at this point. I've made my case and hope that an examination of its details will either reveal veracity or flaws, so that whichever of us is holding incorrect beliefs will have the opportunity to change them.

                            • (Score: 1, Troll) by NotSanguine on Wednesday December 06 2017, @09:11PM (1 child)

                              by NotSanguine (285) <NotSanguineNO@SPAMSoylentNews.Org> on Wednesday December 06 2017, @09:11PM (#606407) Homepage Journal

                              You're wasting your time arguing with a fanatic*.

                              *one who can't change his mind and won't change the subject.

                              --
                              No, no, you're not thinking; you're just being logical. --Niels Bohr
                              • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday December 07 2017, @02:02AM

                                by Anonymous Coward on Thursday December 07 2017, @02:02AM (#606548)

                                You're wasting your time arguing with a fanatic*.

                                *one who can't change his mind and won't change the subject.

                                Perhaps you ignored or overlooked the very last sentence [soylentnews.org] in my other post to you?

                                Or were you perhaps speaking of yourself to me? =)

            • (Score: 2) by Thexalon on Monday December 11 2017, @04:56PM

              by Thexalon (636) on Monday December 11 2017, @04:56PM (#608324)

              some are irrational

              Not strong enough: Current psychological research is that all humans are naturally irrational, and it requires a great deal of training and discipline to be anything else for those specific tasks that require it.

              For an example of this, consider coding. That's supposed to be about as rational an activity as can exist, but every programmer on the planet has faced that moment of frustration where you can't figure out what this goddamn bug is even though the code is supposedly perfect, and you start slamming your fingers down on the keyboard more firmly or even smack the keyboard hard on your desk in anger. Rationally, you know that doesn't help in the least, and that there is a logical explanation for the problem, but that doesn't change your behavior.

              --
              The only thing that stops a bad guy with a compiler is a good guy with a compiler.
          • (Score: 3, Insightful) by Spook brat on Wednesday December 06 2017, @04:54PM (24 children)

            by Spook brat (775) on Wednesday December 06 2017, @04:54PM (#606204) Journal

            The "Anarcho-Capitalist" poster doesn't NEED to provide a "forever plan" for coercing new people to join up.

            Then your plan doesn't survive past the first generation, and the social experiment is a failure. Your society needs a way to convince people to voluntarily join and participate or else it will fail.

            You are engaging in an exercise is society building, and are ignoring critical questions like: "is it stable", "is it sustainable", "is it peaceful", "is it productive". For a proposed society to be better than an existing one it needs meet criteria such as these; otherwise trying it is just an exercise in seeing how long it lasts before its members starve, kill each other, or leave. Hippie communes were a great idea, and none of them lasted beyond 1980.

            You assert that everyone in your perfect society will voluntarily give money to protection services. What happens when they don't? A typical response in American society is to selectively provide service for things like fire response. [nydailynews.com] Forget to pay your membership dues? No water for you when your house burns. No armed response when someone breaks into your home. No investigation when you're murdered. Better yet, the the Patreon Posse could supplement its income by selling a map to houses they won't respond for, resulting in predictable robberies at those locations. No contract in place preventing them from doing that, so no reason not to. TL;DR: policing performed selectively based even on voluntary payment quickly turns into extortion, even in a society based entirely on voluntary contracts.

            Every teenager reaching the age of majority in this society would need to decide whether to participate in this system or become vulnerable to abuse by people not governed by the community's contracts. Anyone who misses a payment gets robbed and killed, with no police response. This is the society that you're hoping will attract all freedom-loving people. I assert that your system is vulnerable to the very coercion you designed it to avoid, and that it will neither attract sufficient immigration nor sufficiently dis-incentivize emigration to remain stable as a society.

            We already have the worst-case "PP scenario" happening right now; it can only stay the same or get better from this point.

            No, there are many alternative that are much, much worse. Honestly, until you convince me otherwise I'm listing your proposal as one of them.

            --
            Travel the galaxy! Meet fascinating life forms... And kill them [schlockmercenary.com]
            • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday December 07 2017, @04:27AM (20 children)

              by Anonymous Coward on Thursday December 07 2017, @04:27AM (#606640)

              You're doing the equivalent of trying to debate the color of the upholstery in an airliner while I'm trying to focus specifically on the core fundamental mechanics of flight and basic aircraft design.

              Are we being treated as slaves? Can this hunk of metal fly?

              Not what sort of agreement forms we should use, or how many seats per row per section.

              • (Score: 2) by Spook brat on Friday December 08 2017, @12:24PM (13 children)

                by Spook brat (775) on Friday December 08 2017, @12:24PM (#607159) Journal

                Are you still monitoring this thread? I'd love to continue this conversation here, although I don't always have time to reply immediately.

                You're doing the equivalent of trying to debate the color of the upholstery in an airliner while I'm trying to focus specifically on the core fundamental mechanics of flight and basic aircraft design.

                Are we being treated as slaves? Can this hunk of metal fly?

                I'm fine with that analogy; let me rephrase in terms of that. You are discussing how to make a better airplane, and have not fully defined what flight characteristics you are using to determine that it is "better". Top speed? Carrying capacity? Fuel economy? Flight stability? Further, the core question I was asking in my just-previous-to-yours post was "where are you deriving lift?" A lot of your arguments sound like that your answer is, "the best airplane has no applied thrust"; it's little wonder that everyone is getting confused when you use the word "airplane" when what you describe sounds more like "glider".

                Before I stretch the analogy too far, let me be perfectly clear what I mean by that. In a model government I look for qualities like stability, sustainability, productivity, and tranquility as measures of performance. Yes, these are characteristics of specific designs, and they can be estimated in broad strokes by applying tools like game theory to the proposed system.

                Can this hunk of metal fly?

                Where is your lift coming from? How do you intend to get it off the ground, and how will it stay up? By which I mean, how to you convince people that they'd want to participate in this system? Once they are in, how do you keep them happy enough to stay? You are building this society on the premise that all interactions are voluntary; what happens when no one volunteers? You have a society of one, including only the founder. That's neither an airplane nor a glider, it's just a hunk of metal on the tarmac with a pilot wondering why his crate won't fly.

                I'd also like to address a couple of other things you've said, that I think are incorrect and are relevant to this discussion, but I'm running out of time right now and I don't know if you're even going to read this. If you reply here, then I'll post my separate comments as children to your "basic aircraft design" comment. [soylentnews.org] I hope you will reply, I feel like this part of the thread is actually getting somewhere in terms of framing the discussion properly instead of simply talking past each other.

                --
                Travel the galaxy! Meet fascinating life forms... And kill them [schlockmercenary.com]
                • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday December 08 2017, @03:27PM (12 children)

                  by Anonymous Coward on Friday December 08 2017, @03:27PM (#607217)

                  You are discussing how to make a better airplane, and have not fully defined what flight characteristics you are using to determine that it is "better".

                  My premise is that an "airplane"/society than runs on slavery is bad. Our current airplane runs on slavery, and here's why [soylentnews.org]. If we can find agreement so far, then the next step into the unknown is something I'm willing to take as I don't care much about how hard it'll be to run a society without slavery as I really don't care for slavery at all.

                  I try to keep things simple, and as close to the absolute bedrock principles as possible for now. I'm not ignoring the points your raise, merely looking to resolve them by having a more fundamental question answered. For example, "how do you convince people that they'd want to participate in this system" is two steps or so beyond the concept of "hey, my society runs on slavery! Let's quit using slavery!" The basic premises involved include "I own myself exclusively" and "I have no claim of ownership over anyone else", pretty standard stuff that even people who I label as slaves hold on to that first concept very tightly [soylentnews.org].

                  I'm not exempting myself from being a slave; I am however now cognizant of the claims of ownership others make on my body and I'm in the process of intelligently "rebelling" (at least I dearly hope so) by asserting my sole and exclusive ownership over my body for the first time.

                  • (Score: 2) by Spook brat on Friday December 08 2017, @06:26PM (11 children)

                    by Spook brat (775) on Friday December 08 2017, @06:26PM (#607325) Journal

                    Glad to see you're still here! Thanks for the reply.

                    OK, so I've read through your thread with GreatAuntAnesthesia, [soylentnews.org] and I've previously read the L. Neil Smith Graphic Novel version of The Probability Broach [archive.org], so I think I have a handle on what you mean when you use the term "slavery." Is it accurate to re-word that as "externally imposed social obligation"? That's quite a mouthful, so I don't expect you to stop using the much shorter "slavery" as shorthand, I just want to check whether you thought that would be accurate. Is "involuntarily" a better word than "externally"; should I include both in the definition? Please confirm that I have my concept straight before we continue.

                    --
                    Travel the galaxy! Meet fascinating life forms... And kill them [schlockmercenary.com]
                    • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday December 08 2017, @07:03PM (10 children)

                      by Anonymous Coward on Friday December 08 2017, @07:03PM (#607345)

                      Is it accurate to re-word that as "externally imposed social obligation"?

                      No, I don't think so. I attempted to demonstrate [soylentnews.org] that there no legitimate authority for the US government to establish fiat prohibitions on voluntary conduct and enforce those prohibitions ultimately with lethal force. Since there is a direct benefit to government agents and others in this exercise of power without authority, it appears plain that the best fit for the criminal behavior of government and its agents is that they are attempting to exercise a claim of ownership over the humans they exert power over. One human being owned to any degree by others is slavery.

                      There are no high-flying concepts that I'm attempting to tout here. I'm merely discussing power (force), authority (justified force), the right to life (exclusive self-ownership), and violations thereof (criminal behavior).

                      • (Score: 2) by Spook brat on Friday December 08 2017, @08:43PM (9 children)

                        by Spook brat (775) on Friday December 08 2017, @08:43PM (#607405) Journal

                        There are no high-flying concepts that I'm attempting to tout here. I'm merely discussing power (force), authority (justified force), the right to life (exclusive self-ownership), and violations thereof (criminal behavior).

                        Which one of those covers slavery? That's the term that I'm trying to nail down, because I think we're still at risk of talking past each other on that point.

                        Is taxation slavery because it violates the principle of exclusive self-ownership you mentioned above? "Freedom from externally imposed social obligation" seems like a good synonym for "exclusive self-ownership" to me, can you explain what you see the difference between them being?

                        --
                        Travel the galaxy! Meet fascinating life forms... And kill them [schlockmercenary.com]
                        • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday December 08 2017, @09:32PM (8 children)

                          by Anonymous Coward on Friday December 08 2017, @09:32PM (#607446)

                          I'll expound as needed, but will start out trying to keep things simple and basic. "Social obligation" smacks of complexity to me, and speaks of unwritten and implied "contracts". You'll need to detail what your definition of a "social obligation" is, preferably with an example, before I can attempt to compare and contrast it with slavery.

                          Slavery, I think, revolves around the question of a right to life. If a human has a right to life, then that requires sole and exclusive ownership of the sack of meat keeping said human alive; ownership involves control of a resource, and control allows for destruction. If one human has control over the body of another and destroys the body, the human who lived in the destroyed body will die. Assuming we can agree on a human right to life, then as that requires exclusive self-ownership of the body, all derivative works of the body (and mind) belong to the human who owns the body. If all humans possess that same right to life, it requires that all social interactions be voluntary for all parties, lest they trespass on another's right to life. Consent to any social interaction can be revoked at any time and for any reason, since without consent the interaction isn't voluntary. Since you asked about taxation, taxation is imposed on the production of a human's body/mind, and thus I construe it to a partial claim of ownership on another human body. The same is true for sales-type taxes, which impose themselves forcibly between two parties, making one an impressed tax collector and making a claim of ownership on the other's ability to trade with another human.

                          • (Score: 2) by Spook brat on Monday December 11 2017, @08:30PM (7 children)

                            by Spook brat (775) on Monday December 11 2017, @08:30PM (#608416) Journal

                            I'll expound as needed, but will start out trying to keep things simple and basic. "Social obligation" smacks of complexity to me, and speaks of unwritten and implied "contracts". You'll need to detail what your definition of a "social obligation" is, preferably with an example, before I can attempt to compare and contrast it with slavery.

                            Perfect, I'll start from here. "Social obligation" is fancy talk for "stuff you have to do" (obligation) for other people (social). In a society (group of people living together) there can be any number of these obligations, both written and unwritten. Yes, it gets complex, because people are complex as individuals, and even more complex in large groups. Living in a society requires an individual to engage with that complexity in order to do anything, from walking down the street to negotiating payment for services.

                            My understanding of your concept of "slavery" is that it more-or-less matches up with "things people are forcing you to do that you don't agree to", i.e. involuntary social obligations. You've mentioned taxes and laws the individual hasn't ratified as examples; in both of these cases the common tie is that society is forcing them on the individual who had no choice in the matter. In this sense children are slaves to their parents' wishes until such time that the children are emancipated.

                            I'm working under the understanding that you accept voluntary obligations, like paying for things you want from a vendor (rather than just stealing them). Contracts fall under this category: each party agrees to take some action, and receive something from the other party in return. Fundamental to the concept of a contract is mutuality of obligation; [uslegal.com] in other words, each individual who is party to a contract voluntarily agrees to things they have to do for the other.

                            I bring this up, not because I want to bring in all the details of U.S. contract law (too much baggage for this discussion, and frankly that link I provided is horrible; sorry!), but because I want to test the waters with you on your understanding of obligation. I completely agree that an individual in isolation has no claim on others and no others have claim on them. Do you believe that a sovereign individual can legitimately choose to allow others a limited claim on them in return for a limited claim on the others?

                            --
                            Travel the galaxy! Meet fascinating life forms... And kill them [schlockmercenary.com]
                            • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday December 12 2017, @06:48AM (6 children)

                              by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday December 12 2017, @06:48AM (#608664)

                              Perfect, I'll start from here. "Social obligation" is fancy talk for "stuff you have to do" (obligation) for other people (social).

                              While I'm not trying to be difficult (I understand colloquial English), I do not see the basis for your claims for any obligations. What obligates someone to do anything? Written contracts and other similarly explicit agreements I can easily grasp: they are agreements among two or more individuals. What is the foundation for these "social obligations" at their most fundamental level, and what differentiates them from an interaction between just two people? (If it helps, feel free to limit the scope to the USA, since I'm fairly familiar with it, and the concept that its governments' authority is supposed to be derived from the delegation of powers from the governed.)

                              Do you believe that a sovereign individual can legitimately choose to allow others a limited claim on them in return for a limited claim on the others?

                              Strangely enough, I do. As much as I protest against slavery, a person who is the sole, exclusive owner of the body they inhabit can use their ownership/control of the body to do all manner of destructive things to it, including renting it, selling parts of it, or selling all of it. Freedom seems to allow for slavery. However, and this is they key difference I think many overlook, is that consent can be revoked at any time and for any reason, and my example is the difference between consensual sex and rape: one has continual consent, while the other does not. Stereotypical "slave for life", being whipped while working cotton fields for 18 hours a day being seems impossible/criminal under this requirement of continual consent. I haven't explored this area indepth as I'm not very interested in involving myself or others around me in slavery, so hereso even more than most other concepts, I'm very open to the idea that my ideas are wrong.

                              In this sense children are slaves to their parents' wishes until such time that the children are emancipated.

                              I'm aware of the difficult edge cases in my assertions, particularly involving dependent children to include those of pregnant mothers. Ultimately, the solution seems to be that children are identical to grown humans in regard to their sole, exclusive ownership of their own bodies. This ownership does not allow for demands that any other human provide anything the first needs to stay alive - but obviously life-sustaining resources can be voluntarily given and almost all parents seem quite willing to do so. For slightly older children, the solution to the seeming conundrum of self-ownership versus helplessness is that the parents are assumed to be providing the child with life's necessities in exchange for abiding by the parents' "my house, my rules" diktats. The child as exclusive self-owner has the ability to terminate the relationship with the parents at any time, as stupid and foolish as this might seem. The stupid and foolish children who choose to go off alone and meet their untimely demise could be useful for honest parents to use as examples to persuade children to stay at home, yet still allow for children to leave intolerable situations. The plural of anecdote is not data, but it is not impossible to successfully reason with even very young children. It seems quite plausible to me that if the "do as I say or I'll beat you, induce terror into you, and/or lock you up" experience wasn't the norm for most children, the idea of strictly voluntary and consensual interactions wouldn't seem so foreign to people.

                              I'm working under the understanding that you accept voluntary obligations, like paying for things you want from a vendor (rather than just stealing them).

                              I do, though I am wary of using the term "obligation", and prefer to use plainer terms such as "transfer", "ownership", "theft", etc. instead to describe someone paying for a vendor's goods (a mutually-voluntary transfer of ownership) versus stealing (non-consensual taking of someone else's owned property).

                              Fundamental to the concept of a contract is mutuality of obligation [uslegal.com] [both parties must be bound to perform their obligations or the law will treat the agreement as if neither party is bound to perform]

                              I concur that a discussion of contract law is likely unproductive for the moment in regards to the the main point of trying to reconcile or come to an agreement on my "slavery" versus your "social obligations". That said, I was rather struck by the plain English definition of your term in combination with the layman's view of governments' obligations (e.g. "the police will protect me" vs Warren vs DC where the police were rightly found to have NO obligation to protect any particular person) with the layman's effective inability to either hold governments to their perceived obligations or withdraw from the "contract".

                              • (Score: 2) by Spook brat on Wednesday December 13 2017, @01:15PM (5 children)

                                by Spook brat (775) on Wednesday December 13 2017, @01:15PM (#609202) Journal

                                I do not see the basis for your claims for any obligations. What obligates someone to do anything? Written contracts and other similarly explicit agreements I can easily grasp: they are agreements among two or more individuals. What is the foundation for these "social obligations" at their most fundamental level, and what differentiates them from an interaction between just two people?

                                Great question, let me see if I can answer that in terms consistent with the sovereignty principle. The foundation for social obligation is the interdependence of people living together (i.e. in society). As an example, let's examine a purchase. Two people agree that person 1 (hereafter P1) will give person 2 (P2) a MacGuffin, and that P2 will in return give P1 an agreed-upon amount of money. Consider, then, the period of time between when the MacGuffin is delivered and when payment is made. [1] I'm going to format this kind of like a formal proof:

                                Axiom 1: no individual has a claim on the life of another
                                Axiom 2: voluntary interactions can be terminated at any time by either party
                                Condition: a voluntary agreement between P1 and P2 exists to make an exchange.
                                Condition: P1 has delivered, P2 has not delivered
                                Condition: P2 terminates the interaction, and leaves with P1's goods.
                                Paradox: By exercising Axiom 2 P2 has violated axiom 1. One or more of the two axioms is incorrect.

                                If Axiom 1 is true then P2 has no right to the MacGuffin. If Axiom 2 is correct then P2 has the right to keep the MacGuffin and leave. These cannot both be true.

                                This tension between the natural right to life/property and the natural right of free association [2] is the basis for what I'm calling social obligation. In order to operate sanely in the presence of others, individuals take on commitments whereby they voluntarily abandon a small fraction of their natural rights. This can involve either (1) giving others a small claim to some of their life/property, (2) giving up some rights to arbitrary termination of association, or both.

                                In the case of the exchange between P1 and P2, P1 has a legitimate claim on the property of P2 once the MacGuffin has been delivered. P2 cannot arbitrarily abandon the interaction without becoming a criminal (it would be theft). Thus, P2 now has an obligation to P1.

                                Does this make sense?

                                 

                                [1] note that the delay between payment and delivery is common; many businesses operate on a system like this, with up to 90 days of expected lag between delivery and payment.

                                [2] I'm totally agreeing with you here that these things are natural rights of sovereign individuals. I'm trying not to base this discussion specifically on the U.S. society model; this is consistent with the philosophy of John Locke, [stanford.edu] which he intended for universal application. The founders of the U.S. society/government were fans of Locke, so that's what we ended up with over here.

                                [3]There are other topics from your last post that I REALLY want to cover, but it's more important to get this social obligation issue taken care of first.

                                --
                                Travel the galaxy! Meet fascinating life forms... And kill them [schlockmercenary.com]
                                • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday December 13 2017, @02:27PM (4 children)

                                  by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday December 13 2017, @02:27PM (#609213)

                                  If Axiom 1 [no individual has a claim on the life of another] is true then P2 has no right to the MacGuffin. If Axiom 2 is correct then P2 has the right to keep the MacGuffin and leave. These cannot both be true.

                                  I think I see what you're getting at; pardon me while I tread carefully. Is there perhaps a flaw in your example, in that P1 voluntarily provided P2 with the goods, and thus "Axiom 1" was not in fact violated? As you note, delays are common in business between delivery and payment, and while my kneejerk reaction is indeed to call such nonpayment after delivery "theft", more accurate terms likely include "breach of contract" and/or "fraud". (Fraud, in plain terms, seems to be the non-violent counterpart of force, where one party lies to another in order to gain from the lie. Differentiating between the two likely deals with intent; if fraud can't be proven, then it's breach of contract.)

                                  This is not to say that P2 is necessarily forevermore free to continue that behavior in regards to P1, and there are courses of action for P1 to take in harmony with both axioms, including: hiring a collection agent to convince P2 to pay; if there is a private property titling system in place, liens may be able to be placed against P2; P1 can obviously refuse further association with P2, and spread news of P2 to other parties with the dual goals of helping others avoid problems with P2 and/or convincing P2 to pay P1.

                                  [...] P1 has a legitimate claim on the property of P2 once the MacGuffin has been delivered. P2 cannot arbitrarily abandon the interaction without becoming a criminal (it would be theft). Thus, P2 now has an obligation to P1.

                                  Taking your example at face value, I still cannot differentiate between your obligation and my slavery. Historically, debtors were caged in prisons, and before that were sold into literal slavery. I haven't thoroughly explored exactly why those situations are bad/wrong/undesirable - after all, few reasonable people will have any sympathy for P2 in your example - so due to the mere historical outcry against imprisoning debtors I'm currently inclined to view "limiting risk" in conjunction with "freedom of association OR disassociation" as the answer to the problem of debtors who do not pay. Both are in harmony with the axioms from your example.

                                  (I, too, view the model for human interaction I am championing as universal, and acknowledge that I have been significantly influenced by Locke if I'm not simply stealing his ideas in their entirety. My direct and simplistic views on legal systems and their limits are likely only directly applicable to the USA. Also, thank you for taking the time to engage in discussion with me on these matters - I look forward to seeing what sorts of false information gets bashed off of my ideas.)

                                  • (Score: 2) by Spook brat on Wednesday December 13 2017, @08:17PM (3 children)

                                    by Spook brat (775) on Wednesday December 13 2017, @08:17PM (#609347) Journal

                                    If Axiom 1 [no individual has a claim on the life of another] is true then P2 has no right to the MacGuffin. If Axiom 2 is correct then P2 has the right to keep the MacGuffin and leave. These cannot both be true.

                                    I think I see what you're getting at; pardon me while I tread carefully. Is there perhaps a flaw in your example, in that P1 voluntarily provided P2 with the goods, and thus "Axiom 1" was not in fact violated? [discussion of what specific crime was committed and what remedies are available omitted]

                                    Treading carefully is fine; let's keep this simple. From your response ("few reasonable people will have any sympathy for P2 in your example") it is clear we agree that in this example P2 has harmed P1. Even if we assume Axiom 1 was not violated, that still leaves us with a paradox:

                                    P1 willing gave a McGuffin to P2 (Axiom 1 satisfied)
                                    P2 harmed P1 by terminating the agreement w/o paying (accepted fact)
                                    P2 has the right to terminate the agreement at any time (applying Axiom 2 results in contradiction, exercising this right harmed P1)

                                    Logic dictates that one or both of the axioms that resulted in a contradiction are false.

                                    Perhaps I need to step back, and analyze an Axiom 0 which I think you've implied; I'm at risk of committing a strawman fallacy here, [logicallyfallacious.com] so please call me out if I misrepresent you:

                                    Axiom 0: Whatever a sovereign individual does within their natural rights is not a crime
                                    Axiom 1 & 2: as previously stated
                                    Observation: P2 harmed P1 while adhering to Axioms 1 & 2, thereby committing a crime
                                    Conclusion: Axiom 0 is false, and a sovereign individual can commit crime while exercising their natural rights

                                    Again, the solution that most people accept is that because P2 made an agreement to pay for the MacGuffin, P2 in doing so took on an obligation relative to P1. P2 owes P1 the money agreed upon. This obligation is what justifies P1 in seeking compensation when P2 walks away from the exchange with P1's MacGuffin in hand. Such obligation and the trust it allows between parties acting in good faith is the basis of all societies.

                                    Taking your example at face value, I still cannot differentiate between your obligation and my slavery.

                                    Neither can I, which is why I am confused by your violent aversion to it.

                                    --
                                    Travel the galaxy! Meet fascinating life forms... And kill them [schlockmercenary.com]
                                    • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday December 14 2017, @05:42AM (2 children)

                                      by Anonymous Coward on Thursday December 14 2017, @05:42AM (#609603)

                                      Perhaps I need to step back, and analyze an Axiom 0 which I think you've implied [...] Axiom 0: Whatever a sovereign individual does within their natural rights is not a crime

                                      Ah, good point. Allow me to propose a rephrase:

                                      "Axiom 0: Whatever an individual does is not a crime as long as the action does not trespass upon another individual's property or life."

                                      From my point of view, I don't see any difference between a "sovereign individual" and an "individual". "Natural rights" (or merely "rights") is becoming synonymous with "entitlements", I fear, so I try to use even simpler terms.

                                      P2 harmed P1 by terminating the agreement w/o paying (accepted fact)

                                      Are there not levels of harm that do not rise to the level of being considered a crime (which I thus far roughly define as a trespass against another person's life/property)? If I were to call you a "big jerk", that would be harm without also being a crime, correct? If I were to try to punch you in the nose, in contrast, that would be a direct attack on the property of your body and thus your life, and therefore be an example of harm as a crime. There are potential consequences for both cases of harm: you could disassociate from me in both cases, and be justified in using force against me in the latter case.

                                      As repugnant as it is for me to appear to be justifying what I flippantly call "theft", your illustrative example may not be an example of harm that also equates to a violation of life/property - particularly in the case of a significant time gap between delivery of goods and expected payment. It seems much easier to identify a crime when the time gap is very short. Rather than "theft", perhaps "fraud" is the better term: if I were to enter your store, take an object displayed for sale, then immediately try to leave without paying, it seems quite blatant that my intentions for being on your property were based on a lie with that lie being "that I intended to enter your property and pay for any goods I took before leaving". If you'd known my intentions in advance, I assume that you wouldn't give me permission to enter your property in the first place.

                                      The key seems to be that all interaction was voluntary; no one was coerced or threatened into participation. After a bad interaction between P1 and P2, it seems likely that there will be no further voluntary interaction unless P1 accepts an offer of restitution from P2 (and perhaps not even after that).

                                      Neither can I [differentiate between our definitions of obligation and slavery], which is why I am confused by your violent aversion to [obligation/slavery].

                                      If the basis of human interaction is governed by obligation/slavery, then I don't see how there can be any legitimate limits to the horrors and depravity that can be inflicted upon humans at the whim of those with power. Claiming to be a human myself, I have a terrible aversion to the idea of being exposed to unlimited obligation/slavery. While I am open to the idea that perhaps obligation/slavery is in fact the only valid logical solution to human interaction, that idea must square with others in the same basket called society. If society is based upon unchanging principles, what are those principles? (Attempting to discover and define those principles is my goal.) If society is based on nothing but the whims of those with power, then there is no such thing as the crime of murder beyond that of a farmer not wanting to lose livestock to other livestock. I think I can handle either scenario being the true one, though, so long as that approach is consistent and sound.

                                      • (Score: 2) by Spook brat on Friday December 15 2017, @09:03PM (1 child)

                                        by Spook brat (775) on Friday December 15 2017, @09:03PM (#610462) Journal

                                        If the basis of human interaction is governed by obligation/slavery, then I don't see how there can be any legitimate limits to the horrors and depravity that can be inflicted upon humans at the whim of those with power. Claiming to be a human myself, I have a terrible aversion to the idea of being exposed to unlimited obligation/slavery.

                                        This, I think, is the essence of our discussion. You have said that you're open to the idea that your ideas are wrong, [soylentnews.org] and that you're interested in having false information bashed off your ideas. [soylentnews.org] If that is the case, then I'm prepared to help you with that. I will be very careful here to make sure that any attacks I make are against your ideas and logic, not you personally.

                                          You have concluded, based on your personal aversion [1], that unlimited & involuntary obligation (slavery) is morally wrong. You then conclude that limited & voluntary obligation is the same as unlimited and involuntary obligation, and expand the existing definition of slavery to include it. The second statement does not follow from the first. This is an example of the division fallacy [yourlogicalfallacyis.com]. This is similar to saying that high temperatures cause burns and can kill you, therefore the ideal environmental temperature is absolute zero. It is also similar to saying that Chlorine gas is lethal, and table salt contains Chlorine atoms, therefore table salt is lethal. Note that this being a fallacy does not mean that the relationship cannot exist; we simply cannot conclude definitively that a property of the whole applies to its parts. To reach that conclusion we need to analyze the situation more and see if it results in logically consistent results.

                                        Let's assume, then, that it is true. Axioms 0 [2], 1, and 2 that we discussed earlier are logical extensions of the idea that all obligation is slavery. We've discussed the aborted purchase example where P2 leaves with P1's MacGuffin before making payment, and arrived at a contradiction. To restate the contradiction: if P2 did nothing wrong, then P1 has no legal claim. If P1 has a legal claim, then P2 has no right to the MacGuffin. The logical conclusion is that the premise is false. [wikipedia.org]

                                        You are experiencing cognitive dissonance. [psychologytoday.com] You believe that P2 has committed no crime in the scenario we've described, because all their actions were in keeping with the Axioms as described. You also believe that P1 is justified in seeking repayment: [soylentnews.org]

                                        . . . hiring a collection agent to convince P2 to pay; if there is a private property titling system in place, liens may be able to be placed against P2; P1 can obviously refuse further association with P2, and spread news of P2 to other parties with the dual goals of helping others avoid problems with P2 and/or convincing P2 to pay P1.

                                        Your response to this has been a long series of logical fallacies:

                                        "Are there not levels of harm that do not rise to the level of being considered a crime?" Strawman [yourlogicalfallacyis.com]
                                        "your illustrative example may not be an example of harm that also equates to a violation of life/property" No True Scotsman [yourlogicalfallacyis.com]
                                        "Rather than "theft", perhaps "fraud" is the better term . . . If you'd known my intentions in advance, I assume that you wouldn't give me permission to enter your property in the first place." Special Pleading [3] [yourlogicalfallacyis.com]

                                        This is common behavior for people experiencing cognitive dissonance. You know that you're trying to justify the actions of a thief, and you are searching for a way for it to make sense logically; it's not going to work, and if you somehow succeed in convincing yourself it will be mentally unhealthy for you.

                                        While I am open to the idea that perhaps obligation/slavery is in fact the only valid logical solution to human interaction, that idea must square with others in the same basket called society. If society is based upon unchanging principles, what are those principles? (Attempting to discover and define those principles is my goal.)

                                        That is a discussion I'm willing to have. I think I'd like to take it back to our other thread, [soylentnews.org] and keep this one strictly to being a discussion of the system you're proposing. I'm out of time for today (this took a while to write), please give me time to put my thoughts together.

                                        "If society is based on nothing but the whims of those with power, then there is no such thing as the crime of murder beyond that of a farmer not wanting to lose livestock to other livestock. I think I can handle either scenario being the true one, though, so long as that approach is consistent and sound."

                                        Unfortunately, this scenario is the one that sociopaths live by regardless of what society they live in. When I put together my proposal for a system of values that can be universally applied in a society I'll be assuming that the "might makes right" system is operating in parallel and must be dealt with as a measure of how well the society works. Again, that's a discussion for the other thread.

                                        Thanks for reading!

                                         

                                        [1] this is the appeal to emotion [yourlogicalfallacyis.com] fallacy, although I believe (for different reasons) that you are correct. Rejecting your rejection of slavery based on you reaching it by faulty reasoning [yourlogicalfallacyis.com] would be a fallacy on my part, so I'm not going to argue that point. I do recommend that you form a more robust argument against slavery than "I don't like it", but do it for your own benefit, not for mine.

                                        [2] I'm OK with your revised wording on axiom 0. Based on what you wrote, I think I correctly understand your meaning. There are specific things I mean by "natural rights", which makes it match what I think you mean by simply the word "rights", but they are not important in this conversation. If we ever get to discussing "rights granted by others" vs "rights inherent to being human" then we can bring that back, but we're a long way from that in this discussion. Until then I agree that we should go with just the word "rights" as you suggest; I know what you mean.

                                        [3] I may be wrong about this one; any Philosophy or Law majors want to check me on this?

                                        --
                                        Travel the galaxy! Meet fascinating life forms... And kill them [schlockmercenary.com]
                                        • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday December 16 2017, @10:18AM

                                          by Anonymous Coward on Saturday December 16 2017, @10:18AM (#610668)

                                          You are experiencing cognitive dissonance.

                                          Agreed, and some years ago that was the motivating factor for me to start down the path that led me to where I currently am in an attempt to identify and resolve the tremendous amount of contradictions that I'd acquired before becoming aware of them. I'll quickly attempt to correct a few of my miscommunications before refocusing on the issue of obligation versus slavery, and whether either can be used in a model where each human participant is the sole, exclusive self-owner of the body they inhabit. The foundation for my assertions is that a human being "has an inherent right to life", which I attempt to rephrase as "has exclusive and sole ownership over the body the human inhabits". Any emotional justification for my premises should be rightly dismissed out of hand, regardless of what state my emotions are in during formulation or discussion of ideas using reason and logic. Likewise, I am not looking for an authority to merely deem my argument invalid, but for reason and logic through discussion to shape or demolish my premises. I also recognize that my use of terms that are shared by legal systems can be problematic, and I'm open to using new or different terms to avoid problems (e.g. replacing "fraud" with "deceit-for-gain").

                                          Your response to this [(the example [soylentnews.org] of receiving goods without making payment laid out as a formal proof)] has been a long series of logical fallacies:

                                          Rather than try to defend my first approach, I'll use another. (For the record, I am not attempting to justify the harm in a case of shoplifting, but attempting to find the proper label for the harm. Theft did not seem appropriate, but fraud seemed to fit both scenarios better regardless of the time involved between taking of goods and expectation of payment. Theft, on the other hand, would seem to remain appropriate for the taking of goods which were not offered up for sale at the time when the goods were taken. Both theft and fraud are examples of harm that violate the victim's self-ownership.)

                                          For this approach, I'll focus on a case at the longer end of the time delay between delivery of goods and expected payment that you brought up for your example (footnote [1]) [soylentnews.org].

                                          Consider the historical silent trade [wikipedia.org]: P1 (the seller), sets out goods for trade, makes a signal, then leaves. P2 (the presumptive buyer) could simply arrive when summoned, take the goods P1 set out, and depart while leaving nothing in return. Call the harm whatever you will, but P1 historically dealt with the harm by not dealing with P2 in the future. Those historical examples seem to be in harmony with principle I'm advocating in that all parties are voluntary participants, and the principled way for P1 to respond to P2 over bad behavior by P2 is to disassociate from P2 (and likely also telling P1's other trader friends that P2 has a tendency to take rather than trade). Likewise, "risk mitigation" would involve leaving a tiny sampling of goods for the first offer rather than the entire supply of trade goods (echoed today in the handling of credit cards where the first offered a potential debtor are typically low-limit cards, or even cards which only work off of a "debtor"-provided deposit so there was no risk at all to the "credit" processor). This example of voluntary-interaction principles seems promising for a model claiming to be universal, as it does not reply upon an overarching government or even a common language.

                                          This then suggests that the onus to dealing with shoplifting is on the merchant, and is not something to be offloaded onto a "justice system" typically funded by others. (This is also similar to criticisms of President Jefferson's use of the US Navy against the Barbary Pirates in defense of US merchant ships.) This is not to say that such changes would be "no-cost", or that people in general would enjoy all of the changes brought about by use of the principles in action (perhaps my "store card" wouldn't be used for special discounts, but might serve as a key to the store's locked front door!), merely that the cognitive-dissonance-inducing contradictions would be abolished and we could move a bit closer to interacting with others using reason rather than vapid and often harmful traditions.

                                          Neither can I [differentiate between our definitions of obligation and slavery], which is why I am confused by your violent aversion to [obligation/slavery].

                                          Jumping back for a fresh approach at your statement [soylentnews.org]: what is the factor that can be used to logically limit authority (the justification to use power/force) for a model of human interactions (i.e. society) based on obligation/slavery? The logical authority-limiting factor using my principles is that of voluntary participation and continual consent. Without an authority-limiting factor, I don't know of a logical reason why such a model couldn't be used to re-impose the role of humanity as chattel livestock. Human livestock as a concept contradicts the idea that every human is exclusively self-owned, which is the reason I phrase it as a negative.

                                          When I put together my proposal for a system of values that can be universally applied in a society I'll be assuming that the "might makes right" system is operating in parallel and must be dealt with as a measure of how well the society works. Again, that's a discussion for the other thread.

                                          Agreed, I'll wait to engage on this in the more appropriate other thread. I do want to note, though, that in the system of human sole and exclusive self-ownership that I'm championing, might-makes-right is no special challenge to classify, in that its exercise is simply a violation of others' self-ownership.

              • (Score: 2) by Spook brat on Friday December 08 2017, @08:37PM (5 children)

                by Spook brat (775) on Friday December 08 2017, @08:37PM (#607397) Journal

                As I mentioned elsewhere, I wanted to discuss with you a statement you made and discuss its accuracy:

                Those questions are irrelevant, as the status quo version of the "pateron posse"[1] already exhibits the worst potential behavior of the PP, which is that they extract others' money they feel entitled to under threat of lethal force. We already have the worst-case "PP scenario" happening right now; it can only stay the same or get better from this point. Source, [soylentnews.org] emphasis added

                I'm going to list a few ways in which the status quo can be worse:

                • PP takes your money, then fails to provide the service which was promised, because they're lazy
                • PP takes your money, then also takes someone else's money in exchange for not protecting you
                • PP takes your money, then puts more effort into protecting someone else who paid them more (kinda a combination of the first two)
                • PP takes your money, and protects you from others but its individual members rape/rob/murder non-patrons
                • PP takes your money, and protects you from others but its individual members rape/rob/murder patrons and non-patrons alike
                • As above, but patrons who pay an extra fee are excluded from the rape/robbery/murder

                While these types of events are common enough to have words assigned to them - corruption, bribery, extortion - they are rare enough to still be considered scandalous and cause for dismissal of the participants. Depending on what level of contract an individual is capable of negotiating with a voluntarily-funded mercenary police force, all of these are still possible even in the slavery-free society you propose. Additionally, you'd get extra problems, such as:

                • PP selectively enforces the law for patrons only; no pay = no protection
                • PP makes list of non-patrons publicly available, ensuring non-patrons are vulnerable to predation by criminals
                • PP monetizes its list of non-patrons by selling it to interested parties, ensuring they get paid for making non-patrons vulnerable to predation by criminals

                Remember:

                The basic premises involved include "I own myself exclusively" and "I have no claim of ownership over anyone else" source [soylentnews.org]

                The PP has no obligation to anyone who has not contracted with it, and no one has the right to claim ownership of them.

                I know you don't like to discuss details; I bring this up because having a holistic approach to society building is critical, as it is in any design effort. Security is not something that can be bolted on afterwards, or dismissed as an irrelevant detail to be sorted out later. If you really do prioritize radical personal freedom above domestic tranquility, by all means say so and let's deal with why you feel that's justified.

                I'd like to keep the discussion of whether or not all taxation is slavery to our other thread, and save this one for the discussion of the relative merits of freedom vs safety. I find both interesting, and I think the discussion will be easier to keep on track if we compartmentalize the two. Oh, game theory on competitive models is fair game here, too; I just expect that the fundamental issues of values will be more interesting to you in this thread. Game theory would probably be a distraction in the other thread.

                 

                [1] I'm resisting putting a [sic] here due to the misspelling of Patreon. I picked the name "Patreon Posse" deliberately, since the Patreon crowdfunding model seemed to match the concept of "voluntarily donated funds to pay for provision of a public peace". (apologies for the alliteration, but not many) I can easily see a model similar to the Corporation for Public Broadcasting delivering public security to everyone in a community, paid for by those who can afford it. Done well, it really isn't a bad idea. Anywhere I use the abbreviation "PP" in this post, assume I mean "Patreon Posse" with the definition I've provided in this footnote.

                --
                Travel the galaxy! Meet fascinating life forms... And kill them [schlockmercenary.com]
                • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday December 08 2017, @09:06PM (4 children)

                  by Anonymous Coward on Friday December 08 2017, @09:06PM (#607426)

                  If you really do prioritize radical personal freedom above domestic tranquility, by all means say so and let's deal with why you feel that's justified.

                  Perhaps "radical" in making use of its "basic, fundamental" definition. I'm not much for discussing "feelings", nor do I think there's any justification needed to attempt to abolish claims of ownership on humans by other humans.

                  I'm sure there is much wisdom in attempts to design options for a slavery-free society (since nothing could be mandatory). However, there seems to be disagreement as to whether or not the USA is a society using slavery to operate today; why go any further until that issue is first resolved? Full disclosure: I'm not likely to be much of a discussion partner for societal design speculation. While it might take a genius to invent indoor plumbing, an idiot can detect a busted water line.

                  • (Score: 2) by Spook brat on Friday December 08 2017, @11:23PM (3 children)

                    by Spook brat (775) on Friday December 08 2017, @11:23PM (#607504) Journal

                    By "radical freedom" I was referring to Sartres' philosophy of personal responsibility and self-determination, [utm.edu] it's one that I think you'd agree with in broad strokes if not in the particulars.

                    I'm fine with dropping this thread and moving to the other; I'm out of time today for replies, so it may be a bit before I get back to the other thread.

                    Final thought on why we might want to continue this thread, though: whether you're intending to or not, you are stepping down the road of society building by advocating "exclusive self-ownership" as you describe it, and unilaterally implementing such a lifestyle within another functioning society is perilous. Please don't get yourself arrested or killed before we can finish our other conversation ;)

                    --
                    Travel the galaxy! Meet fascinating life forms... And kill them [schlockmercenary.com]
                    • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday December 09 2017, @05:40AM (2 children)

                      by Anonymous Coward on Saturday December 09 2017, @05:40AM (#607627)

                      By "radical freedom" I was referring to Sartres' philosophy of personal responsibility and self-determination

                      Ah. Perhaps you are right. However, considering I spent a quarter-hour reading through the article you linked to and am not yet certain of Sartres' definition of "radical freedom" is illustrative of something: either my own lack of brainpower or a knowledge deficit likely to be shared with my primary audience (typical USian humans).

                      This is why I am using very basic terms and further defining those terms in additional very basic terms. I'd prefer to find a better word than "slavery", since it has very nearly become a buzzword and therefore meaningless, but even its "buzzword definition" (likely black human livestock being whipped while toiling away under the hot sun in an open field) is so similar in principle to the plain words I use (e.g.: someone else owns you) that I suspect it is still useful and proper to use.

                      you are stepping down the road of society building by advocating "exclusive self-ownership" as you describe it, and unilaterally implementing such a lifestyle within another functioning society is perilous

                      I have echoed your sentiment. [soylentnews.org] The society in place today is there regardless of its deviation from its sole source of authority; I have likely-naive hopes that a very basic explanation proving that claim, as well as a very basic metric for determining the limits of said authority, will be useful as a convincing argument and help restore justice and peace (it has done do already within my inconsequential sphere of personal influence). While many advocates for similar societal have been persecuted, there are also many who seem relatively unscathed at the moment. Put bluntly, the balance of power (force) is heavily weighted against the governors and for the faceless governed (there are no Rambos, and once targeted, a specific individual is largely helpless), and the governors know this.

                      • (Score: 3, Interesting) by Spook brat on Monday December 11 2017, @03:30PM (1 child)

                        by Spook brat (775) on Monday December 11 2017, @03:30PM (#608285) Journal

                        . . . I spent a quarter-hour reading through the article you linked to and am not yet certain of Sartres' definition of "radical freedom" is illustrative of something: either my own lack of brainpower or a knowledge deficit likely to be shared with my primary audience (typical USian humans).

                        It's not just you, Sartres leaves most people scratching their heads, as so most of the big-name philosophers. It's as if being incomprehensible were a requirement for acceptance as a Great Mind (TM).

                        Things I took from Sartres:
                        1) Regardless of circumstance, I always have the freedom to make whatever choice I desire.
                        2) Exercising that choice means accepting the consequences of my choice.
                        3) Any time I say "I have no choice" I'm lying to myself

                        He practiced what he preached, too, living a radically counterculture and revolutionary lifestyle. Much more interested in living an "authentic" life rather than conforming to others' unhealthy expectation. Not bad for a wall-eyed Frenchman :)

                        --
                        Travel the galaxy! Meet fascinating life forms... And kill them [schlockmercenary.com]
                        • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday December 12 2017, @08:10AM

                          by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday December 12 2017, @08:10AM (#608673)

                          If you really do prioritize radical personal freedom above domestic tranquility, by all means say so and let's deal with why you feel that's justified.

                          Based on your plain term definition below, I think I can start to engage in discussion with you on this.

                          Pardon my accusation, but I think your statement presents a false choice in regards to "domestic tranquility" if you equate that to "peace". I view peace as requiring "radical personal freedom" aka "exclusive self-ownership" aka "a society that rejects slavery", because I view peace as being the state where justice is perfectly applied. Justice, in this case, is the end result of restitution meted out to repair damage done by trespass against the exclusive self-ownership of humans by the trespassers.

                          Now, if you were asking if I value "exclusive self-ownership" more than I value avoiding disruptions to the way people historically interact with each other, yes, I do. I do value exclusive self-ownership over a lack of disruption to the existing slave trade.

                          Things I took from Sartres:
                          1) Regardless of circumstance, I always have the freedom to make whatever choice I desire.
                          2) Exercising that choice means accepting the consequences of my choice.
                          3) Any time I say "I have no choice" I'm lying to myself

                          Please excuse me while I carefully pick at some nits, not to be intentionally difficult, but in an attempt not to introduce "magic" or unfounded principles into the terms we're about to both use.

                          1: I, too, am inclined to think that I have free will, or the ability to make whatever choice I desire.

                          2: My choices will have consequences: some good/justified, some bad/criminal. Some of my choices may result in actions from other people, and those actions will likewise be the result of others' choices and be good/justified or bad/criminal. (This seems to be merely fact based on observation and not necessarily justification for anything else on its own. Example: "A mugger accosted his victim and demanded money. The victim said 'no'. The mugger attacked the victim, injuring him, and absconded with the victim's wallet." All of the choices by both parties had consequences, agreed. Nonetheless, the victim's refusal to submit was not justification for the mugger's attack. Using my terms, the mugger trespassed repeatedly against the victim's ownership of his body and property.)

                          3: I concur without reservation.

            • (Score: 2) by Thexalon on Monday December 11 2017, @05:03PM (2 children)

              by Thexalon (636) on Monday December 11 2017, @05:03PM (#608329)

              Hippie communes were a great idea, and none of them lasted beyond 1980.

              Actually, a few of those survived - mostly they were the ones with a strong sense of discipline regarding doing the work needed, earning enough money to function, and most importantly not getting so bent out of shape about who's banging who. That last one split up more communes than just about anything else.

              It wasn't a terrible track record for a lot of people who, let's face it, had no clue what they were getting themselves into.

              --
              The only thing that stops a bad guy with a compiler is a good guy with a compiler.
              • (Score: 2) by Spook brat on Monday December 11 2017, @08:37PM (1 child)

                by Spook brat (775) on Monday December 11 2017, @08:37PM (#608419) Journal

                That's great to hear! I tried looking for some counterexamples and came up empty; the closest thing I could find was that there are some new communities springing up based on Permaculture design principles that resemble hippie communes in some ways, but not at all in most others.

                Do any of the continued communes have a web presence I could use to check up on them?

                Thanks!

                --
                Travel the galaxy! Meet fascinating life forms... And kill them [schlockmercenary.com]
                • (Score: 3, Interesting) by Thexalon on Monday December 11 2017, @11:56PM

                  by Thexalon (636) on Monday December 11 2017, @11:56PM (#608542)

                  Probably the strongest surviving commune effort is Twin Oaks [twinoaks.org].

                  --
                  The only thing that stops a bad guy with a compiler is a good guy with a compiler.