Author Topic: Mutual Aid Societies  (Read 32198 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline puppies

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1659
    • View Profile
  • BitShares: puppies
I reject the idea that having hurt no one, where no individual can make a claim of damages against me, that I may be subject to the violent coercive aggression of a state or government.
So you support drunk drivers, as long as they don't hurt anyone? I think that taking risks with other people's lives is undesirable for society.

There are no solutions.  There are only costs and benefits.  There is a cost associated with preventing inebriated drivers from driving.  There is a potential cost associated with not preventing inebriated drivers from driving. 

Even in a world with private roads, most roads would probably have rules about speed, traffic, and required ability of the vehicle operators (whether they are inebriated or not).  Providing this security service would increase the cost associated with maintaining these roads.  People would be free to decide if they were willing to pay to ensure they were not sharing the road with inebriated drivers.  There would probably be routes without any "security", routes with moderate levels of "security", and maybe even routes that prevented teenagers or old people from driving on them.  We would all be free to experiment with the proper costs and benefits effecting our "safety"  Statistically speaking a road that prevented anyone younger than 25 or older than 65 from driving on it would probably be safer than a road that prevented drinking and driving. 

Drinking and driving is a bad idea most of the time.  The costs and benefits of drinking and driving bear very heavy costs for most of us.  Those costs are not the same for everyone though.  There are people that are terrible dangerous drivers sober, and people that are much better drivers than them well over .08 BAC.  I don't see a need to wait until someone has caused harm to another before we discourage certain behaviors.  We just need to be mindful of the costs, and of course respect the non aggression principle.  Half of the problem now is that it is illegal to exercise our right of freedom of association.  More specifically we are not allowed to disassociate those that behave in behaviors we dislike.  We are forced to associate with them through the state, and its "public property" 
https://metaexchange.info | Bitcoin<->Altcoin exchange | Instant | Safe | Low spreads

Offline merivercap

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 661
    • View Profile
    • BitCash

I understand your more measured approach Donkeypong, but to answer you and Chronos:

I don't support drunk driving, but if someone does drive drunk and there are no accidents or harm that's fine.  If someone is being rude  it doesn't mean I support rude behavior.  Does it mean there should be a law against rude behavior?  If so should some people in these forums pay a fine to the government?

Hence it's important to focus on the consequences.  If you drive drunk and you harm another there is a consequence of your action.  It's the same consequences of harming someone when you are not drunk.  There are some people who are just bad or negligent drivers.

In old common law and tort law focusing on consequences would probably be standard principle.   You can challenge others for emotional distress, but that would most likely be a tiny fraction of the compensation you can claim compared to physical harm. 

If you want to change cultural habits and highlight the dangers of drunk driving and make those actions unbecoming in the society that's fine, but you don't need statutory laws for that.  Your just giving up more power to the those that are in government.   Next time you are stopped during these holiday seasons for a DUI checkpoint and are asked to stand on one foot and touch your nose think a little bit more if that's really to protect people from drunk drivers.  Furthermore when a TSA agent starts touching your crotch or your children's at the airport, think if that really is to protect you from terrorists.  In the end the primary benefit for those in government to get public displays of authority is to condition the public into submission.   I mean if they can molest little girls in public at the airport how can you not think those in government are the boss?  In the end it's up to you.  Want to stand on one leg and touch your noise.  Go ahead and obey.  If you have the TSA touching your crotch.  Go ahead and obey.  If you see that happen to an old lady or little girl.  Go ahead and keep silent.  Then we'll all know who the boss is.

It's not fine to drive drunk. Society has a bright-line rule preventing bad behavior and I fully support having such lines as well as reasonable enforcement of them.
 
 
1.  Again there is a difference between being 'not fine' as a behavior vs there being a law against it. 
2.  You should focus on the consequences.  People should pay the consequences regardless of if they are drunk or not for the actual harm  they cause.
3.  90%+ people routinely drive over posted speed limits.  Driving 'fast' is completely arbitrary and subjective.
4.  It's the same with being 'drunk'.  What is .08 blood alcohol even if you could measure it accurately?  Why not .02 or .04 or .12?  That's also arbitrary. 

Do you seriously believe a legal system can function without statutory laws? That's a very naive view. If you want to strip those away and rely only on tort law, then I see at least four big problems with that.
 
Yes most statutory laws are arbitrary and unnecessary.  You have thousands of pages of statutes that for the most part amount to junk.  Some person wrote a book saying the average person commits three felonies a day.  (http://www.threefeloniesaday.com/Youtoo/tabid/86/Default.aspx).  Sure you can probably find a bunch of obscure statutes that make something illegal.  Much of it is disregarded anyways or can easily be challenged.  Consider the 2,242 page Omnibus Bill that just passed.  A bunch of junk.  The media now touts CISA as the  'law of the land'... Yeah that can and should easily be challenged, but the Supreme Court even has bias.  Either way most statutes are either frivolous or unconstitutional. 

First, it would be incredibly expensive, so get ready to pay MUCH higher taxes.
 
I disagree.  You'd save a whole lot of trees and wasted time.  It would be far cheaper without all these administrators on the dole.  That's probably why legal fees are so high in the first place.  All these spaghetti statutes you have to go through to settle a simple dispute.  There's already a trend towards arbitration and private law.  Also just look at the 6th & 7th amendments in the US Constitution.  The foundation of our judicial system was common law and trial by jury. 

Second, tort and common law do not cover crimes adequately. That's why we have criminal codes. They are different bodies of law for different situations.

I disagree there too.  Criminal law is just as arbitrary.  You can argue about what forms of punishment you should have for violent crime, but a majority of prison inmates are there for non-violent offenses (50% drug-related and 10% immigration-related). There's just a whole lot of bad criminal statutes that have the Prison-Industrial-Complex on the dole.  It's a multi-Billion business in the states...  I'm sure some people are happy to be making money off these statutes. 

As for punishment we are doing things backwards.  Instead of locking most people up we should have criminals pay back their debt to the victims and society by working.  Instead we lock them up and pay their living expenses.  Victims and aggrieved family members get nothing.  If an offender actually was able to work and pay back a debt I'm sure the victims would prefer that.     A reparations-payments mechanism would be far better for non-violent offenses. 

Third, speaking of the differences between criminal and civil law, you're talking about (in common law countries, at least) a completely different standard of proof that's required. It's much easier to prove a civil case (preponderance of the evidence, probably around 51% certainty) than a criminal one (beyond a reasonable doubt, probably greater than 90% certainty). How are you going to reconcile those? Because if you are relying on civil law to solve all of society's problems, then you're going to "convict" a lot more people than the criminal law system would have convicted.
    Yes relying on civil law is much better and can handle everything.  It's semantics anyways.  'Criminal law' came out of Canon Law so most of what we think of with statutes and 'criminal law' most likely came about from central authorities dictating what was right, rather than the people as individuals with equal power.  Before it was the Church and now Government.

Fourth, if you are relying on tort law, then most tortfeasors (wrongdoers) would not have the money to pay adverse judgments...deep pockets. ...additional consumer protection laws (both civil and criminal statutes, which I know you don't like) to cover other areas that tort law's deep-pockets-free-market approach cannot touch.... In other words, the system would break down immediately .... No rules, no enforcement, no civilization, no society.
   Not sure how you think the current system fixes any of those problems you mention or doesn't break down?   Maybe there are some benefits of being poor?  The reparations-system I mentioned above would work as well as voluntary bonds & insurance to participate in certain activities.   

So next, you may argue that this whole thing still could work if you had a reputation system. I think a reputation system would be good. But who would end up administering and enforcing that? ... if you don't have a government or nonprofit overseeing it, then you're leaving it up to the market to do so, and that's when you get cartels, mafia, and organized crime.
Yes a reputation system would be fantastic and we should be pursuing this regardless of what the government is or isn't supposed to do.  It's  where the technology is taking us and I'm excited about the potential for those in our community to help make that happen with Bitshares.

One way or another, power will fill the vacuum.
Yes.  I agree with you there.... and my goal is to have We the People fill that power vacuum instead of We the Government or We the Elite.... 
BitCash - http://www.bitcash.org 
Beta: bitCash Wallet / p2p Gateway: (https://m.bitcash.org)
Beta: bitCash Trade (https://trade.bitcash.org)

Offline donkeypong

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2329
    • View Profile

I understand your more measured approach Donkeypong, but to answer you and Chronos:

I don't support drunk driving, but if someone does drive drunk and there are no accidents or harm that's fine.  If someone is being rude  it doesn't mean I support rude behavior.  Does it mean there should be a law against rude behavior?  If so should some people in these forums pay a fine to the government?

Hence it's important to focus on the consequences.  If you drive drunk and you harm another there is a consequence of your action.  It's the same consequences of harming someone when you are not drunk.  There are some people who are just bad or negligent drivers.

In old common law and tort law focusing on consequences would probably be standard principle.   You can challenge others for emotional distress, but that would most likely be a tiny fraction of the compensation you can claim compared to physical harm. 

If you want to change cultural habits and highlight the dangers of drunk driving and make those actions unbecoming in the society that's fine, but you don't need statutory laws for that.  Your just giving up more power to the those that are in government.   Next time you are stopped during these holiday seasons for a DUI checkpoint and are asked to stand on one foot and touch your nose think a little bit more if that's really to protect people from drunk drivers.  Furthermore when a TSA agent starts touching your crotch or your children's at the airport, think if that really is to protect you from terrorists.  In the end the primary benefit for those in government to get public displays of authority is to condition the public into submission.   I mean if they can molest little girls in public at the airport how can you not think those in government are the boss?  In the end it's up to you.  Want to stand on one leg and touch your noise.  Go ahead and obey.  If you have the TSA touching your crotch.  Go ahead and obey.  If you see that happen to an old lady or little girl.  Go ahead and keep silent.  Then we'll all know who the boss is.

It's not fine to drive drunk. Society has a bright-line rule preventing bad behavior and I fully support having such lines as well as reasonable enforcement of them.

Do you seriously believe a legal system can function without statutory laws? That's a very naive view. If you want to strip those away and rely only on tort law, then I see at least four big problems with that.

First, it would be incredibly expensive, so get ready to pay MUCH higher taxes. You would need trials for everything, because in common law there is far more room for interpretation and argumentation than when someone is simply applying code-based statute law. You would need ten times as many courts, judges, juries, and more. That is why, in nearly all areas except for tort and property law (where the courts have been handling these questions for hundreds of years and we rely on past precedent to the best of our ability), states rely on statutes. In civil law countries, there is even more such reliance. That's not purely governmental authority; that's society saying we don't want to pay for this shit so let's just write down what you can and cannot do and let's try our best to enforce these rules fairly.

Second, tort and common law do not cover crimes adequately. That's why we have criminal codes. They are different bodies of law for different situations. Sure, you can sue someone for breaking into your house, but what doctrine would you rely on there? On paper, there is intentional tort law, but intentional torts are unwieldy and it's very difficult to prove a case. That's why it these are so seldom used. 95% of the time, you'd be stuck using negligence as your basis of liability. And so you'd be submitting every case to a jury and asking them to apply their objective "reasonable person" standard. In essence, applying the community standard, did this person fuck up or not? Did the defendant cross society's line or not? Sound familiar? That's the criminal code. That's why we draw a line and enforce it. Because applying a well-written statute is a hell of a lot easier, faster, cheaper, and less subject to legal wrangling.

Third, speaking of the differences between criminal and civil law, you're talking about (in common law countries, at least) a completely different standard of proof that's required. It's much easier to prove a civil case (preponderance of the evidence, probably around 51% certainty) than a criminal one (beyond a reasonable doubt, probably greater than 90% certainty). How are you going to reconcile those? Because if you are relying on civil law to solve all of society's problems, then you're going to "convict" a lot more people than the criminal law system would have convicted.

Fourth, if you are relying on tort law, then most tortfeasors (wrongdoers) would not have the money to pay adverse judgments. Most individual defendants can't pay jack. That's why when a plaintiff brings a lawsuit, there must be a defendant with very deep pockets. If Joe Shmo causes an accident, then you sue Joe Shmo, but more importantly, you also sue Joe Shmo's employer (if he was running an errand for them) or the car manufacturer (if the accident was caused by a defect), etc., etc. Deep pockets fuel the tort system today and it's the reason we have additional consumer protection laws (both civil and criminal statutes, which I know you don't like) to cover other areas that tort law's deep-pockets-free-market approach cannot touch. In other words, the system would break down immediately because there wouldn't be any point in suing individuals. It would be more expensive to bring a lawsuit than it would be worth in the judgment, and that's if you could collect from Joe Shmo, which most of the time you couldn't. And if no one is bringing lawsuits, then Joe Shmo can do whatever he damn well pleases. No rules, no enforcement, no civilization, no society.

So next, you may argue that this whole thing still could work if you had a reputation system. I think a reputation system would be good. But who would end up administering and enforcing that? If it wouldn't be the credit agencies (credit scores) or the courts (record of legal judgments, recordings of alimony, etc.), then you would still need some kind of private company or nonprofit entity (ICANN? Yeah, that worked well) that does so. Two things I'll tell you right now. First, that won't be enough to hold this system together, given the problems above and the lack of any real penalty for anyone who doesn't play by the rules. And second, if you don't have a government or nonprofit overseeing it, or if you have a weak administration, then you're leaving it up to the market to do so, and that's when you get cartels, mafia, and organized crime. Think payday lenders and bail bondsmen financed by drug or oil money.

One way or another, power will fill the vacuum.
« Last Edit: December 21, 2015, 11:51:21 pm by donkeypong »

Offline Buck Fankers

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 177
  • Under New Management
    • View Profile
    • TuckFheman.com
  • BitShares: buckfankers
do you vote? if you vote you support psychopathic authoritarians and they always hurt people. voting for rulers is taking risk with other people's lives and is undesirable for society. ;)

That's retarded. Are you that much of a simpleton

lolz

If you don't vote, then don't complain.

lawlz

Then thank your government for protecting your right to speak your mind

lulz

i thought i was born with that right. have you asked your doctor about voting?

Offline merivercap

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 661
    • View Profile
    • BitCash
I've read an interesting small book "chaos theory" from Robert Murphy which mentions how a free society could still work, simply using the free markets and reputation. It's very interesting although, with such evil in this world one may think it's too naive.

https://mises.org/library/chaos-theory

Does anyone know this? It makes sense, but at the same time, too good to be true. Reputation would keep people in check but I believe sooner or later an oligarchy caused by corruption would arise.

That book sounds interesting.  I'll put that on my list.  Yeah Robert Murphy seems to be one of a handful of Austrian economists that understand the potential of Bitcoin & crypto.   I like 'Anarchy & the Law' by Edward Stringham.. it's a collection of works from various libertarian/anarchist authors who write about various forms of a free society. 
BitCash - http://www.bitcash.org 
Beta: bitCash Wallet / p2p Gateway: (https://m.bitcash.org)
Beta: bitCash Trade (https://trade.bitcash.org)

Offline Akado

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2752
    • View Profile
  • BitShares: akado
I've read an interesting small book "chaos theory" from Robert Murphy which mentions how a free society could still work, simply using the free markets and reputation. It's very interesting although, with such evil in this world one may think it's too naive.

https://mises.org/library/chaos-theory

Does anyone know this? It makes sense, but at the same time, too good to be true. Reputation would keep people in check but I believe sooner or later an oligarchy caused by corruption would arise.
« Last Edit: December 21, 2015, 10:50:11 pm by Akado »
https://metaexchange.info | Bitcoin<->Altcoin exchange | Instant | Safe | Low spreads

Offline merivercap

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 661
    • View Profile
    • BitCash
I reject the idea that having hurt no one, where no individual can make a claim of damages against me, that I may be subject to the violent coercive aggression of a state or government.
So you support drunk drivers, as long as they don't hurt anyone? I think that taking risks with other people's lives is undesirable for society.

I fully agree and I won't join any society that bails people out for stupid shit. That's just money down a hole and it does nothing to make the world any better. Some rules enforce an important code of behavior that society has set, even when (thankfully) there's been no harm done in the immediate instance. I don't always agree with where the lines are drawn; often they are more conservative than I would like. But I can respect that without some such guidelines, some people would crap everywhere and make the world a lot uglier for everyone else. Civilization has its trade-offs, but the alternatives aren't very pretty.

I understand your more measured approach Donkeypong, but to answer you and Chronos:

I don't support drunk driving, but if someone does drive drunk and there are no accidents or harm that's fine.  If someone is being rude  it doesn't mean I support rude behavior.  Does it mean there should be a law against rude behavior?  If so should some people in these forums pay a fine to the government?

Hence it's important to focus on the consequences.  If you drive drunk and you harm another there is a consequence of your action.  It's the same consequences of harming someone when you are not drunk.  There are some people who are just bad or negligent drivers.

In old common law and tort law focusing on consequences would probably be standard principle.   You can challenge others for emotional distress, but that would most likely be a tiny fraction of the compensation you can claim compared to physical harm. 

If you want to change cultural habits and highlight the dangers of drunk driving and make those actions unbecoming in the society that's fine, but you don't need statutory laws for that.  Your just giving up more power to the those that are in government.   Next time you are stopped during these holiday seasons for a DUI checkpoint and are asked to stand on one foot and touch your nose think a little bit more if that's really to protect people from drunk drivers.  Furthermore when a TSA agent starts touching your crotch or your children's at the airport, think if that really is to protect you from terrorists.  In the end the primary benefit for those in government to get public displays of authority is to condition the public into submission.   I mean if they can molest little girls in public at the airport how can you not think those in government are the boss?  In the end it's up to you.  Want to stand on one leg and touch your noise.  Go ahead and obey.  If you have the TSA touching your crotch.  Go ahead and obey.  If you see that happen to an old lady or little girl.  Go ahead and keep silent.  Then we'll all know who the boss is. 
BitCash - http://www.bitcash.org 
Beta: bitCash Wallet / p2p Gateway: (https://m.bitcash.org)
Beta: bitCash Trade (https://trade.bitcash.org)

Offline Stan

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2908
  • You need to think BIGGER, Pinky...
    • View Profile
    • Cryptonomex
  • BitShares: Stan
You can think of this three ways:

I'm buying insurance.
I'm protesting injustice.
I'm helping people who I feel "deserve" to be helped.

While we may have many different "skins" for this system that emphasize a particular one or combination of those viewpoints, I tend to like the third one.

Tons of charities exist where people give money to do-gooder organizations with no expected return.
    We can improve on that with a transparent way to do good peer to peer (much more satisfying).
    We can improve on that by making donors eligible for reciprocating help from like minded people.

So we are a transparent peer to peer charity for people who have previously helped people.

So this can start out as just a better way to help others with some fractional probability that the donor may receive similar help someday, then as its reserves grow, it begins to function more and more like insurance with a deductible that starts out big and declines toward zero as the system matures.    This makes it self-bootstrapping because it only offers a growing probability that it will help you someday. 

So its initial clients are those who want to help with little thought for themselves
and then gradually offers better and better benefits for do-gooders who need a little extra incentive,
until eventually it supports people who just want insurance and see the do-good part as just a nice bonus.

In the end, you kill all three birds with one donation, regardless of what mix of motivations you may have.

« Last Edit: December 21, 2015, 10:45:02 pm by Stan »
Anything said on these forums does not constitute an intent to create a legal obligation or contract of any kind.   These are merely my opinions which I reserve the right to change at any time.

Xeldal

  • Guest
I reject the idea that having hurt no one, where no individual can make a claim of damages against me, that I may be subject to the violent coercive aggression of a state or government.
So you support drunk drivers, as long as they don't hurt anyone? I think that taking risks with other people's lives is undesirable for society.

It doesn't mean I support drunk driving.  It affirms that I have no right to coersivly control anyone's behavior unless I'm the victim of their violence against me.

I reject the idea that I have given consent to be governed simply by being born in a geographical location. 

You haven't.
But you give consent by staying there. Unless you're alone and not interacting with anyone, in which case governance is purely academic.

Please show me the document I signed relinquishing the right to myself and my property.   The basis of your claim stems from a document signed by a handful of people more than 200 years ago that gives a newly created group rights that non of the signers had, and what your saying is it granted this imaginary authority the right to bring violence against those who disagree or who want no part in that "society".   

I reject the idea that by using public goods, like roads, that I am agreeing to be subject to that publics authority.

How do you imagine a society could function without that? There wouldn't be any "public goods like roads" without a functioning society, and road traffic doesn't work without rules either.
This is a very tired argument.  You don't need authority to build a road or offer any service that people want.  The same people who build roads today can build them tomorrow.  With or without a government.  Building a road is insanely simple.

I reject the idea that any group or 'authority' can be given rights that no individual has themselves. (legalized kidnapping, theft, murder etc)

That is self-contradictory, IMO. Either you have rules that limit your right to steal or to kill, in which case you need some authority to enforce them. Or you don't have rules, in which case the individual doesn't have any rights as such.
I never said there should be no rules.  I'm saying I do not recognize rules that I have not voluntarily consented to.  No one has the right to murder steal and kill.   But what we have done is given that right(which nobody has) to a group of people called the State.
 
I reject the idea that having hurt no one, where no individual can make a claim of damages against me, that I may be subject to the violent coercive aggression of a state or government.

The very premise of the State and all its laws rest on an injustice and moral depravity.

Its the moral obligation of every self respecting person to disobey unjust laws.   

Except that moral or the notion of "just laws" are not absolute. You cannot create a set of rules with which everyone is totally happy. You cannot create a functioning society without rules. If you don't like the rules you can try to "improve" them (probably at the cost of making someone else less happy), or you go to some place with "better" rules. You cannot break the rules and expect society to let you get away with it.
 
Again, I'm all for rules.  And yes, everyone's will be different.  The point is I can't be subjected to rules I havn't agreed to.  No one can be granted special powers that are greater than the powers of the individuals themselves.  If I don't have the right to steal from my neighbor, it doesn't matter how many people agree with me or vote in favor of it.     Even if a special document was signed by very special people.   I still do not have the right to steal from my neighbor.  Period.   So, there can be all kinds of rules, all kinds of governments(if we wish to call them that), but they cannot be granted special rights that no one has.

jakub

  • Guest
You cannot create a functioning society without rules.
It depends what rules you refer to.
You seem to treat all rules created by a society as sacred and justify them by the sole fact of their existence.

Indeed, there are some essential rules without which a society cannot exist.
But there are plenty of rules which could be removed and a society would survive just fine.

Also, there is a third category of rules: those which formally exist but you would be treated as crazy if you followed them.


Offline gamey

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2253
    • View Profile
No! I'm fully aware that many stupid, meaningless and even unjust laws exist.

I'm arguing that you cannot break these laws and try to get away with that by creating some form of insurance. If you want to push back against laws you either have to do it on the political level within the system, or you have to start a revolution. (And no, this mutual aid society is not a revolution.)

Well, if you are looking at this version of mutual aid societies as letting someone off you are looking at it wrong. It mitigates the damage done, just like any insurance policy.  I mean, no one is trying to "get away" with anything more than they normally would.

Anyway, I find the idea worth considering but I am not sold myself by any stretch. I think that theoretically it seems workable but not necessarily for criminal defense. I also don't agree with the speeding analogies.

A lot of laws could be fought by taking them to trial etc but all of that is more costs.  Very hard to do for a lot of people.  A MAS would let them push back more often.
« Last Edit: December 21, 2015, 11:18:03 pm by gamey »
I speak for myself and only myself.

Offline Vizzini

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 102
    • View Profile
  • BitShares: vizzini
do you vote? if you vote you support psychopathic authoritarians and they always hurt people. voting for rulers is taking risk with other people's lives and is undesirable for society. ;)

That's retarded. Are you that much of a simpleton that you think voting is doing more to support the government than anything else you do? Bullshit. If you really want to hurt their legitimacy, then don't spend money in stores and you'll see how quickly the whole thing unravels.

If you don't vote, then don't complain. Do you eat? If so, then you are supporting psychopathic authoritarians who control the food supply, give multibillion agricultural subsidy handouts to big agribusinesses, spray pesticides on everything, enslave poor farmers around the world by forcing them to buy high priced genetically modified seeds that they cannot re-plant, and much worse. Do you write forum posts on your computer? Then thank your government for protecting your right to speak your mind by spending billions on national defense against people who would rather control every aspect of your life. Do you drive? Use electricity? Breathe air? Anyone could make that same argument about engaging in any behavior in the public or private sector. Voting is child's play compared to the money. 
Never go against a Sicilian when death is on the line.

Offline Buck Fankers

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 177
  • Under New Management
    • View Profile
    • TuckFheman.com
  • BitShares: buckfankers
I reject the idea that having hurt no one, where no individual can make a claim of damages against me, that I may be subject to the violent coercive aggression of a state or government.
So you support drunk drivers, as long as they don't hurt anyone? I think that taking risks with other people's lives is undesirable for society.

do you vote? if you vote you support psychopathic authoritarians and they always hurt people. voting for rulers is taking risk with other people's lives and is undesirable for society. ;)

Offline donkeypong

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2329
    • View Profile
I reject the idea that having hurt no one, where no individual can make a claim of damages against me, that I may be subject to the violent coercive aggression of a state or government.
So you support drunk drivers, as long as they don't hurt anyone? I think that taking risks with other people's lives is undesirable for society.

I fully agree and I won't join any society that bails people out for stupid shit. That's just money down a hole and it does nothing to make the world any better. Some rules enforce an important code of behavior that society has set, even when (thankfully) there's been no harm done in the immediate instance. I don't always agree with where the lines are drawn; often they are more conservative than I would like. But I can respect that without some such guidelines, some people would crap everywhere and make the world a lot uglier for everyone else. Civilization has its trade-offs, but the alternatives aren't very pretty.

Offline pc

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1530
    • View Profile
    • Bitcoin - Perspektive oder Risiko?
  • BitShares: cyrano
I reject the idea that I have given consent to be governed simply by being born in a geographical location. 

You haven't.
But you give consent by staying there. Unless you're alone and not interacting with anyone, in which case governance is purely academic.

I reject the idea that by using public goods, like roads, that I am agreeing to be subject to that publics authority.

How do you imagine a society could function without that? There wouldn't be any "public goods like roads" without a functioning society, and road traffic doesn't work without rules either.

I reject the idea that any group or 'authority' can be given rights that no individual has themselves. (legalized kidnapping, theft, murder etc)

That is self-contradictory, IMO. Either you have rules that limit your right to steal or to kill, in which case you need some authority to enforce them. Or you don't have rules, in which case the individual doesn't have any rights as such.

I reject the idea that having hurt no one, where no individual can make a claim of damages against me, that I may be subject to the violent coercive aggression of a state or government.

The very premise of the State and all its laws rest on an injustice and moral depravity.

Its the moral obligation of every self respecting person to disobey unjust laws.   

Except that moral or the notion of "just laws" are not absolute. You cannot create a set of rules with which everyone is totally happy. You cannot create a functioning society without rules. If you don't like the rules you can try to "improve" them (probably at the cost of making someone else less happy), or you go to some place with "better" rules. You cannot break the rules and expect society to let you get away with it.
Bitcoin - Perspektive oder Risiko? ISBN 978-3-8442-6568-2 http://bitcoin.quisquis.de