The public ledger is an initiation of force, the difference is that both parties agree that it is pretty objective about its contract whatever the code is meant to do.

You couldn't be more wrong! Everyone freely volunteer's to use the blockchain, there's no force involved. Statism is the opposite of the free market, it IS force.

If anyone needs to rethink their position it is you saintaquinas 

Quote from: bytemaster on December 27, 2014, 05:49:43 am

Quote from: toast on December 27, 2014, 05:39:57 am

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.

Although at first I thought Toast's position had merit, but upon further reflection I don't think coordinated shunning is aggressive, a violation of the NAP or the golden rule. Toast is arguing from a consequentialist perspective, which by it's very nature cannot be an universal principle. If a party chooses to violate an agreement they brought the consequences upon their own head. Coordinated or not, shunning is a defensive action.

Moreover, how fucking difficult would it be for a malicious "coordinator" to gain enough support to accomplish a shunning effective enough to do harm? Is social consensus that easy to obtain? If you believe that how can you support the blockchain? It is a rhetorical question, of course.

I love these philosophical topics, and I appreciate all of your contributions toast.

I don't need to have a solution for all the special cases.
I'd be happy if non-violent solutions merely attenuated the need for government force by 50% (or even 10%).

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

Let's make that a habit of this: All of Dan's blog posts and bitshares tv videos should be posted to some reddit sub and then we discuss it there!

We could continue the conversation here: http://www.reddit.com/r/Libertarian/comments/2qjdlx/the_benefits_of_a_contract_free_society/ (also needs upvotes!)

I copied my post about the farmer raping his own kids...

Quote from: josojo on December 27, 2014, 10:07:03 am

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?

I would love to hear your solution to this hypothetical situation, bytemaster.

In this situation, the farmers don't care if they are shunned by the rest of society. They are surviving off of the land that they claimed for themselves. If the rest of the world does not agree with their property rights claim, the only option they have to respond (the only leverage they have over the farmers) is to physically interfere, which will inevitably lead to a violent altercation.

Now, they could simply give the property to them to avoid violence (appease the farmers). Unfortunately, this particular group of malicious farmers likes to occasionally invade your property and rape people. In this case I see two main options. Either the victims can proactively deal with situation (necessarily leading to a violent confrontation) before the farmers rape again, using the farmer's past crimes as justification for their intervention, or the victims don't do anything and just wait until the farmers come and rape again and perhaps at that time in the very moment of the attack they can then justify some measured violence against the rapists as an act of self defense.

Do you see any other non-violent and more desirable ways of handling the above hypothetical situation?

What if an autharkic farmer family rapes their own kids that live with them? Are they the farmer's property?

I find it very fruitful to discuss those things. But in the end a state as well as a stateless society will not have a perfect solution for a rapist farmer.

Overall my position is that BitShares is legitimate anyway no matter what perspective you have here because it aims at out competing the state. It will only replace those functions (security, protection of the weakest, minimizing externalization of costs etc.) that it can be better at than the state. Might not be as smoothly...

A high voltage electric fence plus moat filled with alligators surrounding them.

Self defense is permitted to minimize harm to all parties.

How efficient.

Now, let's say we are not talking about the rapist farmers, but instead a different village/community.

Community A with their moats and electric fences also have come to a consensus that they should have restrictions on the pollution they tolerate pumping into the atmosphere for the sake of the health of all the community members. They all agree that a violation of this consensus should result in shunning.

Community B has no such limitations on pollution. They burn all kinds of hazardous chemicals into the atmosphere which flows downwind to community A's territory. Perhaps they also dump harmful substances in the river that flows downstream to community A which happens to be their water source.

Community A shunning community B has no effect because community B is self-sufficient. What should community A do now? Live with pollution flowing into their territory for which there is no realistic technical way to stop? Relocate somewhere else further away from the polluters? What happens when land gets crowded and there is no where else to go?

What counts as self-defense anyway? If the pollution is harming the health of the community A's members, are they morally justified to use self-defense to minimize harm? Self-defense in this case meaning physically intervening with community B to provide the necessary consequences to get them to stop.

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?

I would love to hear your solution to this hypothetical situation, bytemaster.

In this situation, the farmers don't care if they are shunned by the rest of society. They are surviving off of the land that they claimed for themselves. If the rest of the world does not agree with their property rights claim, the only option they have to respond (the only leverage they have over the farmers) is to physically interfere, which will inevitably lead to a violent altercation.

Now, they could simply give the property to them to avoid violence (appease the farmers). Unfortunately, this particular group of malicious farmers likes to occasionally invade your property and rape people. In this case I see two main options. Either the victims can proactively deal with situation (necessarily leading to a violent confrontation) before the farmers rape again, using the farmer's past crimes as justification for their intervention, or the victims don't do anything and just wait until the farmers come and rape again and perhaps at that time in the very moment of the attack they can then justify some measured violence against the rapists as an act of self defense.

Do you see any other non-violent and more desirable ways of handling the above hypothetical situation?

I posted this on FDR this morning but so far only 2 replies, and they weren't very comprehensive at that. I thought you presented an extremely well reasoned argument, and your use of Rothbard was spot on.

Toast does raise a good point however. The "coordinated" distinction is key, but without it shunning isn't effective (assuming some other party can provide what you're withholding from the offender).

The other point that lends credibility to toast's perspective is that the coordinated power of shunning is just another collective, and we all know where collectives have led us in the past. It's contrary to idea of decentralization, it's hive mind not individualism.