[ExI] The Problem With Counterfeit People

[Gadersd]

> 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.

I have been interested in a decentralized approach to governance ever since I encountered cryptocurrencies. Any books that detail how this might be possible would be a treat. No pressure if you haven’t the time.

> On May 21, 2023, at 12:21 PM, efc--- via extropy-chat <extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org> wrote:
> 
> 
> 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
> _______________________________________________
> extropy-chat mailing list
> extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org
> http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat