Author: Mikey <[email protected]>     Reply to Message
Date: 11/11/2015 1:31:06 PM
Subject: RE: Don't stop Mikey

those are all great questions. and while ive thought about it and read others' opinions, I don't think theres one single 'slam dunk' answer to any/all of them. In fact, no one could possibly know exactly the rules would evolve into or from.

But that is kind of the point of the exercise - that the best rules (for anything) are those developed by the market interactions of free individuals who pursue their own self-interest but have no coercive power over each other. Where the only deals or agreements made, the only obligations created, are necessarily an indication that both parties truly believe they will be better off afterward.

It's precisely BECAUSE we don't know exactly what the right rules are that we NEED free markets, or as close to them as possible, so that the right rules can be discovered.

What we have instead is all the same problems that you've just mentioned, except now there is a single authority in society that can simply compel obedience whether the rule is good or bad. That's worse! So we get whatever rules those individuals (who are often lobbied as identifiable groups) decide to enact.

If we can't naively trust people to get along on their own, then we sure as hell can't expect to trust a single individual or small group of individuals. Especially when we trust them to expose themselves to incredible power that they can then direct and wield over others.

Two things happen then, 1) no one is incorruptible, so everyone is vulnerable, and 2) the particularly corrupt actively seek these positions of power out and then use that power.

And acting in someone else's interest (and not your own) is potentially not even theoretically possible, so we can't expect them to do ANYTHING BUT act in their own self interest with that power.

Finally theres the simple empirical evidence that overwhelmingly suggests politicians, by and large, are corrupt.

So its not like "hey, heres exactly how it would work' its "Hey, the market is clearly the most reliable and powerful force for social organization that humans have encountered - maybe we should trust it rather then attempting to 'design' a better system"

And that last part is an example of why, if you haven't already been convinced of the market's natural superiority, none of this will be even remotely persuasive. You have to the austrian understanding of the market - its a prerequisite for believing any of this in the first place.

The problems/theories of a polycentric (no central law monopoly) are interesting though and there is a lot written about them. If you just think about it, even our society is polycentric its just that one of the producers of "laws" has the power to force them on people.

But there are some laws that aren't just one groups opinion - murder, rape, theft. These are, by their very definition, crimes.

A LOT of other shit that isn't really a crime is made a crime by the government Ast, you know that. Drugs aren't the least of it. MOST crimes aren't real crimes.

I would suggest that if you had to look at the common ground amongst all people, and just select out the overlapping area of things we _all_ universally consider crime - that those are the only things that should or would be truly prohibited. That is, if is proven that you've committed a crime, society will turn its back on you.

Its not like you have this police force going around and ticketing cars (like Redrix, a moron, alluded to in a profound moment of misunderstanding). Police would be more likely to be private security (for prevention) and private investigation/bounty hunters for after a crime occured.

Thus, people would have to sort out two things

1) How do I prevent myself from becoming the victim of a crime
2) How will I go about obtaining justice for myself if I become a victim anyway?

Again, I think we'd all be a lot better off, and much better protected, if we all had to honestly confront and secure the answers to those questions for ourselves.
_