mf - story #6185 - >There are countless

posted by dsk on December 9th, 2011 at 4:46PM

>There are countless alternatives to violence, for resolving disputes.

Yes there are. That doesn't answer my objection. Read on.

>If you seriously believe the current system is fair, you are hopelessly delusional.

I don't, but it has elements which are correct. This is why I advocate for minarchist-type system.

>Your view of conflict is painfully over-simplistic / childish / naive / propagandized.

Your view is utopian.

>You provided the example of copyright enforcement

It's not an example of copyright enforcement. It's an example of conflict resolution. You can sub-in any kind of conflict.

>First of all, we would all be part of some dispute resolution organization

If we are, it's akin to submitting to voluntary arbitration. If that's the case, there is no problem. We're good to go.

The issue occurs when we're not part of (the same, and it has to be the same) dispute resolution organization ... then what?

Let's keep going ...

>So, instead, you'll probably file a complaint with your organization, which will talk to my organization.

You're not answering the objection merely creating another layer of abstraction (instead of person-to-person dealings, you kicked it up a level to org-to-org - if you want, you can kick it up another level (x orgs)-to-(y orgs) - the problem will still exist).

Organizations are not created equal, some will be vastly stronger than others. If your org has 15,000 members and my has 15,000,000, how do you think negotiation will go (hint probably similar to the way negotiations go between a multinational mining corp and regional citizens)? Given that my org's security forces are 1000 times bigger and since I am a paying customers while you're not, they're loyal to me, not to you (bonus points, I am a influential/rich paying customer).

Is it inconceivable that my org will simply push yours around to get a settlement in my favour?

What if you opt-out and leave? Well, you're even more at the mercy of the big guys.

This is why I mean that Anarchy has an intrinsic, unfixable structural problem. The strong dictate terms ALWAYS.

Under a minarchist system, you set the government as the strongest entity and you neuter it via a strong constitution and democratic rule. It's not perfect, but the alternative is authoritarianism.

Link | Parent

posted by dennisn on December 9th, 2011 at 5:22PM

I'm not sure what you mean by "pushing smaller organizations around". If a much larger organization uses violent retaliatory tactics against disagreeing members of other smaller organizations, do you think that will hurt or help that org? Would you personally subscribe to, and pay for, an org that violently kidnaps people from other orgs because they copied your movie? Or would you subscribe to one that uses non-violent ostracization?

I mean, sure, technically there's nothing stopping the biggest org from kidnapping and caging disagreers -- which is what we have now. The question is, given the choice, is that how *you* would personally want to resolve this particular conflict?

Although, I suppose such a solution can even be integrated into a Statist system. I'd have no problem if a database of anti-copyright people was made, and these people were forbidden from going to Cineplex, or something like this. Who gets to decide what the appropriate punishment/resolution is in minarchy? The magical constitution? A few fat white-haired white men? The majority? I think you'll notice that the more you think about it, the more your system will look like my system.

I'm not sure why you have a problem with "the strongest in control"-concept. First of all, that's what democracy is -- except it's not by virtue of the strength of any individual, but sheer numbers. So, praising strength-by-popularity in one sentence, then demonizing it in the next, is a logical flaw -- a contradiction. The truth is, regardless of the system, popular ideas and groups will *always* be the most powerful. The question is, what idea do *you* think should be the most popular. Going back to the copyright example, would you prefer the idea: "kidnap/cage people who copy movies" or "do not do business with them" or something else?

Link

posted by dsk on December 9th, 2011 at 5:43PM

>Would you personally subscribe to, and pay for, an org that violently kidnaps people from other orgs because they copied your movie?

YES. WE SEE IT ALL THE TIME.

Look at examples of orgs in present systems, such as unions. A union will fuckin fight for it's members till the end. They will use their clout, their size and their power to full benefit for their members. Example, public sector union members could make 50-200% more money for the same service as their private market colleagues, and the union will still fight with everything they got to steal EVEN MORE from taxpayers. Even if it means unlimited amount of debt on taxpayers. Teacher unions will protect even the most incompetent and guilty members. Their only loyalty is to their members, just like the orgs under your Anarchy, except under Anarchy they also have security forces under their disposal to wield against weaklings (they don't under present system because the State forbids it).

This isn't strictly a union problem. There's countless examples of similar behaviours.

>The question is, given the choice, is that how *you* would personally want to resolve this particular conflict?

I'm realistic. I think people would want their org to represent them and fight for them and get them a favorable ruling. And I think they would look the other way in face of ethical infractions - because you know ... who really knows what really happened (*wink*)

>First of all, that's what democracy is -- except it's not by virtue of the strength of any individual, but sheer numbers.

That's why we're fucked. Minarchism is the least evil because it attempts, via strong constitution, to limit the power of the majority. To neuter it and lock it to very specific domains.

//
I'm ignoring copyright questions because it's defocusing and has nothing to do with Anarchy structural problems.

Link

posted by dennisn on December 9th, 2011 at 6:15PM

Okay. So you personally prefer violent conflict resolution, and I guess you are willing to pay for the kidnapping, and I guess the food and accomodation for the anti-copyright people too? Oh, how long would you cage them for, by the way? (You'll notice I'm specifically asking *you* -- you can only reliably speak for yourself, not for "we" or any other group.) (The next question, of course, is what you *speculate* the majority would vote upon -- would they also agree with violent-kidnapping as the solution, or something else? Don't you think these things should be put to a vote?)

Your union-example is absurd. The most powerful ones are in bed with the state -- it's actually *the inherent problem of statism* -- as soon as you provide centralized institutionalized ready-to-go violence, all the dirty corrupt scumbags (teacher union leaders, whoever..) begin crawling out of their dirty woodwork to take advantage of it -- statism is a criminal's paradise. Except you don't see that, because they're disguised under white collars. How easily you're fooled. If nothing else, anarchy would make life more difficult for these scumbags -- they wouldn't automatically have complete control over an entire population -- they'd have to somehow use free-market methods to infiltrate each insurance/organization separately.

(You still don't quite seem to understand how majorities work. The US had the strongest and most clear constitution in the world. Look how well they kept their majority in check. (Clue: a magic piece of paper is completely useless in the face of a majority.) In fact, if we're going to rely on history (we really shouldn't), minarchy is your best and fastest road to big-state-monstrosity. Just look at the US. Where did the American experiment go wrong? Do you think their states should have federated, or remained sovereign? Answer: the solution is clearly not (simply) minarchy -- that was tried -- it failed. The problem is clearly much more difficult and deeper -- there needs to be a culture (majority) that rejects violence. The degree to which this is the case determines whether the resulting system will resemble state-socialism, minarchism, or voluntaryism -- in increasing order of respect for other people's disagreements.)

Link

posted by dennisn on December 9th, 2011 at 6:21PM

Oh, just to add to your personal preference for kidnapping and caging anti-copyright people, what do you think will happen when a competing dispute resolution organization pops up, and offers all the exact same services, but instead of expensive kidnapping and incarceration, they offer some cheaper retaliatory alternative -- that's peaceful to boot. Which organization do you suppose will prosper? Would you continue paying $100/month for your hardlined org, possibly in the hopes of long-term indirect impossible-to-measure benefits of more serious copyright-enforcement ... or $50/month for a cheaper alternative -- that still respects copyright -- but doesn't choose to enforce it so expensively/brutally? Which would you subscribe to?

But, I guess the more important question isn't this kind of speculation -- it's the process. What exactly are you afraid of, if competing dispute resolutions arise? You haven't really given any examples -- but you claim they exist.

Link