Author Topic: The Benefits of a Contract Free Society  (Read 10532 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline bytemaster

Doesn't coordinated shunning also violate the golden principle? I do not want to be shunned if I stole something just like I do not want to go to jail if I stole something.

The only reason I would put myself into a situation where I might get shunned in the future is because I want people to know that I respect contractual agreements so I can credibly threaten to shun the other party in my future contracts.

It seems like the foundation you are working from is NAP, not the golden principle.

Read my article on GP to see the difference.   NAP is a subset of GP.   You say you "don't want to be shunned" but what that really means is "you want to interact with".   Shunning is merely denying something you want, it is not harming you.   

I think the distinction is that shunning someone isn't "doing anything to them", it is the absence of doing something to/for them.   A lot of people like to conflate inaction vs action.   You cannot compel someone to interact with you and you are free to NOT interact with people.   

So "don't do unto them what you don't want them doing unto you" would turn into... "doing nothing is ok because you are OK with others doing nothing".   You cannot simultaneously demand others act and "do nothing". 

Err.. Explaining this is difficult.

Coordinated shunning is an active process, not lack of action. It takes work to express your grievances to the public. It takes more work for a cashier to check a database to see if they should avoid selling them something than it is to just not discriminate and sell to them. Denying someone a voluntary trade hurts *both* parties, so you are asking people to hurt themselves to avoid interacting with someone you want to shun.

It is an active process, but you cannot claim that the people doing the shunning are operating outside their rights.   The only alternative would be for the shunned individual to pull out a gun and demand service.   

Actually I never ask someone to *HURT* themselves any more than buying insurance policy is asking someone to hurt themselves.   So long as they get more benefits (profit) by participating in the coordinated shunning than not then it is legitimate.    After all, no one is forcing anyone to shun and thus no one can be expected to act against their own interest.
For the latest updates checkout my blog: http://bytemaster.bitshares.org
Anything said on these forums does not constitute an intent to create a legal obligation or contract between myself and anyone else.   These are merely my opinions and I reserve the right to change them at any time.

Offline wackou

Please vote for witness wackou! More info at http://digitalgaia.io

Offline toast

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4001
    • View Profile
  • BitShares: nikolai
Doesn't coordinated shunning also violate the golden principle? I do not want to be shunned if I stole something just like I do not want to go to jail if I stole something.

The only reason I would put myself into a situation where I might get shunned in the future is because I want people to know that I respect contractual agreements so I can credibly threaten to shun the other party in my future contracts.

It seems like the foundation you are working from is NAP, not the golden principle.

Read my article on GP to see the difference.   NAP is a subset of GP.   You say you "don't want to be shunned" but what that really means is "you want to interact with".   Shunning is merely denying something you want, it is not harming you.   

I think the distinction is that shunning someone isn't "doing anything to them", it is the absence of doing something to/for them.   A lot of people like to conflate inaction vs action.   You cannot compel someone to interact with you and you are free to NOT interact with people.   

So "don't do unto them what you don't want them doing unto you" would turn into... "doing nothing is ok because you are OK with others doing nothing".   You cannot simultaneously demand others act and "do nothing". 

Err.. Explaining this is difficult.

Coordinated shunning is an active process, not lack of action. It takes work to express your grievances to the public. It takes more work for a cashier to check a database to see if they should avoid selling them something than it is to just not discriminate and sell to them. Denying someone a voluntary trade hurts *both* parties, so you are asking people to hurt themselves to avoid interacting with someone you want to shun.
Do not use this post as information for making any important decisions. The only agreements I ever make are informal and non-binding. Take the same precautions as when dealing with a compromised account, scammer, sockpuppet, etc.

Offline Rune

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1120
    • View Profile
I liked this so much I had to post it to reddit:

http://www.reddit.com/r/Libertarian/comments/2qjdlx/the_benefits_of_a_contract_free_society/

Wanted to post to /r/bitcoin too, but apparently I've been downvoted too much for supporting bitshares so I can't post there anymore :P

Offline bytemaster

I will address utopian claims in the future.   We will never discover non violent solutions if we assume they are not possible.   
For the latest updates checkout my blog: http://bytemaster.bitshares.org
Anything said on these forums does not constitute an intent to create a legal obligation or contract between myself and anyone else.   These are merely my opinions and I reserve the right to change them at any time.

Offline bitsapphire

You haven;t explained how property can exist in the first place. Property is not a natural state, it is a creation of man. Furthermore, property cannot exist without contract, and contract cannot exist without the immediate threat of disproportional punishment. Its game theory really.

Shaming, even exclusion from future contracting, of a misbehaving entity only changes the present NPV calculations of that entity. The more rounds are played (and if that entity is aware of the number of rounds) the higher its NPV cost of misbehaving. This presupposes rational actors with sufficient symmetric knowledge. Because not every player is rational and not every player has symmetric information you get a systems-wide Nash Equilibrium which discounts the future disproportionally and favors the present. Or in other words, the more irrational the actor, the less does the shaming as a punishment fulfill its role. However, the punishment is there exactly for such entities, therefore shaming has no impact on reinforcement and systems-wide contract execution.

Property is in the worst case a result of violence, in the mild case a result of protective violence, and in the best case the potential for protective violence.

Government and the state are in the best case the surrender of the potential violence of the many to the one, for the purpose of all encompassing potential violence and therefore all encompassing (and hopefully coherent) contract execution and enforcement.
Register and get your personal Moonstone Wallet Beta here: https://moonstone.io/login-register.html

Offline josojo

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 8
    • View Profile
Quote
Imagine if every body had a bond and arbitration agent on file with the block chain. Imagine everyone refused to do business with someone who had an unpaid judgement against them because their own bond was at risk if they did.

BitShares is the foundation of a non-violent consensus on property rights that replaces the use of force to physically reallocate property.

I'm sorry, I am not a libertarian. These non-violent consensuses are an utopia. Even blockchain technology won't change this.

In my point of view there are always situations in which one has to be violent or at least punish people by some consequences.
For example, imagine there are some farmers, who can live autarkic, i.e. they produce everything they need by themselves and do not need to deal with anyone else. Imagine further, their favourite activity is to rape your kids. What would u do? Wait until they want to deal with someone else or would u go over there and cut off their balls?

Offline luckybit

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2921
    • View Profile
  • BitShares: Luckybit
https://metaexchange.info | Bitcoin<->Altcoin exchange | Instant | Safe | Low spreads

Offline bitAndy

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 68
    • View Profile
Excellent post!

I think that in a stateless society almost everyone would seek economic & social austacism as the first means to deter and resolve contract fraud since it would be far cheaper than resorting to force initially.

There will always be crimes that require force to resolve (a rape or robbery etc) so the blockchain can't eliminate all force as a means of self defence of person & property.

I would however love to see decentralised courts & arbitration agencies that use shunning techniques to compel suspected criminals to face trial.

Offline roadscape

Some of these concepts are new to me (academically) and I enjoyed reading about them and how they relate to the blockchain.  +5%
http://cryptofresh.com  |  witness: roadscape

jaran

  • Guest
Got our own Ron Paul right here.  Good stuff. 

Now we just need to get you into the primaries for 2016 so you can educate the masses on liberty and the blockchain...and pump bitshares :)

Ron Paul style like a boss.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Zm_xSlCMBIQ

Offline bytemaster

Doesn't coordinated shunning also violate the golden principle? I do not want to be shunned if I stole something just like I do not want to go to jail if I stole something.

The only reason I would put myself into a situation where I might get shunned in the future is because I want people to know that I respect contractual agreements so I can credibly threaten to shun the other party in my future contracts.

It seems like the foundation you are working from is NAP, not the golden principle.

Read my article on GP to see the difference.   NAP is a subset of GP.   You say you "don't want to be shunned" but what that really means is "you want to interact with".   Shunning is merely denying something you want, it is not harming you.   

I think the distinction is that shunning someone isn't "doing anything to them", it is the absence of doing something to/for them.   A lot of people like to conflate inaction vs action.   You cannot compel someone to interact with you and you are free to NOT interact with people.   

So "don't do unto them what you don't want them doing unto you" would turn into... "doing nothing is ok because you are OK with others doing nothing".   You cannot simultaneously demand others act and "do nothing". 

Err.. Explaining this is difficult.
For the latest updates checkout my blog: http://bytemaster.bitshares.org
Anything said on these forums does not constitute an intent to create a legal obligation or contract between myself and anyone else.   These are merely my opinions and I reserve the right to change them at any time.

Offline Troglodactyl

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 960
    • View Profile
Doesn't coordinated shunning also violate the golden principle? I do not want to be shunned if I stole something just like I do not want to go to jail if I stole something.

The only reason I would put myself into a situation where I might get shunned in the future is because I want people to know that I respect contractual agreements so I can credibly threaten to shun the other party in my future contracts.

It seems like the foundation you are working from is NAP, not the golden principle.

As he's phrased the golden principle: “Do not do unto others what you do not want others doing unto you.“

That depends on whether shunning is considered active or passive.  I guess you mean you wouldn't want someone to inform others that there was any reason to shun you?

Offline toast

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4001
    • View Profile
  • BitShares: nikolai
Doesn't coordinated shunning also violate the golden principle? I do not want to be shunned if I stole something just like I do not want to go to jail if I stole something.

The only reason I would put myself into a situation where I might get shunned in the future is because I want people to know that I respect contractual agreements so I can credibly threaten to shun the other party in my future contracts.

It seems like the foundation you are working from is NAP, not the golden principle.
Do not use this post as information for making any important decisions. The only agreements I ever make are informal and non-binding. Take the same precautions as when dealing with a compromised account, scammer, sockpuppet, etc.

Offline Troglodactyl

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 960
    • View Profile
Great post.

One point: If I attempt unjustified violence against others, I want someone to stop me, even if protecting the lives of others against me requires the use of force that puts my life at risk.  This means I consider use of force justifiable under the golden principle in certain circumstances, but that doesn't require government intervention.