[ExI] The Problem With Counterfeit People

[efc at swisscows.email]

Hello Gadersd,

On Sun, 21 May 2023, Gadersd via extropy-chat wrote:

>> 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.
>

No problem! =)

I don't have any recommendations that focus on decentralization per se,
but classics I've read and enjoyed are:

Liberalism by Ludwig von Mises 
https://mises.org/library/liberalism-classical-tradition

The Market for Liberty by Morris and Linda Tannehill 
https://mises.org/library/market-liberty-1

The Machinery of Freedom by David Friedman

Arguments for Liberty 
https://www.cato.org/books/arguments-liberty

Oh, and one more. I haven't read it but it is on my list so caveat
emptor:

Free Private Cities: Making Governments Compete For You
https://www.amazon.com/Free-Private-Cities-Governments-Compete/dp/1724391380

In those books there are discussions around "how would X work in
a free society".

Best regards, 
Daniel


>> 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
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> extropy-chat mailing list
> extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org
> http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat