[ExI] The Problem With Counterfeit People

[efc at swisscows.email]

On Sat, 20 May 2023, Adrian Tymes via extropy-chat wrote:

> How many of those are police, as in enforcing a formal criminal code on a large scale?

Large scale can be broken down into several small scale operations. The
larger the scale, the more inefficient the police.

> And that is a factor.  We're talking about societies well beyond the "everyone knows everyone" level.  It is not possible to break
> the entire world into such small communities.  For the most part, any groups that try to do so, eventually wind up with way too many

You are very quick to tell me what is and is not possible. Once upon a
time having something else besides monarchy, where power was given from
god, was impossible and unthinkable.

I do not think it bodes well for our discussion when you dismiss my
ideas as not possible. I do not agree, and you have not offered, in my
opinion, an iron clad proof of why decentralization and replacing mega
cities with smaller communities is impossible.

I think it is, so absent conclusive evidence, I think we can just agree
to disagree.

> So, no, we're talking about police, not small community guards.

I do not agree with you defining the terms to suit you. I'll drop this
part of the argument (see above).

> And my experience has been rarely shitty - only when they broke their own rules.  When they did, other police were able to hold them
> accountable.
> 
> Personal anecdotes are not data, though.

Agreed. Perhaps we can agree also that our personal experiences color
our political beliefs. And also, that police in some countries are a
joke, in some barely scrapes by, and in some according to your
experience, they do a great job. I do not know any country where the
last scenario is the case, but I fully accept your experience and from
that follows that somewhere it does work great. ;)

>       I'd rather buy the
>       services of a private security company
> 
> I'd rather everyone was rich enough to have that option.  But that's not the world we live in.

That is however not an argument for what could be. In fact, governments
due to their excessive taxation, have locked modern man in an eternal
cycle of work, income, tax, until retirement age. Retirement age keeps
getting higher, and then the productive tax generation asset dies.
Modern western states have made slaves of the modern man.

I would prefer a free world where I could choose what service I buy and
what service I do not buy. I also think such a world will make everyone
richer.

In fact, if you read some Johan Norberg (CATO institute) you will see
that the more capitalism we have, the richer everyone gets. And in a
free world, with maximum capitalism, wealth will be wider spread than in
todays world according to economics and historical proof, compared with
the opposite, increasing states.

> Besides, if you tried to do so?  Look no further than George Santos right now.  A member of Congress, being defended by the Speaker
> of the House, who would very much like to deny the police the ability to arrest George on the grounds that George is a currently
> serving congressman.  What do you think would happen if he got a private security company, charged with making sure he stayed out of
> jail and remained able to do his job in Congress?

Speculation and US politics.

> He got into this situation by committing fraud and other actions objectionable to libertarians.  Surely you wouldn't suggest that he
> should be allowed to get away with these things, even if he somehow had the protection of the US military.  But the police are the
> only means by which he can be stopped.

I think in a libertarian world he would have been stopped far earlier.
But this is just speculation.

>       Oh, but russia is an example of why the state should not exist. Once a
>       bad guy hijacks the public sector, all that power causes immense
>       destruction. Much better to have the ultimate decentralization of power
>       and a profit motive to keep people in check. Capitalism is engineered in
>       such a way that the one who helps the most people makes the most profit.
> 
> And who engineers it?  Who keeps the markets fair?  Who makes sure that one group doesn't simply use force to achieve dominance?

Customers, actors on the market, companies, volunteer organizations,
watchdogs, etc.

> If the answer is "no one", then someone's going to turn it into a dictatorship before long.

Disagree. Decentralization is the only way. Many make the logical
mistake that the government is necessary since we humans are so corrupt
and fallible. Then they, with a straight face, argue that we populate
the government giving ultimate power to the same fallible corrupt human
beings. WW1, WW2, Russia and Ukraine is proof enough of how foolish this
is.

Decentralization of power is the only way and only free markets and
smaller libertarian communities can achieve this.

There is another interesting path, where crypto eventually deprives the
states of their power through taxation and they slowly just whither away
or remains as small, starved historical entities for people who have no
other skills or interests but to roleplay being small time politicians.

> If you require everyone to be armed so that doesn't happen - who's going to require it?  What happens if one group takes advantage of
> everyone else being armed and foregoes the expense of having their own weapons, instead using those resources to outcompete everyone
> else, offering cheaper goods and services knowing that others will use their guns to defend them in order to get said cheaper goods
> and services, and thus start amassing capital so they can take over?  This may seem like a complex scenario but this is what
> naturally occurs.

These questions can be studied and have been answered in many
libertarian books. And if you like I can give you links to the books.
I'm not sure, at this stage in our discussion, that I am willing to take
the time to go through all the books and summarize the ways this can be
achieved.

The market also has the wonderful property of coming up with solutions
no one was able to imagine on their own.

Since soviet had no markets, and a few power hungry people tried to
control everything, it failed. Great study however of why anything
besides libertarianism will eventually lead to pain and misery.

> The most successful answer we've had so far is to build in mechanisms to keep bad guys from hijacking the public sector, or to limit

Just as the most successful answer we had for many years was kings and
nobility. This does not invalidate any other ideas and it definitely is
not a reason to stop trying.

> Enforced by who?  It is already the case, with state enforcement, that companies try to cheat and rip off the vulnerable.  Without a

There are many states and politicians who rip off the vulnarable in way
more horrorible ways than companies. I take a company any day over a
politician with all power in his hands.

>       This is just a statement and not a proof. I state the opposite and point
>       to the fact that I've done plenty of business in private locations and
>       it worked out beautifully.
> 
> I point to the history of public roads as evidence.  Again: data, not personal anecdotes.

I've travelled many private roads, so history in this case clearly has
not proven private roads are not possible.

> That is the conclusion: eventually, someone muscles in and takes charge.  A long-term libertarian anarchy appears to be impossible,
> based on all the attempts to create one there have been.  So, since there will eventually be a state, the answer is to make that
> state the best it can be, including guards against some bad guy seizing power forever.  Part of this is having police that guard
> against corruption.

I disagree. Technology, science, people, geography are different every
time. Depending on how liberal you are with your definition,
Liechtenstein, Monaco, Dubai and many other places can be seen as
private countries with an owner, and zero tax. They seem to be doing
well.

I have not seen or heard any new arguments from you that have shaken my
point of view in any fundamental way, so I suspect we'll agree to
disagree. But, you never know. ;)

I also think you have not heard anything new from me, so in all fairness
the statement goes both ways.

Best regards, 
Daniel